Showing that a function has a minimum on a non compact interval
The question states: Let $f: (-1,1) rightarrow R$ be cts and suppose $lim_{x to -1} f(x) = lim_{x to 1} f(x) = infty$. Show that $f$ has a minimum on $(-1,1)$
My attempt:
Given $lim_{x to -1} = infty$, we have $f(x) > M$ for all $M$ when $x > N_{1}$. Similarly, $lim_{x to 1} f(x) = infty$ implies that $f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when $x>N_{2}$.
Since $f$ is cts, it has a minimum on all compact intervals by the Maximum Theorem. Take the interval $[N_{1},N_{2}] = I$, then there exists an L s.t. $f(x) geq L$ for all $x in I$. If x $notin I$, take $M = L$. So we have $f(x) geq L$ for all $x$ which completes the proof.
Is my logic correct here?
real-analysis limits
asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28
hkj447hkj447
244
add a comment |
The question states: Let $f: (-1,1) rightarrow R$ be cts and suppose $lim_{x to -1} f(x) = lim_{x to 1} f(x) = infty$. Show that $f$ has a minimum on $(-1,1)$
My attempt:
Given $lim_{x to -1} = infty$, we have $f(x) > M$ for all $M$ when $x > N_{1}$. Similarly, $lim_{x to 1} f(x) = infty$ implies that $f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when $x>N_{2}$.
Since $f$ is cts, it has a minimum on all compact intervals by the Maximum Theorem. Take the interval $[N_{1},N_{2}] = I$, then there exists an L s.t. $f(x) geq L$ for all $x in I$. If x $notin I$, take $M = L$. So we have $f(x) geq L$ for all $x$ which completes the proof.
Is my logic correct here?
real-analysis limits
asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28
hkj447hkj447
244
You never say who $N_1$ and $N_2$ are; that paragraph is wrong, in part because you seem to be confusing limits at infinity with limits go to infinity. It is also wrong that “$f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when...” because that would require $f(x)$ to be larger than all real numbers, and no such number exists.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:32
Order matters. What you meant in that paragraph is: for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{1,M}>0$ such that if $-1< x < -1+epsilon_{1,M}$, then $f(x)>M$. Similarly, for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{2,M}>0$ such that if $1-epsilon_{2,M}<x<1$, then $f(x)>M$.”
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:34
(Order in that you first specify $M$, then you specify the conditions on $x$, not the other way around). The basic idea can be made to work, but since you never specify what $N_1$ and $N_2$ are, and you don’t place them correctly inside of $(-1,1)$, what you write does not actually work. In addition, your $L$ is only asserted to be a lower bound, so you have not proven that it has a minimum, just that it is bounded below.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
– hkj447
Dec 12 '18 at 7:02
add a comment |
The question states: Let $f: (-1,1) rightarrow R$ be cts and suppose $lim_{x to -1} f(x) = lim_{x to 1} f(x) = infty$. Show that $f$ has a minimum on $(-1,1)$
My attempt:
Given $lim_{x to -1} = infty$, we have $f(x) > M$ for all $M$ when $x > N_{1}$. Similarly, $lim_{x to 1} f(x) = infty$ implies that $f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when $x>N_{2}$.
Since $f$ is cts, it has a minimum on all compact intervals by the Maximum Theorem. Take the interval $[N_{1},N_{2}] = I$, then there exists an L s.t. $f(x) geq L$ for all $x in I$. If x $notin I$, take $M = L$. So we have $f(x) geq L$ for all $x$ which completes the proof.
Is my logic correct here?
real-analysis limits
asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28
hkj447hkj447
244
The question states: Let $f: (-1,1) rightarrow R$ be cts and suppose $lim_{x to -1} f(x) = lim_{x to 1} f(x) = infty$. Show that $f$ has a minimum on $(-1,1)$
My attempt:
Given $lim_{x to -1} = infty$, we have $f(x) > M$ for all $M$ when $x > N_{1}$. Similarly, $lim_{x to 1} f(x) = infty$ implies that $f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when $x>N_{2}$.
Since $f$ is cts, it has a minimum on all compact intervals by the Maximum Theorem. Take the interval $[N_{1},N_{2}] = I$, then there exists an L s.t. $f(x) geq L$ for all $x in I$. If x $notin I$, take $M = L$. So we have $f(x) geq L$ for all $x$ which completes the proof.
