Proving Boundedness of f(x) = (x+1)/x^2 in Natural Numbers

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The function f(x) = (x+1)/x^2 is proven to be bounded in the set of natural numbers N. The supremum and maximum of f(N) is determined to be 2, while the infimum is 0, indicating that f does not have a minimum value in N. The function is monotonically decreasing for x ≥ 1, which supports the conclusion that f(N) is bounded. The analysis confirms that the limit of f as x approaches infinity is 0, reinforcing the absence of a lower bound greater than 0.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of monotonic functions and their properties
  • Knowledge of limits and boundedness in mathematical analysis
  • Familiarity with the concepts of supremum and infimum
  • Basic algebraic manipulation and inequalities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of monotonically decreasing functions
  • Learn about the concepts of supremum and infimum in real analysis
  • Explore limits of functions as they approach infinity
  • Review proofs related to boundedness in mathematical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students studying real analysis, mathematicians interested in function properties, and anyone seeking to understand boundedness in the context of natural numbers.

daniel_i_l
Gold Member
Messages
864
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


f(x) = (x+1)/x^2
a)prove that f is bounded in N (N is the set of natural numbers so we have to prove that f(N) is a bounded set)
b)find supf(N) and inff(N).
c) does f have a maximum or minimum in N?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


First I proved that for every x,y >= 1, if x<y then f(x)>f(y):
y>x>=1 and so y^2 > x^2 and so y^2 - x^2 > 0
xy=yx and so x^2 * y < y^2 * x and so
y^2 * x - x^2 * y > 0 and together
y^2 * x - x^2 * y + y^2 - x^2 = y^2 * (x+1) - x^2 * (y+1) > 0 and so
(y^2 * (x+1) - x^2 * (y+1)) / (x^2 * y^2) = (x+1)/(x^2) - (y+1)/(y^2) > 0and so (x+1)/(x^2) > (y+1)/(y^2).

Now, f(1) = 2 and so for all x>1 f(x)<2 and so maxf(N) = supf(N) = 2.

Also, for every x>=1 f(x)>0. The limit of f at infinity is 0. So if f(N) has a lower bound c>0 then since f has a limit of zero at infinity we can find some M>0 so that for every x>M (we can find an x in N) |f(x)|<c => f(x)<c which means that c isn't a lower bound so inff(N) = 0 and there's no minimum.

Is that right (especially the proof)? Does it matter that I did a,b and c in the same step?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Instead of going 'since xy=yx, x^2y<y^2x' is do this: 'since x<y, multiplying both sides by xy give x^2y<y^2x'. The way you originally put it was a head scratcher.

You haven't really done a,b,c in one step, what you've shown is that the function [itex]f:R_{\ge 1} \to R[/itex] is monotonically decreasing. Then you considered the restriction to natural numbers and then made your arguments based on that.

If you want to break it up into parts and be more organized then you can first do the preliminary work of showing that [itex]f:R_{\ge 1} \to R[/itex] is monotonically decreasing and then do a,b, and c in that order. You haven't explicitly claimed why f(N) is bounded.

The majority of the work is correct. You could be more liberal with your explanations, but not necessary. As an example, the supremum exists because the maximum exists. I don't know if that's what you meant because you just wrote it as maxf(N)=supf(N)=2 when your work only showed that f(N) has a maximum of 2.

Just little things that your professor might pick on.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K