Proof of Theorem (0.2): Questions to Ask

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter solakis1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This discussion revolves around questions related to the proof of Theorem (0.2), specifically focusing on the implications of the function values at a point and the definitions related to the set X. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarification regarding the theorem's assumptions and the definitions involved.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Participants inquire about the justification for the statement that "every xε [xo,xo+δ) belongs to X" when f(xo)<0, seeking a proof for this assertion.
  • There is a question regarding the assumption that (xo-δ) is an upper bound for X when f(xo)>0, with a request for a proof of this claim.
  • One participant notes that the definitions related to X imply that if x∈[a,b] and f(x)≤0, then x∈X, and emphasizes the importance of the choice of δ being small enough to keep the interval (xo-δ,xo+δ) within [a,b].
  • Another participant asks how to mathematically express the condition that δ has been chosen small enough to ensure the interval (xo-δ,xo+δ) is contained in [a,b].
  • A later reply questions how the author derives the conclusion that SupX ≥ δ + xo > xo, given the assumption about δ.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express similar concerns regarding the assumptions made in the proof, particularly about the choice of δ and its implications. However, there is no consensus on how to formally prove the claims or express the conditions mathematically.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on the choice of δ and the definitions of the set X, which may not be fully resolved in the discussion. The implications of these choices on the proof's validity remain unclear.

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 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K