Show that a continuous function with infinite “tails” with value $0$ and $f(0)=1$ must have a maximum.
$begingroup$
Let $f : R rightarrow R$ be continuous, where $f(0) = 1$, and
$$lim_{x rightarrow - infty}
f(x) = lim_{x rightarrow + infty}
f(x) = 0$$
Show: there is an $x^* in mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x^*) = max{f(x)| x in mathbb{R}}$
Intuitively this makes sense, we have some function that is above the $x$-axis for $x=0$, then as we look at its tails, we notice that for very large and for extremely small values the tails of the function go to zero. There must be some point where it is maximal, and this point must lie between $-infty$ and $+ infty$. I have been working on intermediate value theorem questions so far and I think this question is again an IVT-like question. I feel a bit lost when it comes down to "showing there exists a maximum". The intermediate value theorem tells you there must exist some intermediate point, but it does not say anything about it being a maximal point. Am I moving in the right direction or should I consider a different theorem (like the extreme value theorem $dots$ but then the question is, what is the interval because $[-infty, + infty]$ is just ridiculous)?
Edit: on a second note, this is probably more of an extreme value question, but I still am quite lost because it only works on a closed and compact/bounded interval $(-infty, + infty)$ is not bounded.
real-analysis
asked Dec 8 '18 at 14:45
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,741423
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f : R rightarrow R$ be continuous, where $f(0) = 1$, and
$$lim_{x rightarrow - infty}
f(x) = lim_{x rightarrow + infty}
f(x) = 0$$
Show: there is an $x^* in mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x^*) = max{f(x)| x in mathbb{R}}$
Intuitively this makes sense, we have some function that is above the $x$-axis for $x=0$, then as we look at its tails, we notice that for very large and for extremely small values the tails of the function go to zero. There must be some point where it is maximal, and this point must lie between $-infty$ and $+ infty$. I have been working on intermediate value theorem questions so far and I think this question is again an IVT-like question. I feel a bit lost when it comes down to "showing there exists a maximum". The intermediate value theorem tells you there must exist some intermediate point, but it does not say anything about it being a maximal point. Am I moving in the right direction or should I consider a different theorem (like the extreme value theorem $dots$ but then the question is, what is the interval because $[-infty, + infty]$ is just ridiculous)?
Edit: on a second note, this is probably more of an extreme value question, but I still am quite lost because it only works on a closed and compact/bounded interval $(-infty, + infty)$ is not bounded.
real-analysis
asked Dec 8 '18 at 14:45
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,741423
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Use definition of the limits, fix explicitly some large value of $x$ such that maximum is not attained beyond it. So now you have a bounded interval to work with.
$endgroup$
– AdditIdent
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
2
$begingroup$
Extreme value theorem is the right way to go. The point of the exercise is that the limit to $pminfty$ conditions will make up for the fact that the interval is not bounded (please do note that $(-infty, infty) = mathbb{R}$ is closed, but it is not bounded/compact). Try using the limit conditions, with a particular choice of $varepsilon > 0$, to find a compact interval, the maximum over which must be the maximum over $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f : R rightarrow R$ be continuous, where $f(0) = 1$, and
$$lim_{x rightarrow - infty}
f(x) = lim_{x rightarrow + infty}
f(x) = 0$$
Show: there is an $x^* in mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x^*) = max{f(x)| x in mathbb{R}}$
Intuitively this makes sense, we have some function that is above the $x$-axis for $x=0$, then as we look at its tails, we notice that for very large and for extremely small values the tails of the function go to zero. There must be some point where it is maximal, and this point must lie between $-infty$ and $+ infty$. I have been working on intermediate value theorem questions so far and I think this question is again an IVT-like question. I feel a bit lost when it comes down to "showing there exists a maximum". The intermediate value theorem tells you there must exist some intermediate point, but it does not say anything about it being a maximal point. Am I moving in the right direction or should I consider a different theorem (like the extreme value theorem $dots$ but then the question is, what is the interval because $[-infty, + infty]$ is just ridiculous)?
