Showing that a function has a minimum on a non compact interval












0












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:32










  • $begingroup$
    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 $f(x)>M$.”
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:34










  • $begingroup$
    (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.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – hkj447
    Dec 12 '18 at 7:02
















0












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:32










  • $begingroup$
    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 $f(x)>M$.”
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:34










  • $begingroup$
    (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.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – hkj447
    Dec 12 '18 at 7:02














0












0








0





$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:28









hkj447hkj447

334




334












  • $begingroup$
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:32










  • $begingroup$
    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 $f(x)>M$.”
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:34










  • $begingroup$
    (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.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – hkj447
    Dec 12 '18 at 7:02


















  • $begingroup$
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:32










  • $begingroup$
    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 $f(x)>M$.”
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:34










  • $begingroup$
    (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.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    Dec 12 '18 at 6:36










  • $begingroup$
    Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – hkj447
    Dec 12 '18 at 7:02
















$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:32




$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:32












$begingroup$
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 $f(x)>M$.”
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:34




$begingroup$
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 $f(x)>M$.”
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:34












$begingroup$
(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.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:36




$begingroup$
(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.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 12 '18 at 6:36












$begingroup$
Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
$endgroup$
– hkj447
Dec 12 '18 at 7:02




$begingroup$
Ah ok that makes sense, thank you.
$endgroup$
– hkj447
Dec 12 '18 at 7:02










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

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 $(-1,1)$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    1












    $begingroup$

    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 $(-1,1)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      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 $(-1,1)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        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 $(-1,1)$.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        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 $(-1,1)$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 12 '18 at 6:36









        Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

        57.9k42160




        57.9k42160






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Image
            Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
            Read more

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
            Read more

            Mont Emei

            Image
            Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
            Read more