Show that a uniformly continuous function on a bounded, open interval is bounded

Click For Summary
A uniformly continuous function on a bounded open interval is proven to be bounded by leveraging the properties of sequences and limits. If the function is not bounded, it implies the existence of a sequence diverging to infinity within the interval, which must have a convergent subsequence due to the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem. The continuity at the endpoints can be established by defining the function piecewise and ensuring limits exist as the sequences approach the boundaries. By applying the Extreme Value Theorem, it follows that the function achieves both maximum and minimum values on the closed interval, confirming its boundedness. The discussion emphasizes the importance of uniform continuity in establishing these properties without delving into more complex concepts.
krissycokl
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose that the function f|(a,b)→ℝ is uniformly continuous. Prove that f|(a,b)→ℝ is bounded.


Homework Equations


A function f|D→ℝ is uniformly continuous provided that whenever {un} and {vn} are sequences in D such that lim (n→∞) [un-vn] = 0, then lim (n→∞) [f(un) - f(vn)] = 0.

A function f|D→ℝ is bounded if there exists a real number M such that |f(x)| ≤ M for all x in D

Every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence.


The Attempt at a Solution



f|(a,b)→ℝ is uniformly continuous. Then for all sequences un and vn in (a,b) such that lim (n→∞) [un - vn] we have lim (n→∞) [f(un) - f(vn)] = 0.

Suppose that f is not bounded. Then for all real numbers M, there exists a number x in (a,b) such that |f(x)|> M. Further, for all natural numbers n, there exists an xn in (a,b) such that |f(xn)|> n . Then {xn} is a sequence in the bounded, open interval (a,b). Thus {xn} has a convergent subsequence {xnk}.

Aaand...I'm not even really sure where I was heading with that. Direction would be greatly appreciated. This is a basic real analysis course, we haven't talked about metric spaces, Cauchy-continuity, or any of that stuff. So, whatever proof the text wants should use rather simple concepts. Thanks in advance for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you think you can extend f to a continuous function on [a,b]? That is, can you define f(a) and f(b) in a continuous way??
 
Another approach, similar to Micromass'ss idea: you know if f is continuous, it is bounded in [a-1/n,b+1/n] , for some integers n, or just in [a-e,b+e], for e>0. Now , use uniform continuity at a+e, and at b-e, to find a bound in an e-interval about each. As Micromass said; think of what happens with, e.g., f(x)=1/x in (0,1).

Don't mean to upstage you, Micromass, just to give a related version.
 
Last edited:
I'm not familiar with this assertion: if f is continuous, it is bounded in [a-1/n,b+1/n]
For instance, f = 1/x is continuous in (0,1) but is unbounded and discontinuous in the closed interval [0,1].

[STRIKE]But, let me try to follow other than that...

For the lower endpoint:
Since f is continuous in the interval (a,b), f is continuous at a+e for some ε>0, ε<(b-a). Thus if lim (n→∞) xn = a + e, then lim (n→∞) f(xn) = f(a+e)

Then it follows that for all ε1>0, there exists a natural number N such that |xn-(a+ε)|<ε1 for all n≥N
and there exists a natural number N2 such that |f(xn-f(a+ε)|<ε1 for all n≥N2.[/STRIKE]

Uhm. I'm stuck again.

Oh, wait! Maybe, rereading what you've said...


Can I simply turn f|(a,b)→ℝ into a piecewise function f|[a,b]→ℝ, and
define a sequence {xn} such that a = lim (n→∞) xn and
define a sequence {yn} such that b = lim (n→∞) yn and I then set
f(a) = lim (n→∞) f(xn) and
f(b) = lim (n→∞) f(yn)

My problem with this last step is visualizing it. For example, I really can't see what value I could assign to f(0) in the case f(x) = 1/x such that the function would be continuous at x = 0. But I will continue despite my doubts...

Then f is continuous at a and b by definition. Then f is continuous on the closed, bounded interval [a,b].

Then, by the Extreme Value Theorem f has both a maximum and minimum value in [a,b] and thus f is bounded in [a,b].

Is that right? If any of it is wrong, I think it might be the piecewise definition part. It just smells too easy. But thanks for the help!
 
Careful, krissy:

If f is continuous in (a,b) implies f is continuous in [a+1/n,b-1/n], does not imply that

f continuous in (0,1), then f also continuous on [0,1]; read carefully.
 
Bacle said:
you know if f is continuous, it is bounded in [a-1/n,b+1/n] , for some integers n, or just in [a-e,b+e], for e>0.

This is what you previously said.

Did you perhaps mean it is bounded in [a+1/n,b-1/n]? The signs on the 1/n terms are different between your first post and your more recent one.

I did not use that logic in my proof, however. Aside from that, then, does my work make sense?
 
You're right, I made a mistake; it should be [a+1/n, b-1/n], altho the statement is true for _some_, tho not for all n.

The thing that confuses me about your proof is that I do not see where you used the fact that f is u.continuous on (a,b). And, remember that 1/x is not uniformly continuous on (0,1). My idea was to use the fact that for all ε>0 there exists a fixed δ>0 , so that |f(x)-f(y)|<ε
for |x-y|<δ , once you know that f is bounded on a compact interval.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K