Edit: on a second note, this is probably more of an extreme value question, but I still am quite lost because it only works on a closed and compact/bounded interval $(-infty, + infty)$ is not bounded.
real-analysis
asked Dec 8 '18 at 14:45
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,741423
$endgroup$
Let $f : R rightarrow R$ be continuous, where $f(0) = 1$, and
$$lim_{x rightarrow - infty}
f(x) = lim_{x rightarrow + infty}
f(x) = 0$$
Show: there is an $x^* in mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x^*) = max{f(x)| x in mathbb{R}}$
Intuitively this makes sense, we have some function that is above the $x$-axis for $x=0$, then as we look at its tails, we notice that for very large and for extremely small values the tails of the function go to zero. There must be some point where it is maximal, and this point must lie between $-infty$ and $+ infty$. I have been working on intermediate value theorem questions so far and I think this question is again an IVT-like question. I feel a bit lost when it comes down to "showing there exists a maximum". The intermediate value theorem tells you there must exist some intermediate point, but it does not say anything about it being a maximal point. Am I moving in the right direction or should I consider a different theorem (like the extreme value theorem $dots$ but then the question is, what is the interval because $[-infty, + infty]$ is just ridiculous)?
Edit: on a second note, this is probably more of an extreme value question, but I still am quite lost because it only works on a closed and compact/bounded interval $(-infty, + infty)$ is not bounded.
real-analysis
real-analysis
asked Dec 8 '18 at 14:45
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,741423
asked Dec 8 '18 at 14:45
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,741423
edited Dec 9 '18 at 10:42
Wesley Strik
asked Dec 8 '18 at 14:45
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,741423
asked Dec 8 '18 at 14:45
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,741423
asked Dec 8 '18 at 14:45
Wesley StrikWesley Strik
1,741423
1,741423
1
$begingroup$
Use definition of the limits, fix explicitly some large value of $x$ such that maximum is not attained beyond it. So now you have a bounded interval to work with.
$endgroup$
– AdditIdent
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
2
$begingroup$
Extreme value theorem is the right way to go. The point of the exercise is that the limit to $pminfty$ conditions will make up for the fact that the interval is not bounded (please do note that $(-infty, infty) = mathbb{R}$ is closed, but it is not bounded/compact). Try using the limit conditions, with a particular choice of $varepsilon > 0$, to find a compact interval, the maximum over which must be the maximum over $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Use definition of the limits, fix explicitly some large value of $x$ such that maximum is not attained beyond it. So now you have a bounded interval to work with.
$endgroup$
– AdditIdent
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
2
$begingroup$
Extreme value theorem is the right way to go. The point of the exercise is that the limit to $pminfty$ conditions will make up for the fact that the interval is not bounded (please do note that $(-infty, infty) = mathbb{R}$ is closed, but it is not bounded/compact). Try using the limit conditions, with a particular choice of $varepsilon > 0$, to find a compact interval, the maximum over which must be the maximum over $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
1
1
$begingroup$
Use definition of the limits, fix explicitly some large value of $x$ such that maximum is not attained beyond it. So now you have a bounded interval to work with.
$endgroup$
– AdditIdent
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
$begingroup$
Use definition of the limits, fix explicitly some large value of $x$ such that maximum is not attained beyond it. So now you have a bounded interval to work with.
$endgroup$
– AdditIdent
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
2
2
$begingroup$
Extreme value theorem is the right way to go. The point of the exercise is that the limit to $pminfty$ conditions will make up for the fact that the interval is not bounded (please do note that $(-infty, infty) = mathbb{R}$ is closed, but it is not bounded/compact). Try using the limit conditions, with a particular choice of $varepsilon > 0$, to find a compact interval, the maximum over which must be the maximum over $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
$begingroup$
Extreme value theorem is the right way to go. The point of the exercise is that the limit to $pminfty$ conditions will make up for the fact that the interval is not bounded (please do note that $(-infty, infty) = mathbb{R}$ is closed, but it is not bounded/compact). Try using the limit conditions, with a particular choice of $varepsilon > 0$, to find a compact interval, the maximum over which must be the maximum over $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Find some $n>0$ such that $f(x)<0.5$ for $|x|>n$.
