User:IssaRice/Extreme value theorem: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
So suppose <math>f(c) < M</math>. We want to find <math>M' < M</math> such that <math>f(t) < M'</math> for all <math>t \in [a,c]</math>. That would mean that <math>\sup V_c \leq M' < M</math>. | So suppose <math>f(c) < M</math>. We want to find <math>M' < M</math> such that <math>f(t) < M'</math> for all <math>t \in [a,c]</math>. That would mean that <math>\sup V_c \leq M' < M</math>. | ||
* Consider <math>t = c - \delta/2</math>. Then since <math>t < c</math>, there exists <math>x \in X</math> such that <math>t < x</math>. So <math>\sup V_t \leq \sup V_c < M</math> so <math>f(t) \leq \sup V_t < M</math>. | * Consider <math>t = c - \delta/2</math>. Then since <math>t < c</math>, there exists <math>x \in X</math> such that <math>t < x</math>. So <math>\sup V_t \leq \sup V_c < M</math> so <math>f(t) \leq \sup V_t < M</math>. This also means that for all <math>x \in [a,c-\delta/2]</math> we have <math>f(x) \leq \sup V_t < M</math>. | ||
* | * But now if <math>c-\delta/2 \leq t \leq c</math>, then by continuity at <math>c</math>, We can choose <math>\epsilon > 0</math> with <math>\epsilon < M - f(c)</math>.<ref group="note">it is important here that <math>\epsilon</math> does not equal <math>M - f(c)</math>; choosing this <math>\epsilon</math> would be too weak and we would not be able to conclude <math>\sup V_c < M</math>, rather only that <math>\sup V_c \leq M</math>.</ref> By continuity at <math>c</math>, there exists a <math>\delta > 0</math> such that <math>|t-c|<\delta</math> implies <math>|f(t)-f(c)|<\epsilon</math>. This means <math>f(t) < f(c) + \epsilon < M</math>. | ||
Now we can choose <math>M' = \max\{\sup V_{c-\delta/2}, f(c) + \epsilon\}</math>. | |||
If <math>t \leq c-\delta/2</math> then there exists some <math>x \in X</math> such that <math>t < x</math>. This means <math>\sup V_t \leq \sup V_x < M</math> so <math>t \in X</math>. Otherwise if <math>c-\delta/2 \leq t \leq c</math> then <math>|t-c|<\delta</math> so <math>f(t) < f(c) + \epsilon < M</math>. So now what can we say about <math>\sup V_c</math>? We want to say <math>\sup V_c < M</math>. We can do this by showing that there exists a number <math>M' < M</math> such that <math>f(t) < M'</math> for all <math>t \in [a,c]</math>. That way, <math>\sup V_c \leq M' < M</math>. But <math>M' = \sup V_c</math> works. | |||
<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>. | ||
Revision as of 22:56, 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 want to find such that for all . That would mean that .
- Consider . Then since , there exists such that . So so . This also means that for all we have .
- But now if , then by continuity at , We can choose with .[note 1] By continuity at , there exists a such that implies . This means .
Now we can choose .
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 .