Lim |f(x)| = +infty and f decreasing implies lim f(x) = +infty

  • Thread starter Thread starter fmam3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    decreasing
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a function \( f \) defined on the interval \( (a,b) \) with the condition that \( \lim_{x \to a^{+}} |f(x)| = +\infty \) and \( f \) is decreasing. The task is to show that \( \lim_{x \to a^{+}} f(x) = +\infty \).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of \( \lim_{x \to a^{+}} |f(x)| = +\infty \) and explore the possibility of \( f(x) < -M \) for some \( M > 0 \). There are attempts to establish contradictions based on the behavior of \( f \) as it approaches \( a \).

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants offering insights and questioning the assumptions made about the function's behavior. Some participants suggest specific values for \( M \) and explore the implications of \( f \) being decreasing, while others seek clarification on the reasoning behind contradictions.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the range of \( x \) being considered, particularly the relationship between \( x \) and \( (a+b)/2 \), and how this affects the interpretation of \( f(x) \) in relation to \( M \). Participants are also mindful of the constraints imposed by the definition of the limit and the properties of decreasing functions.

fmam3
Messages
81
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If [tex]f[/tex] is defined on [tex](a,b)[/tex], [tex]\lim_{x \to a^{+}} |f(x)| = +\infty[/tex] and [tex]f[/tex] is decreasing on [tex](a,b)[/tex], show that [tex]\lim_{x \to a^{+}} f(x) = +\infty[/tex].

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


If [tex]\lim_{x \to a^{+}} |f(x)| = +\infty[/tex], then [tex]\forall M > 0, \exists \delta > 0[/tex] such that [tex]\forall x \in (a,b)[/tex] and [tex]a < x < a + \delta[/tex], we have [tex]|f(x)| > M[/tex], which implies we either have [tex]f(x) > M[/tex] or [tex]f(x) < -M[/tex]. It suffices to show that [tex]f(x) < -M[/tex] does not hold.

For contradiction, suppose that [tex]f(x) < -M[/tex] for [tex]x \in (a,b) \cap (a, a + \delta)[/tex]. Consider a sequence of real numbers [tex](x_n)[/tex] such that [tex]x_n \in (a,b) \cap (a, a + \delta)[/tex] and [tex]x_{n+1} > x_n[/tex] and [tex]\lim_{n \to \infty}x_n = a[/tex] for [tex]\forall n \in \mathbb{N}[/tex]. Since [tex]f[/tex] is decreasing, [tex]x_{n+1} > x_n[/tex] implies [tex]f(x_n) \geq f(x_{n+1})[/tex]. Thus, we have that [tex]-M > f(x_n) \geq f(x_{n+1})[/tex]...

But this is the part where I got stuck... any help appreciated! Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's always entirely possible that for some x really close to a, f(x) is really large in magnitude and negative. The key is that once you have that, f(x) can never get smaller than that. So for example, if you pick M cleverly, like

[tex]M=|f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex]|

then you know that for x<(a+b)/2 f(x) cannot be less than -M
 
Office_Shredder said:
It's always entirely possible that for some x really close to a, f(x) is really large in magnitude and negative. The key is that once you have that, f(x) can never get smaller than that. So for example, if you pick M cleverly, like

[tex]M=|f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex]|

then you know that for x<(a+b)/2 f(x) cannot be less than -M

Thanks for the reply! I just want to follow up on this.

Suppose we have picked [tex]M=|f(\frac{a+b}{2})|[/tex], but since I want to show that [tex]f(x) < -M[/tex] cannot hold, I want to reach a contradiction somewhere. But I'm not seeing the contradiction. That is, suppose that we have [tex]f(x) < -M = -|f(\frac{a+b}{2})|[/tex] for [tex]x \in (a,b) \cap (a, a + \delta)[/tex]. But since [tex]f[/tex] is decreasing on [tex](a,b)[/tex], then we have for [tex]x < (a + b)/2, f(x) \geq f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex] (1)

But even with this, how can I show that [tex]f[/tex] cannot be less than [tex]-M[/tex]? That is, since [tex]M = |f(\frac{a+b}{2})|[/tex] is in terms of absolute values, but expression (1) does not exactly involve [tex]M[/tex] (i.e. no absolute values).

Any further help is appreciated! Thanks :)
 
fmam3 said:
Thanks for the reply! I just want to follow up on this.

Suppose we have picked [tex]M=|f(\frac{a+b}{2})|[/tex], but since I want to show that [tex]f(x) < -M[/tex] cannot hold, I want to reach a contradiction somewhere. But I'm not seeing the contradiction. That is, suppose that we have [tex]f(x) < -M = -|f(\frac{a+b}{2})|[/tex] for [tex]x \in (a,b) \cap (a, a + \delta)[/tex]. But since [tex]f[/tex] is decreasing on [tex](a,b)[/tex], then we have for [tex]x < (a + b)/2, f(x) \geq f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex] (1)

But even with this, how can I show that [tex]f[/tex] cannot be less than [tex]-M[/tex]? That is, since [tex]M = |f(\frac{a+b}{2})|[/tex] is in terms of absolute values, but expression (1) does not exactly involve [tex]M[/tex] (i.e. no absolute values).

Any further help is appreciated! Thanks :)

[tex]f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex]

is either M or -M. I f(x)<-M, we have f(x)<M also (since M is positive). So regardless of whether [itex]f(\frac{a+b}{2}[/itex] is positive or negative, we have that f(x) is less than it.

But if [itex]x< \frac{a+b}{2}[/itex] it must be [itex]f(x) >f( \frac{a+b}{2})[/itex] as f is decreasing
 
Office_Shredder said:
[tex]f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex]

is either M or -M. I f(x)<-M, we have f(x)<M also (since M is positive). So regardless of whether [itex]f(\frac{a+b}{2}[/itex] is positive or negative, we have that f(x) is less than it.

But if [itex]x< \frac{a+b}{2}[/itex] it must be [itex]f(x) >f( \frac{a+b}{2})[/itex] as f is decreasing

Thanks for the quick reply! I get the contradiction part in your last sentence, but I'm a little fuzzy on the first sentence. Just to be absolutely clear, I'll just spell it all out. Hope I'm understanding you correctly!

Let [tex]M > 0[/tex]. Then set [tex]M = |f(\frac{a+b}{2})|[/tex]. Then we must have that [tex]f(\frac{a+b}{2}) = M[/tex] (i.e. positive f) or [tex]f(\frac{a+b}{2}) = -M[/tex] (i.e. negative f). Now, we consider only the case [tex]f(x) < -M < 0[/tex]. Then, in this case, we must have the case of negative f. Hence, this would imply that [tex]f(x) < -M = -(-f(\frac{a+b}{2})) = f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex]. And from this, we use the fact that f is decreasing to reach the contradiction.

I just want to be sure that this is how I'm interpreting the below:
Office_Shredder said:
[tex]f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex] is either M or -M. I f(x)<-M, we have f(x)<M also (since M is positive). So regardless of whether [itex]f(\frac{a+b}{2}[/itex] is positive or negative, we have that f(x) is less than it.

Thanks again for the help!
 
Actually, just to be nitpicking a bit. I think just saying [tex]x < (a + b) / 2[/tex] is not sufficient. Since the statement [tex]f(x) < -M[/tex] only holds for [tex]x \in (a,b) \cap (a, a + \delta)[/tex], it is not necessarily true that [tex](a + b) / 2[/tex] falls into that range. Hence, I think it would be better if we write, for [tex]a < x < \min\{(a+b)/2, a + \delta\}[/tex], then since f is decreasing on [tex](a,b)[/tex], it follows that [tex]f(x) \geq f(\frac{a+b}{2})[/tex] --- contradiction to the above.
 

Similar threads

Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K