Now focus on $f$ restricted to closed and bounded (hence compact) interval $[-n,n]$.
A continuous function on a compact set takes a maximum so some $x^*in[-n,n]$ will exists with $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xin[-n,n]}$.
Then $f(x^*)geq f(0)=1>frac12$ so that also $f(x^*)>f(x)$ for every $xnotin[-n,n]$.
That means that $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xinmathbb R}$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:56
drhabdrhab
100k544130
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By definition of the limits we can find $M$ such that $|x|>M implies f(x)<frac{1}{2}$. Now consider the restriction $f|_{[-M,M]}$. You can prove that the max of $f_{[-M,M]}$ is the max of (unrestricted) $f$.
Another way to think about it is that the one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is $S^1$, and the limit condition means you can extend $f$ continuously to $S^1$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:55
user25959user25959
1,573816
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pick $x_+$ so large that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x geq x_+$. And pick $x_-$ such that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x leq x_-$ (we can do this since $f(x) to 0$ for $|x| to infty$. We may pick $x_- < x_+$. Now $f$ has a maximum in the interval $[x_-, x_+]$ and because $f(0)=1 > frac{1}{10}$ we know that this is a global maximum.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:59
MartinMartin
1,7541412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The function might oscillate a bit before it goes to zero. So we define it to be $frac{1}{x+1}sin(x) + frac{1}{x+1}$ and near $x=-1$ we define it differently piecewise so the two parts connect and it is continuous.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:55
$begingroup$
Then we don't attain a maximum at $1$ but it still satisfies the conditions.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:57
1
$begingroup$
I'm not saying that 1 is a maximum. Just that a maximum is not located outside $[x_-, x_+]$.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:58
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%2f3031189%2fshow-that-a-continuous-function-with-infinite-tails-with-value-0-and-f0-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Find some $n>0$ such that $f(x)<0.5$ for $|x|>n$.
Now focus on $f$ restricted to closed and bounded (hence compact) interval $[-n,n]$.
A continuous function on a compact set takes a maximum so some $x^*in[-n,n]$ will exists with $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xin[-n,n]}$.
Then $f(x^*)geq f(0)=1>frac12$ so that also $f(x^*)>f(x)$ for every $xnotin[-n,n]$.
That means that $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xinmathbb R}$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:56
drhabdrhab
100k544130
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Find some $n>0$ such that $f(x)<0.5$ for $|x|>n$.
Now focus on $f$ restricted to closed and bounded (hence compact) interval $[-n,n]$.
A continuous function on a compact set takes a maximum so some $x^*in[-n,n]$ will exists with $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xin[-n,n]}$.
Then $f(x^*)geq f(0)=1>frac12$ so that also $f(x^*)>f(x)$ for every $xnotin[-n,n]$.
That means that $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xinmathbb R}$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:56
drhabdrhab
100k544130
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Find some $n>0$ such that $f(x)<0.5$ for $|x|>n$.
Now focus on $f$ restricted to closed and bounded (hence compact) interval $[-n,n]$.
A continuous function on a compact set takes a maximum so some $x^*in[-n,n]$ will exists with $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xin[-n,n]}$.
Then $f(x^*)geq f(0)=1>frac12$ so that also $f(x^*)>f(x)$ for every $xnotin[-n,n]$.
That means that $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xinmathbb R}$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:56
drhabdrhab
100k544130
$endgroup$
Find some $n>0$ such that $f(x)<0.5$ for $|x|>n$.
