Is the Function f(x) Unbounded on Its Domain?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigplanet401
  • Start date Start date
bigplanet401
Messages
101
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that the function
<br /> f(x) =\\<br /> <br /> \begin{cases}<br /> \frac{1}{x} &amp;\quad 0 &lt; x \leq 1\\<br /> 0 &amp;\quad x = 0<br /> \end{cases}<br />

is unbounded.

Homework Equations


If f is bounded, |f(x)| <= M for all x in f's domain.

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried arguing by contradiction: suppose there is such an M. Then |f(x)| = f(x) <= M. But if f(x) < 1/M, f(x) > M. But I get stuck because that means this particular choice of bound does not work. Instead, choose N > M. But then f(x) < 1/N makes f(x) > N. There might be a bound, and I'm having trouble proving that there is not a bound.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
bigplanet401 said:

Homework Statement



Show that the function
<br /> f(x) =\\<br /> <br /> \begin{cases}<br /> \frac{1}{x} &amp;\quad 0 &lt; x \leq 1\\<br /> 0 &amp;\quad x = 0<br /> \end{cases}<br />

is unbounded.

Homework Equations


If f is bounded, |f(x)| <= M for all x in f's domain.

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried arguing by contradiction: suppose there is such an M. Then |f(x)| = f(x) <= M. But if f(x) < 1/M, f(x) > M.
If x < 1/M, then f(x) > M.
You can do this directly, without resorting to a proof by contradiction.
bigplanet401 said:
But I get stuck because that means this particular choice of bound does not work. Instead, choose N > M. But then f(x) < 1/N makes f(x) > N. There might be a bound, and I'm having trouble proving that there is not a bound.
 
Mark44 said:
If x < 1/M, then f(x) > M.
You can do this directly, without resorting to a proof by contradiction.

But then can't you choose N > M and still be bounded? I'm guessing that I have to show that we can always take x small enough so that there's no M that will always satisfy the condition f(x) <= M for x in (0, 1]. But I don't know how to do that.
 
bigplanet401 said:
But then can't you choose N > M and still be bounded?
I think you might be confusing this problem with one in which ##\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x) = \infty##.
bigplanet401 said:
I'm guessing that I have to show that we can always take x small enough so that there's no M that will always satisfy the condition f(x) <= M for x in (0, 1]. But I don't know how to do that.
Yes. Let some "large number" M be given. Then if 0 < x < 1/M, then f(x) > M. That's all you need to say.
 
@bigplanet401: The statement that ##f(x)## is bounded means that there is a number ##M## such that for all ##x##, ##|f(x)|\le M##. I think it would help your thought process if you wrote a careful denial of that. The statement that ##f(x)## is unbounded means..., then prove that.
 
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