Increasing Function on an Interval .... Browder, Proposition 3.7 .... ....

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on Proposition 3.7 from Andrew Browder's "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction," specifically regarding the proof that for an increasing function \( f \), the inequality \( A \leq f(t) \leq B \) holds. Participants clarify that since \( f \) is increasing, \( f(t) \) serves as an upper bound for values \( f(s) \) where \( s < t \) and a lower bound for values where \( t < s \). This understanding resolves the initial confusion about proving the inequality rigorously.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of increasing functions in mathematical analysis
  • Familiarity with the concepts of upper bounds and lower bounds
  • Knowledge of supremums and infimums
  • Basic proficiency in reading mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions and properties of supremums and infimums in real analysis
  • Learn about the implications of monotonic functions on intervals
  • Review formal proof techniques in mathematical analysis
  • Explore additional propositions in Browder's "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" for deeper insights
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematical analysis, educators teaching calculus or real analysis, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of function properties and rigorous proof techniques.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew Browder's book: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" ... ...

I am currently reading Chapter 3: Continuous Functions on Intervals and am currently focused on Section 3.1 Limits and Continuity ... ...

I need some help in understanding the proof of Proposition 3.7 ...Proposition 3.7 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 9509
In the above proof by Andrew Browder we read the following:

" ... ... Clearly $$A\leq f(t) \leq B$$ since $$f$$ is increasing ... ... "
Can someone demonstrate, formally and rigorously that $$A\leq f(t) \leq B$$ ... ...Note: Although it seems highly plausible, given the definitions of $$A$$ and $$B$$ and given also that $$f$$ is increasing, that $$A\leq f(t) \leq B$$ .. I am unable to prove it rigorously ... Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Browder - Proposition 3.7 ... .png
    Browder - Proposition 3.7 ... .png
    22.8 KB · Views: 149
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Since $f$ is increasing we know $x_{1}<x_{2}\,\Longrightarrow\, f(x_{1})\leq f(x_{2}).$ This means that $f(t)$ is an upper bound for the set $\{f(s)\,\vert\, s < t\}$ and a lower bound for $\{f(s)\,\vert\, t<s\}$. Does that help resolve the issue?
 
GJA said:
Hi Peter,

Since $f$ is increasing we know $x_{1}<x_{2}\,\Longrightarrow\, f(x_{1})\leq f(x_{2}).$ This means that $f(t)$ is an upper bound for the set $\{f(s)\,\vert\, s < t\}$ and a lower bound for $\{f(s)\,\vert\, t<s\}$. Does that help resolve the issue?
Thanks so so much for the help GJA ...

Reflecting on what you have said ...

Beginning to suspect that I'm overthinking this issue ...

Thanks again for the help ...

Peter
 
Hi Peter,

Always happy to help in any way that I can. I had a tough time too when it came to understanding supremums and infimums. The words "least upper" and "greatest lower" don't hit the ear right initially.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K