Now focus on $f$ restricted to closed and bounded (hence compact) interval $[-n,n]$.
A continuous function on a compact set takes a maximum so some $x^*in[-n,n]$ will exists with $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xin[-n,n]}$.
Then $f(x^*)geq f(0)=1>frac12$ so that also $f(x^*)>f(x)$ for every $xnotin[-n,n]$.
That means that $f(x^*)=max({f(x)mid xinmathbb R}$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:56
drhabdrhab
100k544130
edited Dec 8 '18 at 15:01
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:56
drhabdrhab
100k544130
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:56
drhabdrhab
100k544130
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:56
drhabdrhab
100k544130
100k544130
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By definition of the limits we can find $M$ such that $|x|>M implies f(x)<frac{1}{2}$. Now consider the restriction $f|_{[-M,M]}$. You can prove that the max of $f_{[-M,M]}$ is the max of (unrestricted) $f$.
Another way to think about it is that the one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is $S^1$, and the limit condition means you can extend $f$ continuously to $S^1$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:55
user25959user25959
1,573816
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By definition of the limits we can find $M$ such that $|x|>M implies f(x)<frac{1}{2}$. Now consider the restriction $f|_{[-M,M]}$. You can prove that the max of $f_{[-M,M]}$ is the max of (unrestricted) $f$.
Another way to think about it is that the one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is $S^1$, and the limit condition means you can extend $f$ continuously to $S^1$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:55
user25959user25959
1,573816
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
By definition of the limits we can find $M$ such that $|x|>M implies f(x)<frac{1}{2}$. Now consider the restriction $f|_{[-M,M]}$. You can prove that the max of $f_{[-M,M]}$ is the max of (unrestricted) $f$.
Another way to think about it is that the one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is $S^1$, and the limit condition means you can extend $f$ continuously to $S^1$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:55
user25959user25959
1,573816
$endgroup$
By definition of the limits we can find $M$ such that $|x|>M implies f(x)<frac{1}{2}$. Now consider the restriction $f|_{[-M,M]}$. You can prove that the max of $f_{[-M,M]}$ is the max of (unrestricted) $f$.
Another way to think about it is that the one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is $S^1$, and the limit condition means you can extend $f$ continuously to $S^1$.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:55
user25959user25959
1,573816
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:55
user25959user25959
1,573816
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:55
user25959user25959
1,573816
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:55
user25959user25959
1,573816
1,573816
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pick $x_+$ so large that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x geq x_+$. And pick $x_-$ such that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x leq x_-$ (we can do this since $f(x) to 0$ for $|x| to infty$. We may pick $x_- < x_+$. Now $f$ has a maximum in the interval $[x_-, x_+]$ and because $f(0)=1 > frac{1}{10}$ we know that this is a global maximum.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:59
MartinMartin
1,7541412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The function might oscillate a bit before it goes to zero. So we define it to be $frac{1}{x+1}sin(x) + frac{1}{x+1}$ and near $x=-1$ we define it differently piecewise so the two parts connect and it is continuous.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:55
$begingroup$
Then we don't attain a maximum at $1$ but it still satisfies the conditions.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:57
1
$begingroup$
I'm not saying that 1 is a maximum. Just that a maximum is not located outside $[x_-, x_+]$.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pick $x_+$ so large that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x geq x_+$. And pick $x_-$ such that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x leq x_-$ (we can do this since $f(x) to 0$ for $|x| to infty$. We may pick $x_- < x_+$. Now $f$ has a maximum in the interval $[x_-, x_+]$ and because $f(0)=1 > frac{1}{10}$ we know that this is a global maximum.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:59
MartinMartin
1,7541412
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The function might oscillate a bit before it goes to zero. So we define it to be $frac{1}{x+1}sin(x) + frac{1}{x+1}$ and near $x=-1$ we define it differently piecewise so the two parts connect and it is continuous.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:55
