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
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a function f defined on a closed interval [a, b] that has a limit at every point within that interval. The task is to prove that such a function is bounded.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of compactness in relation to the limits of f, questioning how to apply this concept given that f is not necessarily continuous. There is also a consideration of the definition of f and its boundedness, with examples provided to illustrate potential counterexamples.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the proof involving compactness and the implications of limits, while others express confusion about the assumptions and definitions involved. The discussion is ongoing with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the function f potentially being defined in a way that could lead to it being unbounded, raising questions about the conditions under which the original statement holds true.

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.
[tex]\cup_{x\in [a,b]} N_{\delta(\epsilon,x)}(x)}[/tex] 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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K