Is f Bounded if It Has a Limit at Every Point on a Closed Interval?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fibfreak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded
fibfreak
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let f:[a, b] -> R have a limit at each x in [a, b]. Prove that f is bounded.


Homework Equations



None


The Attempt at a Solution



No idea on how to start the proof. Completely lost.

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem with not showing any work at all is that we have no idea what you know and can use. For example, I think there is a fairly simple proof using the fact that [a, b] is compact. Do you know anything about "compactness"?
 
HallsofIvy,
how can I use compactness directly if f is not supposed to be continuous function? I got no idea...thanks!

fibfreak,
what does "f has a limit at each x in [a,b]" imply? Let e>0 be given, you can associate a neighborhood with radius=delta(e,x) to each x in [a,b] such that, any y!=x and y in this neighborhood implies |f(y)-A(x)|<e, where A(x) is the limit of f at x.
\cup_{x\in [a,b]} N_{\delta(\epsilon,x)}(x)} covers [a,b], by the compactness of [a,b], you can choose finitely many neighborhoods that covers [a,b], say N_1,N_2...N_s. in each neighborhoods, f has an upperbound A(x_i)+e and a lower bound A(x_i)-e. then max{A(x_1)+e,...A(x_s)+e} is the upper bound of f and min{A(x_1)-e,...A(x_s)-e} is the lower bound of f.
Also you can prove it by supposing f is not bounded. Find a sequence {x_n} such that f(x_n)>n. being an infinite subset of [a,b] (compact), {x_n} has a limit point in [a,b], say x. prove that f has no limit at this x and you get a contradiction.

However, there's a problem that puzzles me a bit.
What if f is defined (which means f(x) has some value for each x) on each x in [a,b]? can we say that f is bounded? since max{f(x), x in [a,b]} fails to work. I've no idea.
 
For example, suppose f is defined on [0, 1] by: f(x)= 0 if x is not of the form 1/n for n a positive integer, f(1/n)= n. That function is defined for all x in [0,1] but is NOT bounded. Of course, then the limit as x goes to 0 is not defined.
 
AH, yes...I forgot this one...Thanks a lot!
 
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