Question for proving something is bounded on an interval
$begingroup$
Let $f(x)$ = $x^2e^{-x}$. Show that $f$ is bounded on $(0,infty)$
I know that $f$ is only bounded on the interval $I$ if and only if there exists some $M>0$ such that $|f(x)| < M$ for all $x in I$. But how would I go about translating this into a proof?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f(x)$ = $x^2e^{-x}$. Show that $f$ is bounded on $(0,infty)$
I know that $f$ is only bounded on the interval $I$ if and only if there exists some $M>0$ such that $|f(x)| < M$ for all $x in I$. But how would I go about translating this into a proof?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Are you allowed to use derivatives?
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Dec 16 '18 at 6:25
$begingroup$
No, that's kinda why I am struggling with this.
$endgroup$
– Pablo Tores
Dec 16 '18 at 6:27
$begingroup$
No need to use derivatives. Limits and Continuity.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Dec 16 '18 at 6:28
$begingroup$
Take a limit. Done.
$endgroup$
– Sean Roberson
Dec 16 '18 at 7:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f(x)$ = $x^2e^{-x}$. Show that $f$ is bounded on $(0,infty)$
I know that $f$ is only bounded on the interval $I$ if and only if there exists some $M>0$ such that $|f(x)| < M$ for all $x in I$. But how would I go about translating this into a proof?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
Let $f(x)$ = $x^2e^{-x}$. Show that $f$ is bounded on $(0,infty)$
I know that $f$ is only bounded on the interval $I$ if and only if there exists some $M>0$ such that $|f(x)| < M$ for all $x in I$. But how would I go about translating this into a proof?
real-analysis
real-analysis
edited Dec 16 '18 at 6:43
Eevee Trainer
7,67221338
7,67221338
asked Dec 16 '18 at 6:22
Pablo ToresPablo Tores
387
387
$begingroup$
Are you allowed to use derivatives?
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Dec 16 '18 at 6:25
$begingroup$
No, that's kinda why I am struggling with this.
$endgroup$
– Pablo Tores
Dec 16 '18 at 6:27
$begingroup$
No need to use derivatives. Limits and Continuity.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Dec 16 '18 at 6:28
$begingroup$
Take a limit. Done.
$endgroup$
– Sean Roberson
Dec 16 '18 at 7:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Are you allowed to use derivatives?
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Dec 16 '18 at 6:25
$begingroup$
No, that's kinda why I am struggling with this.
$endgroup$
– Pablo Tores
Dec 16 '18 at 6:27
$begingroup$
No need to use derivatives. Limits and Continuity.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Dec 16 '18 at 6:28
$begingroup$
Take a limit. Done.
$endgroup$
– Sean Roberson
Dec 16 '18 at 7:10
$begingroup$
Are you allowed to use derivatives?
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Dec 16 '18 at 6:25
$begingroup$
Are you allowed to use derivatives?
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Dec 16 '18 at 6:25
$begingroup$
No, that's kinda why I am struggling with this.
$endgroup$
– Pablo Tores
Dec 16 '18 at 6:27
$begingroup$
No, that's kinda why I am struggling with this.
$endgroup$
– Pablo Tores
Dec 16 '18 at 6:27
$begingroup$
No need to use derivatives. Limits and Continuity.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Dec 16 '18 at 6:28
$begingroup$
No need to use derivatives. Limits and Continuity.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Dec 16 '18 at 6:28
$begingroup$
Take a limit. Done.
$endgroup$
– Sean Roberson
Dec 16 '18 at 7:10
$begingroup$
Take a limit. Done.
$endgroup$
– Sean Roberson
Dec 16 '18 at 7:10
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You can use the Squeeze Theorem. One possibility is:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} x^2e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{x/2}e^{-x}.$$
Note that you can easily show that the upper and lower bound limits are both equal to zero.
You can argue that because your function is continuous, it is bounded on any closed interval $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Without using derivatives.
We know that the function is bounded below by $0$. We know that $ln(x)<dfrac{x}{2}$ on the interval $(0,1)$ since $ln(x)<0$ on that interval.
In the following animated GIF the curve is the graph of $y=dfrac{1}{x}$, the dark shaded region has area $ln(x)$ for $xge1$ and the orange rectangle upon which it is superimposed has area $dfrac{x}{2}$.
This constitutes a "proof without words" that
$$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$
Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.
$$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One approach is to note $$int_0^infty x^2e^{-x}dx = Gamma(3) < infty$$ where $$Gamma(z) = int_0^infty t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt$$ is the Gamma function. It's not true in general that integrable implies bounded (for instance, consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2}dx$), but in your case the function $x^2e^{-x}$ is continuous everywhere, and therefore bounded on all (compact) subsets $[0, R]$ for all $R > 0$, in particular in a neighbourhood of zero. The fact the integral converges gives you boundedness in a neighbourhood of infinity. Continuity gives you boundedness everywhere else.
$endgroup$
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%2f3042300%2fquestion-for-proving-something-is-bounded-on-an-interval%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
$begingroup$
You can use the Squeeze Theorem. One possibility is:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} x^2e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{x/2}e^{-x}.$$
Note that you can easily show that the upper and lower bound limits are both equal to zero.
You can argue that because your function is continuous, it is bounded on any closed interval $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can use the Squeeze Theorem. One possibility is:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} x^2e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{x/2}e^{-x}.$$
Note that you can easily show that the upper and lower bound limits are both equal to zero.
You can argue that because your function is continuous, it is bounded on any closed interval $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can use the Squeeze Theorem. One possibility is:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} x^2e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{x/2}e^{-x}.$$
Note that you can easily show that the upper and lower bound limits are both equal to zero.
