How to prove a set is a bounded set?

Cyn
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
1. I have to show that
S1 = {x ∈ R2 : x1 ≥ 0,x2 ≥ 0,x1 + x2 = 2}
is a bounded set.
2. So I have to show that sqrt(x1^2+x2^2)<M for all (x1,x2) in S1.3. I have said that M>0 and we have 0<=x1<=2 and 0<=x2<=2.
And x2 = 2-x1
We can fill in sqrt(x1^2 + (2-x1)^2) = sqrt (0^2 + (2-0)^2) = 2 < M = 3.
And we can fill in sqrt (x1^2 + (2-x1)^2) = sqrt (2^2 + (2-2)^2) = 2 < M = 3.
Every value between the 0 and the 2 that satisfy x1+x2 = 2 is smaller than this M. So the set is bounded.
Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cyn said:
Every value between the 0 and the 2 that satisfy x1+x2 = 2 is smaller than this M.
Can you prove this?

The approach works, although I would make it easier: Just use 0<=x1<=2 and 0<=x2<=2 to find a maximal value the square root can get, and use that as limit. You don't have to find the smallest possible M.
 
Cyn said:
1. I have to show that
S1 = {x ∈ R2 : x1 ≥ 0,x2 ≥ 0,x1 + x2 = 2}
is a bounded set.
2. So I have to show that sqrt(x1^2+x2^2)<M for all (x1,x2) in S1.3. I have said that M>0 and we have 0<=x1<=2 and 0<=x2<=2.
And x2 = 2-x1
We can fill in sqrt(x1^2 + (2-x1)^2) = sqrt (0^2 + (2-0)^2) = 2 < M = 3.
And we can fill in sqrt (x1^2 + (2-x1)^2) = sqrt (2^2 + (2-2)^2) = 2 < M = 3.
Every value between the 0 and the 2 that satisfy x1+x2 = 2 is smaller than this M. So the set is bounded.
Is this correct?

Bounded usually means that ##L_1 \leq x_1 \leq U_1## and ##l_2 \leq x_2 \leq U_2## for some finite ##L_1,L_2,U_1,U_2## with ##U_i \geq L_i## for all ##i##. Looking at ##\sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2}## is not necessary (but is harmless); one version of "bounded" is true if and only if the other is true as well. That is, the two versions are equivalent.

In your case you have ##0 \leq x_i \leq 2## for ##i = 1,2##, and that is all you need. You can always enclose the square with vertices (0,0), (),2), (2,0), (2,2) inside a larger circle if you want to, and that will bound the norm ##\sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2}##.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top