Is my logic correct here?
real-analysis limits
real-analysis limits
asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28
hkj447hkj447
244
asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28
hkj447hkj447
244
asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28
hkj447hkj447
244
asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28
hkj447hkj447
244
asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28
hkj447hkj447
244
244
You never say who $N_1$ and $N_2$ are; that paragraph is wrong, in part because you seem to be confusing limits at infinity with limits go to infinity. It is also wrong that “$f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when...” because that would require $f(x)$ to be larger than all real numbers, and no such number exists.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:32
Order matters. What you meant in that paragraph is: for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{1,M}>0$ such that if $-1< x < -1+epsilon_{1,M}$, then $f(x)>M$. Similarly, for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{2,M}>0$ such that if $1-epsilon_{2,M}<x<1$, then $f(x)>M$.”
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:34
(Order in that you first specify $M$, then you specify the conditions on $x$, not the other way around). The basic idea can be made to work, but since you never specify what $N_1$ and $N_2$ are, and you don’t place them correctly inside of $(-1,1)$, what you write does not actually work. In addition, your $L$ is only asserted to be a lower bound, so you have not proven that it has a minimum, just that it is bounded below.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
– hkj447
Dec 12 '18 at 7:02
add a comment |
You never say who $N_1$ and $N_2$ are; that paragraph is wrong, in part because you seem to be confusing limits at infinity with limits go to infinity. It is also wrong that “$f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when...” because that would require $f(x)$ to be larger than all real numbers, and no such number exists.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:32
Order matters. What you meant in that paragraph is: for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{1,M}>0$ such that if $-1< x < -1+epsilon_{1,M}$, then $f(x)>M$. Similarly, for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{2,M}>0$ such that if $1-epsilon_{2,M}<x<1$, then $f(x)>M$.”
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:34
(Order in that you first specify $M$, then you specify the conditions on $x$, not the other way around). The basic idea can be made to work, but since you never specify what $N_1$ and $N_2$ are, and you don’t place them correctly inside of $(-1,1)$, what you write does not actually work. In addition, your $L$ is only asserted to be a lower bound, so you have not proven that it has a minimum, just that it is bounded below.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
– hkj447
Dec 12 '18 at 7:02
You never say who $N_1$ and $N_2$ are; that paragraph is wrong, in part because you seem to be confusing limits at infinity with limits go to infinity. It is also wrong that “$f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when...” because that would require $f(x)$ to be larger than all real numbers, and no such number exists.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:32
You never say who $N_1$ and $N_2$ are; that paragraph is wrong, in part because you seem to be confusing limits at infinity with limits go to infinity. It is also wrong that “$f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when...” because that would require $f(x)$ to be larger than all real numbers, and no such number exists.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:32
Order matters. What you meant in that paragraph is: for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{1,M}>0$ such that if $-1< x < -1+epsilon_{1,M}$, then $f(x)>M$. Similarly, for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{2,M}>0$ such that if $1-epsilon_{2,M}<x<1$, then $f(x)>M$.”
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:34
Order matters. What you meant in that paragraph is: for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{1,M}>0$ such that if $-1< x < -1+epsilon_{1,M}$, then $f(x)>M$. Similarly, for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{2,M}>0$ such that if $1-epsilon_{2,M}<x<1$, then $f(x)>M$.”
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:34
(Order in that you first specify $M$, then you specify the conditions on $x$, not the other way around). The basic idea can be made to work, but since you never specify what $N_1$ and $N_2$ are, and you don’t place them correctly inside of $(-1,1)$, what you write does not actually work. In addition, your $L$ is only asserted to be a lower bound, so you have not proven that it has a minimum, just that it is bounded below.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
(Order in that you first specify $M$, then you specify the conditions on $x$, not the other way around). The basic idea can be made to work, but since you never specify what $N_1$ and $N_2$ are, and you don’t place them correctly inside of $(-1,1)$, what you write does not actually work. In addition, your $L$ is only asserted to be a lower bound, so you have not proven that it has a minimum, just that it is bounded below.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
– hkj447
Dec 12 '18 at 7:02
Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
– hkj447
Dec 12 '18 at 7:02
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Your argument does not make much sense. What do mean by $x >N_1$ and $x >N_2$. You are not taking limits as $ x to 1$and $x to -1$.
