How to prove a set is unbounded

  • Thread starter Thread starter happybear
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a set of continuous functions from the interval [a, b] to the real numbers is unbounded. The original poster is uncertain about the approach to take in demonstrating this property.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of unboundedness and the distance function used to measure it. There is a suggestion to consider specific functions to illustrate the concept of unboundedness.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of definitions and interpretations related to the distance function and the nature of the set in question. Some participants are questioning the assumptions made about the functions and their properties, while others seek to clarify the original poster's intent.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of a clear definition of the distance function being used, which is crucial for discussing boundedness. Additionally, the distinction between proving the set is infinite versus unbounded is highlighted as a point of confusion.

happybear
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose I have a set E that contains all continuous function f from [a,b] --> R, I think this is unbounded, but can I prove it?

Homework Equations



d(f1,f2)= sup{f1(x)-f2(x)}

The Attempt at a Solution


I want to show |d(f1,f2)|>M for some M, but I don't know if this is the right direction and how to do it
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A set is "unbounded" if, for any positive number A, there exist point p and q in the set such that d(p,q)> A. That, of course, depends on how you measure "distance"- d(p,q).
What is your definition of d(f, g) for f and g in the set of continuous functions from [a, b] to R?

(What ever your d(f,g) is, consider the functions fn(x)= n. for n= 1, 2, 3, ...)
 
But there are no definition of f, that is the point. F will be any continuous function from [a,b] to R. Can I prove this set is infinite?
 
If you think that it is false, you can provide a counterexample.

So, if [tex]f : [a, b] \to R[/tex] and let A = [a, b] is bounded, is it necessarily true that f(A) is bounded?
 
happybear said:
But there are no definition of f, that is the point. F will be any continuous function from [a,b] to R. Can I prove this set is infinite?
Do you mean d, the distance function? There has to be a definition of distance in order to talk about "bounded" or "unbounded". And you don't want to prove the set is infinite (that's trivial), you want to prove it is unbounded, a completely different thing.

Is it possible that you are talking about the set of continuous functions from [a,b] to R? For that, the distance function is most commonly [itex]d(f, g)= \max_{a\le x\le b} |f(x)- g(x)|[/itex].
 
konthelion said:
If you think that it is false, you can provide a counterexample.

So, if [tex]f : [a, b] \to R[/tex] and let A = [a, b] is bounded, is it necessarily true that f(A) is bounded?
The problem was not to prove that functions in the set are bounded but that the set itself is.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Is it possible that you are talking about the set of continuous functions from [a,b] to R? For that, the distance function is most commonly [itex]d(f, g)= \max_{a\le x\le b} |f(x)- g(x)|[/itex].
Yes. That is what I meant. And what I want to show is that there are infinitely many functions of f. That is how I interpret the question, since they ask if the set is unbounded. Or do I misunderstand it
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K