(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

So I gave it a go, and I just want to make sure my argument is convincing:

If f is uniformly continuous and unbounded on [0,∞), then for some c in [0,∞], lim_{x->c}f(x) = ±∞(notice the closed brackets, I wanted to leave the option that c can be infinity, is this how I should write it? if not, how?), because if this wasn't true, then lim_{x->c}f(x)=A (A is finite) for all c in [0,∞], but then f would be bounded (is this convincing?). Now suppose c is in [0,∞) (open bracket, so c isn't infinity), then lim_{x->c}f(x) = ±∞, but since c is finite and f is continuous, then by the definition of continuity f is defined at c, but then f(c)= ±∞, but ±∞ isn't even in the reals so then f wouldn't be undefined at c, so it wouldn't be continuous. So c=∞, and lim_{x->∞}f(x) = ±∞.

Thoughts?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

# Is it True that if f is Uniformly Continuous and Unbounded Review my work please!

Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email,
Google+,
Twitter, or
Facebook

Have something to add?

- Similar discussions for: Is it True that if f is Uniformly Continuous and Unbounded Review my work please!

Loading...

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**