User:IssaRice/Extreme value theorem: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
<math>\sup V_{c-\delta/2} < M</math> so let <math>M' = (M+\sup V_{c-\delta/2})/2</math>. Then <math>\sup V_{c-\delta/2} < M' < M</math> and if <math>v \in V_{c-\delta/2}</math> we have <math>v \leq \sup V_{c-\delta/2} < M'</math>. | <math>\sup V_{c-\delta/2} < M</math> so let <math>M' = (M+\sup V_{c-\delta/2})/2</math>. Then <math>\sup V_{c-\delta/2} < M' < M</math> and if <math>v \in V_{c-\delta/2}</math> we have <math>v \leq \sup V_{c-\delta/2} < M'</math>. | ||
Therefore, <math>c=b</math>, which implies that <math>M = \sup V_b = \sup V_c < M</math>, a contradiction. | Therefore, <math>c=b</math>, which implies that <math>M = \sup V_b = \sup V_c < M</math>, a contradiction. So the assumption that <math>f(c) < M</math> was false, and we conclude <math>f(c) = M</math>. | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references group="note" /> | <references group="note" /> | ||
Revision as of 22:27, 1 June 2019
Working through the proof in Pugh's book by filling in the parts he doesn't talk about.
For , define to be the image of up to and including .
Let and .
Now suppose . Then . We already know that is bounded above, for instance by the number . We can thus take the least upper bound of , say . We already know , so if we can just eliminate the possibility that , we will be done.
So suppose . We can choose with .[note 1] By continuity at , there exists a such that implies . This means . If then there exists some such that . This means so . Otherwise if then so . So now what can we say about ? We want to say . We can do this by showing that there exists a number such that for all . That way, . But works.
so let . Then and if we have .
Therefore, , which implies that , a contradiction. So the assumption that was false, and we conclude .
Notes
- ↑ it is important here that does not equal ; choosing this would be too weak and we would not be able to conclude , rather only that .