- #1

- 15

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter leinadle
- Start date

- #1

- 15

- 0

- #2

Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 4,621

- 629

- #3

- 15

- 0

Sorry for the vagueness, here is an example. Suppose we have an infinite sequence of functions {f_n(x):R -> R}, each of which is bounded by some M_n > 0; i.e. |f_n(x)| < M_n for all x in R. Can we say that there exists an M > 0 such that |f_n(x)| < M for all n and for all x in R?

- #4

- 15

- 0

I suppose the answer to my question must be no, after reading your response again. If I consider the set S which consists of all positive reals then each element is individually bounded by the x+1 argument, but S is certainly not bounded since R is unbounded. However, this logic is really bugging me for some reason. It seems to suggest that since the set isn't bounded, how can we possibly state that there exists an element that isn't bounded when we know that x+1 is a bound for that number. What piece of logic am I missing here? I feel like Ouroboros.

- #5

AlephZero

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 7,002

- 293

I suppose the answer to my question must be no

True. A simple counterexample is ##f_n(x) = n## which makes the functions question exactly the same as Office Shredder's post.

I don't know what is bugging you about this, but it is pretty much the same as any divergent series. For example ##\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k}## is finite for every integer ##n##, but ##\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}## diverges. When your proposition in the OP is false, the ##M_n## are a divergent series

- #6

WWGD

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 5,553

- 4,473

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_boundedness_principle

But, like from your example , there is no guarantee; use the set {1,2,3,..}

Share: