MHB Proof of Theorem (0.2): Questions to Ask

  • Thread starter Thread starter solakis1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving specific aspects of Theorem (0.2) related to the function f(x) and its implications for the set X. Questions focus on justifying the inclusion of points in X when f(xo) is less than or greater than zero, particularly how to mathematically express the condition that the interval around xo is contained within [a, b]. Participants highlight that the definition of X requires that if x is in [a, b] and f(x) is non-positive, then x must be in X. Additionally, there is a query about how the author derives the inequality SupX ≥ δ + xo > xo under these conditions. The conversation emphasizes the importance of the choice of δ in relation to the intervals involved.
solakis1
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
for the theorem (0.2) attached i have the following questions to ask:

1) In the case where f(xo)<0 ,the author justifies the contradiction he comes to,by writing that :

"every xε [xo,xo+δ) belongs to X"

How can we prove that?

2) In the case where f(xo)>0 ,the author justifies the contradiction he comes to,by assming that:

(xo-δ) is an upper bound for X.

How can we prove that?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Re: bolzano theorem

solakis said:
for the theorem (0.2) attached i have the following questions to ask:

1) In the case where f(xo)<0 ,the author justifies the contradiction he comes to,by writing that :

"every xε [xo,xo+δ) belongs to X"

How can we prove that?

2) In the case where f(xo)>0 ,the author justifies the contradiction he comes to,by assming that:

(xo-δ) is an upper bound for X.

How can we prove that?
Both these things come from the definition of $X$, which says that if $x\in[a,b]$ satisfies $f(x)\leqslant0$ then $x\in X$. (But note that in both cases the author seems to be assuming that $\delta$ has been chosen small enough so that the interval $(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$ is contained in the interval $[a,b].$)
 
Re: bolzano theorem

Opalg said:
Both these things come from the definition of $X$, which says that if $x\in[a,b]$ satisfies $f(x)\leqslant0$ then $x\in X$. (But note that in both cases the author seems to be assuming that $\delta$ has been chosen small enough so that the interval $(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$ is contained in the interval $[a,b].$)

yes,but how do you express mathematically the expression:

"$\delta$ has been chosen small enough so that the interval $(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$ is contained in the interval $[a,b].$"
 
Re: bolzano theorem

Opalg said:
Both these things come from the definition of $X$, which says that if $x\in[a,b]$ satisfies $f(x)\leqslant0$ then $x\in X$. (But note that in both cases the author seems to be assuming that $\delta$ has been chosen small enough so that the interval $(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$ is contained in the interval $[a,b].$)
O.K suppose he chooses delta small enough so that the interval $(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$ is contained in the interval $[a,b].$".

Then how does he get : SupX $\geq\delta+x_{o}> x_{o}$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K