Question for proving something is bounded on an interval












1












$begingroup$



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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
















1












$begingroup$



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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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














1












1








1





$begingroup$



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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • $begingroup$
    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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

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 $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    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



    $$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$



    Proof without words



    Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
    Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.



    $$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      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.






      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%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









        1












        $begingroup$

        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 $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          1












          $begingroup$

          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 $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            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 $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            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 $[0,N]$,$N in mathbb{R}$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 16 '18 at 7:08









            D.B.D.B.

            1,26518




            1,26518























                0












                $begingroup$

                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



                $$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$



                Proof without words



                Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
                Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.



                $$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  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



                  $$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$



                  Proof without words



                  Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
                  Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.



                  $$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    0












                    0








                    0





                    $begingroup$

                    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



                    $$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$



                    Proof without words



                    Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
                    Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.



                    $$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    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



                    $$ ln(x)<frac{x}{2}quad text{for }xge1$$



                    Proof without words



                    Thus we have that $$x^2<e^xquadtext{for }x>0$$
                    Multiplying both sides of the inequality by the positive expression $e^{-x}$ yields.



                    $$x^2e^{-x}<1quad text{for }x>0$$







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Dec 16 '18 at 8:45









                    John Wayland BalesJohn Wayland Bales

                    14.6k21238




                    14.6k21238























                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            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.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Dec 16 '18 at 23:04









                            RileyRiley

                            1825




                            1825






























                                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%2f3042300%2fquestion-for-proving-something-is-bounded-on-an-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

                                Plaza Victoria

                                Image
                                Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l
                                Read more

                                In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                                Image
                                .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 OneNote has two useful keyboard shortcuts for bulleted and numbered lists, namely Ctrl + . and Ctrl + - . Is there something similar for PowerPoint where the work with lists is also very common? Haven't found anything here: Use keyboard shortcuts in PowerPoint. keyboard-shortcuts microsoft-powerpoint share | improve this question edited Aug 14 '14 at 14:49 Linger 2,826 10 28 40
                                Read more

                                How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...

                                Image
                                1 0 I want to put 3 images in LateX such as 2 figures are side by side horizotally and 3rd figure below these 2 side by side figures but in middle. I have following code: begin{figure}[H] centering begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.50linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8010_AP.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8010 AP} label{fig:Genelec 8010} end{minipage}% begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.69linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8020_CPM.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8020 CPM} label{fig:Genelec 8020} end{minipage}% end{figure} %%Here is my 3rd picture code begin{figure} centering includegraphics[width=5cm]{Text/Images/Genelec_8030_BPM.jpg} caption{Genelec 8030 BPM} label{fig:Genelec 8030} end{figure} I want to ask ho
                                Read more