Reciprocal Function is Unbounded

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the behavior of the function defined as $$f(x) = \begin{cases} 1, & x \in \Bbb{Q} \cap (0,\infty) \\ x-3, & x \notin \Bbb{Q} \cap (0, \infty) \\ \end{cases}$$ and its reciprocal $$\frac{1}{f}$$ being unbounded near the point \(x=3\). It is established that while $$\frac{1}{f}$$ is unbounded for irrational sequences approaching 3, the limit of \(f(x)\) as \(x\) approaches 3 from rational sequences converges to 1, not 0. The discussion concludes that if \(f\) is required to be continuous, the theorem regarding the limit does not hold, necessitating further proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with rational and irrational numbers
  • Knowledge of piecewise functions
  • Concept of continuity in mathematical functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the properties of piecewise functions in calculus
  • Study the implications of continuity on limits
  • Investigate the behavior of unbounded functions in real analysis
  • Learn about sequences and their convergence in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, calculus, and function behavior, will benefit from this discussion.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Let ##f : (0,\infty) \to \Bbb{R} - \{0\}##. If ##\frac{1}{f}## is unbounded on every interval containing ##x=3##, will ##\lim_{x \to 3} f(x) = 0##?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



Consider the function

$$f(x) = \begin{cases} 1, & x \in \Bbb{Q} \cap (0,\infty) \\ x-3, & x \notin \Bbb{Q} \cap (0, \infty) \\ \end{cases}$$

Let ##x_n \notin \Bbb{Q} \cap (0,\infty)## be an irrational sequence converging to ##3##. Then ##\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{f(x_n)} = \lim_{n \to 3} \frac{1}{x_n -3} = \pm \infty## (I am abusing notation out of laziness). This shows that ##\frac{1}{f}## is unbounded on every interval of containing ##3##. Now let ##r_n \in \Bbb{Q} \cap (0, \infty)## be a rational sequence converging to ##3##. Then ##\lim_{n \to \infty} f(r_n) = \lim_{n \to \infty} 1 = 1 \neq 0##.

How does this sound? What if ##f## is required to be continuous; will the theorem hold?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes that is correct. If ##f## is continuous the theorem will not hold - although that needs to be proven.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K