Is the Function f(x) = 1/x Locally Bounded in the Interval (0,1)?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ocohen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument Bounded
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The function f(x) = 1/x is not locally bounded in the interval (0,1) due to the accumulation point at 0, which lies outside the interval. The argument presented uses δ_x = x/2 and M_x = 2/x to claim local boundedness, but fails because it does not account for the behavior of the function as it approaches 0. The discussion concludes that if the domain is compact and the function is locally bounded and continuous, then the function is indeed bounded, highlighting the importance of the domain's properties in determining boundedness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real analysis concepts, specifically limits and continuity.
  • Familiarity with the definitions of bounded and locally bounded functions.
  • Knowledge of accumulation points and their significance in intervals.
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation and function behavior analysis.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of locally bounded functions in real analysis.
  • Explore the implications of compactness in function behavior.
  • Learn about accumulation points and their effects on boundedness.
  • Investigate counterexamples in mathematical proofs to understand common pitfalls.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone studying real analysis, particularly those interested in the concepts of boundedness and continuity in functions.

ocohen
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Having a hard time understanding this example from a book:

The function f(x) = 1/x is locally bounded at each point x in the set E = (0,1).
Let x \in (0,1). Take \delta_x = x/2, M_x = 2/x. Then
f(t) = 1/t <= 2/x = M_x
if
x/2 = x-\delta_x < t < x + \delta_x

This argument is false since the point 0 is an accumulation point that does not belong to (0,1). As such there is no assumption that 0 is bounded. This can be avoided by making E closed.

I don't understand this last part. Why does it matter that 0 is not bounded? I thought the whole point of locally bounded is that we can define the bound in terms of x. And we can always find a small enough interval (namely x/2) that will not include 0.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It sounds like this is supposed to be a counterexample to the statement locally bounded implies bounded. On the other hand if the domain is compact and the function is locally bounded and continuous, then the function is bounded

EDIT: In retrospect that's not very enlightening (since the locally bounded part is completely unnecessary). I'm not sure what the point is
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
859