Proving the Existence of a Maximum or Minimum for a Continuous Function

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the existence of a maximum or minimum for a continuous function f: ℝ → ℝ, given that lim f(x) = L as x approaches both positive and negative infinity. The Weierstrass Theorem is identified as a key tool for this proof. The conversation highlights the need to analyze intervals and the behavior of f within them, ultimately leading to the conclusion that if a maximum does not exist, a minimum must be shown to exist instead. The approach involves demonstrating that the supremum of the function is finite and, if greater than L, must be attained.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Weierstrass Theorem
  • Knowledge of limits and continuity in real analysis
  • Familiarity with supremum and infimum concepts
  • Basic skills in interval analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Weierstrass Theorem in detail
  • Learn about the properties of continuous functions on closed intervals
  • Research techniques for finding supremum and infimum of functions
  • Explore examples of proving extrema in continuous functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of continuous functions and their extrema.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
i have a continuous function f:R->R and we are given that lim f(x)=L as x approaches infinity and limf(x)=L as x approaches minus infinity, i need to prove that f gets a maximum or minimum in R.

obviously i need to use weirstrauss theorem, but how to implement it in here.
i mean by definition:
Ae>0,EM_e,Ax>=M_e, |f(x)-L|<e
Ae>0,Em_e,Ax<=m_e,|f(x)-L|<e

so if we look at the intervals:
[M1,M2],[M1,M3]...
[m2,m1],[m3,m1]...
in each interval the function gets a maximum and minimum by the theorem i quoted above, at the capital M's as x ais bigger than M1 its interval of f is increased i.e for x>=M1 L-1<f(x)<L+1 for x >=M2 L-2<f(x)<L+2 so it means the maximum in the first interval isn't bigger than the maximum in the second interval (the problem is i cannot say the same about the minimum).
now if f has a maximum then we finished if it doesn't then i should show it has a minimum, but if it doesn't have a maximum then each maximum in the intervals is bigger than the previous one, but we have that there isn't a maximum.
here I am stuck and i don't know how to procceed from here, any help will be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your method. Why would it treat maxima any different than minima?

Here's how I would do it. You can always take the sup of a function. Show the sup of this function is finite. If it's greater than L, find a way to show the function must actually attain this value, making it a max. You can go from here.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K