Here is a valid argument: let $alpha =inf {f(x): -1<x<1}$. Note that $alpha leq f(0) <infty$. The hypothesis tells you that if $delta in (0,1)$ is sufficiently small then $f(x) >alpha$ when $x in (-1,-1+delta)$ and also when $x in (1-delta, 1)$. Now I leave it to you to verify that the minimum of $f$ on the compact interval $[-1+delta, 1-delta]$ is also the minimum of $f$ on $(-1,1)$.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
51.5k31855
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036314%2fshowing-that-a-function-has-a-minimum-on-a-non-compact-interval%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Your argument does not make much sense. What do mean by $x >N_1$ and $x >N_2$. You are not taking limits as $ x to 1$and $x to -1$.
Here is a valid argument: let $alpha =inf {f(x): -1<x<1}$. Note that $alpha leq f(0) <infty$. The hypothesis tells you that if $delta in (0,1)$ is sufficiently small then $f(x) >alpha$ when $x in (-1,-1+delta)$ and also when $x in (1-delta, 1)$. Now I leave it to you to verify that the minimum of $f$ on the compact interval $[-1+delta, 1-delta]$ is also the minimum of $f$ on $(-1,1)$.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
51.5k31855
add a comment |
Your argument does not make much sense. What do mean by $x >N_1$ and $x >N_2$. You are not taking limits as $ x to 1$and $x to -1$.
Here is a valid argument: let $alpha =inf {f(x): -1<x<1}$. Note that $alpha leq f(0) <infty$. The hypothesis tells you that if $delta in (0,1)$ is sufficiently small then $f(x) >alpha$ when $x in (-1,-1+delta)$ and also when $x in (1-delta, 1)$. Now I leave it to you to verify that the minimum of $f$ on the compact interval $[-1+delta, 1-delta]$ is also the minimum of $f$ on $(-1,1)$.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
51.5k31855
add a comment |
Your argument does not make much sense. What do mean by $x >N_1$ and $x >N_2$. You are not taking limits as $ x to 1$and $x to -1$.
Here is a valid argument: let $alpha =inf {f(x): -1<x<1}$. Note that $alpha leq f(0) <infty$. The hypothesis tells you that if $delta in (0,1)$ is sufficiently small then $f(x) >alpha$ when $x in (-1,-1+delta)$ and also when $x in (1-delta, 1)$. Now I leave it to you to verify that the minimum of $f$ on the compact interval $[-1+delta, 1-delta]$ is also the minimum of $f$ on $(-1,1)$.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
51.5k31855
Your argument does not make much sense. What do mean by $x >N_1$ and $x >N_2$. You are not taking limits as $ x to 1$and $x to -1$.
Here is a valid argument: let $alpha =inf {f(x): -1<x<1}$. Note that $alpha leq f(0) <infty$. The hypothesis tells you that if $delta in (0,1)$ is sufficiently small then $f(x) >alpha$ when $x in (-1,-1+delta)$ and also when $x in (1-delta, 1)$. Now I leave it to you to verify that the minimum of $f$ on the compact interval $[-1+delta, 1-delta]$ is also the minimum of $f$ on $(-1,1)$.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
51.5k31855
answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
51.5k31855
answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
51.5k31855
answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
51.5k31855
51.5k31855
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036314%2fshowing-that-a-function-has-a-minimum-on-a-non-compact-interval%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
You never say who $N_1$ and $N_2$ are; that paragraph is wrong, in part because you seem to be confusing limits at infinity with limits go to infinity. It is also wrong that “$f(x)>M$ for all $M$ when...” because that would require $f(x)$ to be larger than all real numbers, and no such number exists.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:32
Order matters. What you meant in that paragraph is: for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{1,M}>0$ such that if $-1< x < -1+epsilon_{1,M}$, then $f(x)>M$. Similarly, for each $M>0$ there exists $epsilon_{2,M}>0$ such that if $1-epsilon_{2,M}<x<1$, then $f(x)>M$.”
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:34
(Order in that you first specify $M$, then you specify the conditions on $x$, not the other way around). The basic idea can be made to work, but since you never specify what $N_1$ and $N_2$ are, and you don’t place them correctly inside of $(-1,1)$, what you write does not actually work. In addition, your $L$ is only asserted to be a lower bound, so you have not proven that it has a minimum, just that it is bounded below.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:36
Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
– hkj447
Dec 12 '18 at 7:02