You can argue that because your function is continuous, it is bounded on any closed interval $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.
$endgroup$
You can use the Squeeze Theorem. One possibility is:
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} x^2e^{-x} leq lim_{x rightarrow infty} e^{x/2}e^{-x}.$$
Note that you can easily show that the upper and lower bound limits are both equal to zero.
You can argue that because your function is continuous, it is bounded on any closed interval $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.
answered Dec 16 '18 at 7:08
D.B.D.B.
1,26518
1,26518
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Without using derivatives.
We know that the function is bounded below by $0$. We know that $ln(x)<dfrac{x}{2}$ on the interval $(0,1)$ since $ln(x)<0$ on that interval.
In the following animated GIF the curve is the graph of $y=dfrac{1}{x}$, the dark shaded region has area $ln(x)$ for $xge1$ and the orange rectangle upon which it is superimposed has area $dfrac{x}{2}$.
This constitutes a "proof without words" that
$$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$
Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.
$$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Without using derivatives.
We know that the function is bounded below by $0$. We know that $ln(x)<dfrac{x}{2}$ on the interval $(0,1)$ since $ln(x)<0$ on that interval.
In the following animated GIF the curve is the graph of $y=dfrac{1}{x}$, the dark shaded region has area $ln(x)$ for $xge1$ and the orange rectangle upon which it is superimposed has area $dfrac{x}{2}$.
This constitutes a "proof without words" that
$$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$
Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.
$$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Without using derivatives.
We know that the function is bounded below by $0$. We know that $ln(x)<dfrac{x}{2}$ on the interval $(0,1)$ since $ln(x)<0$ on that interval.
In the following animated GIF the curve is the graph of $y=dfrac{1}{x}$, the dark shaded region has area $ln(x)$ for $xge1$ and the orange rectangle upon which it is superimposed has area $dfrac{x}{2}$.
This constitutes a "proof without words" that
$$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$
Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.
$$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$
$endgroup$
Without using derivatives.
We know that the function is bounded below by $0$. We know that $ln(x)<dfrac{x}{2}$ on the interval $(0,1)$ since $ln(x)<0$ on that interval.
In the following animated GIF the curve is the graph of $y=dfrac{1}{x}$, the dark shaded region has area $ln(x)$ for $xge1$ and the orange rectangle upon which it is superimposed has area $dfrac{x}{2}$.
This constitutes a "proof without words" that
$$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$
Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.
$$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$
answered Dec 16 '18 at 8:45
John Wayland BalesJohn Wayland Bales
14.6k21238
14.6k21238
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One approach is to note $$int_0^infty x^2e^{-x}dx = Gamma(3) < infty$$ where $$Gamma(z) = int_0^infty t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt$$ is the Gamma function. It's not true in general that integrable implies bounded (for instance, consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2}dx$), but in your case the function $x^2e^{-x}$ is continuous everywhere, and therefore bounded on all (compact) subsets $[0, R]$ for all $R > 0$, in particular in a neighbourhood of zero. The fact the integral converges gives you boundedness in a neighbourhood of infinity. Continuity gives you boundedness everywhere else.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One approach is to note $$int_0^infty x^2e^{-x}dx = Gamma(3) < infty$$ where $$Gamma(z) = int_0^infty t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt$$ is the Gamma function. It's not true in general that integrable implies bounded (for instance, consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2}dx$), but in your case the function $x^2e^{-x}$ is continuous everywhere, and therefore bounded on all (compact) subsets $[0, R]$ for all $R > 0$, in particular in a neighbourhood of zero. The fact the integral converges gives you boundedness in a neighbourhood of infinity. Continuity gives you boundedness everywhere else.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One approach is to note $$int_0^infty x^2e^{-x}dx = Gamma(3) < infty$$ where $$Gamma(z) = int_0^infty t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt$$ is the Gamma function. It's not true in general that integrable implies bounded (for instance, consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2}dx$), but in your case the function $x^2e^{-x}$ is continuous everywhere, and therefore bounded on all (compact) subsets $[0, R]$ for all $R > 0$, in particular in a neighbourhood of zero. The fact the integral converges gives you boundedness in a neighbourhood of infinity. Continuity gives you boundedness everywhere else.
$endgroup$
One approach is to note $$int_0^infty x^2e^{-x}dx = Gamma(3) < infty$$ where $$Gamma(z) = int_0^infty t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt$$ is the Gamma function. It's not true in general that integrable implies bounded (for instance, consider $int_0^1 x^{-1/2}dx$), but in your case the function $x^2e^{-x}$ is continuous everywhere, and therefore bounded on all (compact) subsets $[0, R]$ for all $R > 0$, in particular in a neighbourhood of zero. The fact the integral converges gives you boundedness in a neighbourhood of infinity. Continuity gives you boundedness everywhere else.
answered Dec 16 '18 at 23:04
RileyRiley
1825
1825
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.
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%2f3042300%2fquestion-for-proving-something-is-bounded-on-an-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
$begingroup$
Are you allowed to use derivatives?
$endgroup$
– D.B.
Dec 16 '18 at 6:25
$begingroup$
No, that's kinda why I am struggling with this.
$endgroup$
– Pablo Tores
Dec 16 '18 at 6:27
$begingroup$
No need to use derivatives. Limits and Continuity.
$endgroup$
– xbh
Dec 16 '18 at 6:28
$begingroup$
Take a limit. Done.
$endgroup$
– Sean Roberson
Dec 16 '18 at 7:10