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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around understanding the proof of Proposition 3.7 from Andrew Browder's "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction," specifically regarding the properties of an increasing function on an interval. Participants are exploring the implications of the definitions of upper and lower bounds in relation to the function's behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Peter seeks a formal and rigorous demonstration that for an increasing function $$f$$, the inequality $$A \leq f(t) \leq B$$ holds, given the definitions of $$A$$ and $$B$$.
  • One participant explains that since $$f$$ is increasing, if $$x_{1} < x_{2}$$ then $$f(x_{1}) \leq f(x_{2})$$, suggesting that $$f(t)$$ serves as an upper bound for values of $$f$$ at points less than $$t$$ and a lower bound for values at points greater than $$t$$.
  • Peter reflects on the provided explanation and expresses a concern that he may be overthinking the issue.
  • Another participant shares their own struggles with understanding supremums and infimums, indicating a common challenge among learners in this area.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to share a common understanding of the properties of increasing functions, but there is no consensus on a rigorous proof of the inequality $$A \leq f(t) \leq B$$ as requested by Peter. The discussion remains open with varying levels of confidence in the explanations provided.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the rigorous proof that Peter is seeking, and it highlights the need for clarity in definitions and theorems related to bounds in the context of increasing functions.

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: 152
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