Is a bounded continuous function always have a supremum?
Multi tool use
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
My problem is related to Proving that a bounded, continuous function has a supremum
- A continous function $f(R)$ defined on $Rin[0,1]$ with $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$.
- Assuming that we have $f(R)<R$ on the open interval $(0,R_1)$ and $f(R_1)=R_1$. $R_1in(0,1)$ is fixed.
- How can I prove there will always be a supremum $lambda$ so that $sup{f(R)/R}=lambda<1$，$Rin(0,R_1)$
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 21 at 3:44
QZHua
11
New contributor
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
My problem is related to Proving that a bounded, continuous function has a supremum
- A continous function $f(R)$ defined on $Rin[0,1]$ with $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$.
- Assuming that we have $f(R)<R$ on the open interval $(0,R_1)$ and $f(R_1)=R_1$. $R_1in(0,1)$ is fixed.
- How can I prove there will always be a supremum $lambda$ so that $sup{f(R)/R}=lambda<1$，$Rin(0,R_1)$
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 21 at 3:44
QZHua
11
New contributor
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is $R_1$ fixed?
– Offlaw
Nov 21 at 3:53
With the given assumptions you can construct a function $f$ such that $f(R)=1$ for $R = R_1 + epsilon < 1$ for some small $epsilon$, yielding $f(R)/R = frac{1}{R_1 + epsilon} > 1$, a contradiction. So something in your post is stated incorrectly (or I have misunderstood something).
– angryavian
Nov 21 at 3:58
Looks like the supremum will be $1$.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 21 at 4:07
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
My problem is related to Proving that a bounded, continuous function has a supremum
- A continous function $f(R)$ defined on $Rin[0,1]$ with $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$.
- Assuming that we have $f(R)<R$ on the open interval $(0,R_1)$ and $f(R_1)=R_1$. $R_1in(0,1)$ is fixed.
- How can I prove there will always be a supremum $lambda$ so that $sup{f(R)/R}=lambda<1$，$Rin(0,R_1)$
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 21 at 3:44
QZHua
11
New contributor
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
My problem is related to Proving that a bounded, continuous function has a supremum
- A continous function $f(R)$ defined on $Rin[0,1]$ with $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$.
- Assuming that we have $f(R)<R$ on the open interval $(0,R_1)$ and $f(R_1)=R_1$. $R_1in(0,1)$ is fixed.
- How can I prove there will always be a supremum $lambda$ so that $sup{f(R)/R}=lambda<1$，$Rin(0,R_1)$
real-analysis sequences-and-series
real-analysis sequences-and-series
asked Nov 21 at 3:44
QZHua
11
New contributor
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Nov 21 at 3:44
QZHua
11
New contributor
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Nov 22 at 5:17
asked Nov 21 at 3:44
QZHua
11
New contributor
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Nov 21 at 3:44
QZHua
11
asked Nov 21 at 3:44
QZHua
11
11
New contributor
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
QZHua is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is $R_1$ fixed?
– Offlaw
Nov 21 at 3:53
With the given assumptions you can construct a function $f$ such that $f(R)=1$ for $R = R_1 + epsilon < 1$ for some small $epsilon$, yielding $f(R)/R = frac{1}{R_1 + epsilon} > 1$, a contradiction. So something in your post is stated incorrectly (or I have misunderstood something).
– angryavian
Nov 21 at 3:58
Looks like the supremum will be $1$.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 21 at 4:07
add a comment |
Is $R_1$ fixed?
– Offlaw
Nov 21 at 3:53
With the given assumptions you can construct a function $f$ such that $f(R)=1$ for $R = R_1 + epsilon < 1$ for some small $epsilon$, yielding $f(R)/R = frac{1}{R_1 + epsilon} > 1$, a contradiction. So something in your post is stated incorrectly (or I have misunderstood something).
– angryavian
Nov 21 at 3:58
Looks like the supremum will be $1$.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 21 at 4:07
Is $R_1$ fixed?
– Offlaw
Nov 21 at 3:53
Is $R_1$ fixed?
– Offlaw
Nov 21 at 3:53
With the given assumptions you can construct a function $f$ such that $f(R)=1$ for $R = R_1 + epsilon < 1$ for some small $epsilon$, yielding $f(R)/R = frac{1}{R_1 + epsilon} > 1$, a contradiction. So something in your post is stated incorrectly (or I have misunderstood something).
– angryavian
Nov 21 at 3:58
With the given assumptions you can construct a function $f$ such that $f(R)=1$ for $R = R_1 + epsilon < 1$ for some small $epsilon$, yielding $f(R)/R = frac{1}{R_1 + epsilon} > 1$, a contradiction. So something in your post is stated incorrectly (or I have misunderstood something).
– angryavian
Nov 21 at 3:58
Looks like the supremum will be $1$.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 21 at 4:07
Looks like the supremum will be $1$.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 21 at 4:07
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
QZHua is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
QZHua is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
QZHua is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
QZHua is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
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%2f3007231%2fis-a-bounded-continuous-function-always-have-a-supremum%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
S mu7v9 n,lN xMnAk tXp12hw kXGGpv Llus wvyGI,LsD3KGr zmdayR6,yzENg76pepi3UrlK5g,rb4CzieEu6nN
Is $R_1$ fixed?
– Offlaw
Nov 21 at 3:53
With the given assumptions you can construct a function $f$ such that $f(R)=1$ for $R = R_1 + epsilon < 1$ for some small $epsilon$, yielding $f(R)/R = frac{1}{R_1 + epsilon} > 1$, a contradiction. So something in your post is stated incorrectly (or I have misunderstood something).
– angryavian
Nov 21 at 3:58
Looks like the supremum will be $1$.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Nov 21 at 4:07