$begingroup$
Then we don't attain a maximum at $1$ but it still satisfies the conditions.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:57
1
$begingroup$
I'm not saying that 1 is a maximum. Just that a maximum is not located outside $[x_-, x_+]$.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pick $x_+$ so large that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x geq x_+$. And pick $x_-$ such that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x leq x_-$ (we can do this since $f(x) to 0$ for $|x| to infty$. We may pick $x_- < x_+$. Now $f$ has a maximum in the interval $[x_-, x_+]$ and because $f(0)=1 > frac{1}{10}$ we know that this is a global maximum.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:59
MartinMartin
1,7541412
$endgroup$
Pick $x_+$ so large that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x geq x_+$. And pick $x_-$ such that $|f(x)| < frac{1}{10}$ for $x leq x_-$ (we can do this since $f(x) to 0$ for $|x| to infty$. We may pick $x_- < x_+$. Now $f$ has a maximum in the interval $[x_-, x_+]$ and because $f(0)=1 > frac{1}{10}$ we know that this is a global maximum.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:59
MartinMartin
1,7541412
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:59
MartinMartin
1,7541412
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:59
MartinMartin
1,7541412
answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:59
MartinMartin
1,7541412
1,7541412
$begingroup$
The function might oscillate a bit before it goes to zero. So we define it to be $frac{1}{x+1}sin(x) + frac{1}{x+1}$ and near $x=-1$ we define it differently piecewise so the two parts connect and it is continuous.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:55
$begingroup$
Then we don't attain a maximum at $1$ but it still satisfies the conditions.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:57
1
$begingroup$
I'm not saying that 1 is a maximum. Just that a maximum is not located outside $[x_-, x_+]$.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:58
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The function might oscillate a bit before it goes to zero. So we define it to be $frac{1}{x+1}sin(x) + frac{1}{x+1}$ and near $x=-1$ we define it differently piecewise so the two parts connect and it is continuous.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:55
$begingroup$
Then we don't attain a maximum at $1$ but it still satisfies the conditions.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:57
1
$begingroup$
I'm not saying that 1 is a maximum. Just that a maximum is not located outside $[x_-, x_+]$.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:58
$begingroup$
The function might oscillate a bit before it goes to zero. So we define it to be $frac{1}{x+1}sin(x) + frac{1}{x+1}$ and near $x=-1$ we define it differently piecewise so the two parts connect and it is continuous.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:55
$begingroup$
The function might oscillate a bit before it goes to zero. So we define it to be $frac{1}{x+1}sin(x) + frac{1}{x+1}$ and near $x=-1$ we define it differently piecewise so the two parts connect and it is continuous.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:55
$begingroup$
Then we don't attain a maximum at $1$ but it still satisfies the conditions.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:57
$begingroup$
Then we don't attain a maximum at $1$ but it still satisfies the conditions.
$endgroup$
– Wesley Strik
Dec 9 '18 at 9:57
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm not saying that 1 is a maximum. Just that a maximum is not located outside $[x_-, x_+]$.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:58
$begingroup$
I'm not saying that 1 is a maximum. Just that a maximum is not located outside $[x_-, x_+]$.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:58
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.
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%2f3031189%2fshow-that-a-continuous-function-with-infinite-tails-with-value-0-and-f0-1%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
1
$begingroup$
Use definition of the limits, fix explicitly some large value of $x$ such that maximum is not attained beyond it. So now you have a bounded interval to work with.
$endgroup$
– AdditIdent
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53
2
$begingroup$
Extreme value theorem is the right way to go. The point of the exercise is that the limit to $pminfty$ conditions will make up for the fact that the interval is not bounded (please do note that $(-infty, infty) = mathbb{R}$ is closed, but it is not bounded/compact). Try using the limit conditions, with a particular choice of $varepsilon > 0$, to find a compact interval, the maximum over which must be the maximum over $mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Dec 8 '18 at 14:53