Suppose f: [1,2] > R is continuous function such that for every natural number n, there exists x on [1,2] with f(x)<1/n. Show that there exists a number c on [1,2] such that f(c) = 0
I did the following:
f(x)<1/n implies 1/n < f(x) <1/n. By sandwich theorem as n tends to infinity, f(x) converges to 0.
Then I thought of applying the Intermediate Value Theorem to prove that f(c) = 0 exists. But for that I need to have f(1)<=f(0)<=f(2) and I am not sure if convergence of f(x) to 0 proves that f(0) lies on that interval (since it tends to 0 but how do we know that it is ever equal to 0?)
Thank you in advance!

spacewalker
 Follow
 0 followers
 1 badge
 Send a private message to spacewalker
 Thread Starter
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 1
 09012017 16:52

DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 2
 09012017 17:28
(Original post by spacewalker)
Suppose f: [1,2] > R is continuous function such that for every natural number n, there exists x on [1,2] with f(x)<1/n. Show that there exists a number c on [1,2] such that f(c) = 0
I did the following:
f(x)<1/n implies 1/n < f(x) <1/n. By sandwich theorem as n tends to infinity, f(x) converges to 0.
You could say something like:
For all n, we can find x_n with f(x_n) < 1/n
and then make the deduction that f(x_n) > 0.
It's not immediate how this helps you; in particular if x_n keeps changing, you've got no "obvious" value to try for 'c'.
That said, I think this is the right place to start, but you've got some work to do to finish from here.
FWIW, unless I'm missing something I don't see the IVT being useful to you here  the tricky case is when f(x) never changes sign.
Edit: this is kind of a spoiler, but have you encountered the BolzanoWeierstrauss theorem?
2nd edit: You can actually do this just using theorems you should know with very little actual work. I'm not sure it's what would be expected, but it can be done.Last edited by DFranklin; 09012017 at 20:17. 
HapaxOromenon3
 Follow
 2 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to HapaxOromenon3
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 3
 09012017 19:14
(Original post by spacewalker)
Suppose f: [1,2] > R is continuous function such that for every natural number n, there exists x on [1,2] with f(x)<1/n. Show that there exists a number c on [1,2] such that f(c) = 0
I did the following:
f(x)<1/n implies 1/n < f(x) <1/n. By sandwich theorem as n tends to infinity, f(x) converges to 0.
Then I thought of applying the Intermediate Value Theorem to prove that f(c) = 0 exists. But for that I need to have f(1)<=f(0)<=f(2) and I am not sure if convergence of f(x) to 0 proves that f(0) lies on that interval (since it tends to 0 but how do we know that it is ever equal to 0?)
Thank you in advance! 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 4
 09012017 19:24
(Original post by HapaxOromenon3)
The given data implies that f(x) is infinitesimal for some x (due to the 1/n condition), and the only real infinitesimal is 0, so as the range is the reals rather than the hyperreals, f(x) is 0 for some x. Thus the required result is established. For more on infinitesimals and hyperreals, see https://www.math.washington.edu/~mor...ers/gianni.pdf 
HapaxOromenon3
 Follow
 2 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to HapaxOromenon3
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 5
 09012017 20:03
(Original post by DFranklin)
Aside from the fact that hyperreals are definitely not the intended approach, I'm not entirely convinced you have justified that "f(x) is infinitesimal for some x". 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 6
 09012017 20:05
(Original post by HapaxOromenon3)
This follows from letting n be infinite, so that 1/n is infinitesimal, and so f(x)<1/n implies f(x) is infinitesimal. 
HapaxOromenon3
 Follow
 2 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to HapaxOromenon3
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 7
 10012017 09:14
(Original post by DFranklin)
As I said, x depends on n. Because of this, I don't see how your conclusion follows. It absolutely requires more justification than you have provided.
so if we let n be infinite (which is part of the standard extension of the natural numbers to the hyperreals), there exists x with 1<=x<=2 such that f(x)<1/infinity, i.e. f(x) is infinitesimal. 
 Follow
 8
 10012017 10:02
(Original post by HapaxOromenon3)
"for every natural number n, there exists x on [1,2] with f(x)<1/n"
so if we let n be infinite (which is part of the standard extension of the natural numbers to the hyperreals), there exists x with 1<=x<=2 such that f(x)<1/infinity, i.e. f(x) is infinitesimal.
In any case, this clearly isn't the intended approach for the given question and is likely to just to confuse the OP. The question is a lot more about the BolzanoWeierstrass Theorem and how continuous functions treat limits. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 9
 10012017 10:20
(Original post by RichE)
The given hypotheses apply to the usual natural numbers, which don't include infinity, so I don't see how "letting n be infinity" is an option. Even if it can be done this way, where have you used continuity? This question is not true for discontinuous functions.
The problem I have with nonstandard analysis is that it seems very easy to convince yourself that "I don't need to worry about XXX, because ... infinitesimal" when this isn't actually the case. Pretty sure that's going on here.In any case, this clearly isn't the intended approach for the given question and is likely to just to confuse the OP. The question is a lot more about the BolzanoWeierstrass Theorem and how continuous functions treat limits.Spoiler:Showf attains its bounds, but the bound must be 0 from the condition given.
What do you think? 
 Follow
 10
 10012017 10:24

DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 11
 10012017 10:27
(Original post by RichE)
Quite possibly  I guess it depends whether that theorem has appeared in the course yet. 
spacewalker
 Follow
 0 followers
 1 badge
 Send a private message to spacewalker
 Thread Starter
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 12
 10012017 12:36
(Original post by DFranklin)
This isn't true. When it says that "for every natural number n we can find x with f(x)<1/n", it means (colloquially) "give me an n, and I'll give you an x". In other words, the value of x will depend on n. Your argument relies on x not changing with n.
You could say something like:
For all n, we can find x_n with f(x_n) < 1/n
and then make the deduction that f(x_n) > 0.
It's not immediate how this helps you; in particular if x_n keeps changing, you've got no "obvious" value to try for 'c'.
That said, I think this is the right place to start, but you've got some work to do to finish from here.
FWIW, unless I'm missing something I don't see the IVT being useful to you here  the tricky case is when f(x) never changes sign.
Edit: this is kind of a spoiler, but have you encountered the BolzanoWeierstrauss theorem?
2nd edit: You can actually do this just using theorems you should know with very little actual work. I'm not sure it's what would be expected, but it can be done.
For each x on [1,2] we can find n such that f(x)<1/n.
So we can create a sequence x_n (which is bounded) so that f(x_n)<1/n. By BolzanoWeierstrass theorem any bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence. So, we have x_t ( which a subsequence of x_n) converging to limit L for example with f(x_t)<1/t. Since f is continuous we have lim (x_t) = L (L is on (1,2)) implies lim f(x_t) = f(L) and lim (+/)1/t = 0. Thus, by sandwich theorem 0< f(L)<0. Therefore, f(L) = 0 and so such c exists and it is equal to L
Thanks 
 Follow
 13
 10012017 12:40
(Original post by spacewalker)
For each x on [1,2] we can find n such that f(x)<1/n.
Also you want weak inequalities surrouding f(L).Last edited by RichE; 10012017 at 12:42. 
spacewalker
 Follow
 0 followers
 1 badge
 Send a private message to spacewalker
 Thread Starter
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 14
 10012017 12:49
(Original post by RichE)
I don't think this is quite what you mean.
Also you want weak inequalities surrouding f(L).
Thank you in advance! 
 Follow
 15
 10012017 13:28
(Original post by spacewalker)
Thank you for your reply! Could you please explain on how I can get a weak inequality? It is just the question states f(x)<1/n and so the inequality is given to be strict.
Thank you in advance!
Secondly limits only respect weak inequalities. Note
1/n > 0 does not imply 0 = lim (1/n) > 0
but does imply
and such a result holds generally for weak inequalities 
spacewalker
 Follow
 0 followers
 1 badge
 Send a private message to spacewalker
 Thread Starter
Offline1ReputationRep: Follow
 16
 10012017 14:05
(Original post by RichE)
Firstly you don't want to conclude 0<f(L)<0 as *no* number satisfies this.
Secondly limits only respect weak inequalities. Note
1/n > 0 does not imply 0 = lim (1/n) > 0
but does imply
and such a result holds generally for weak inequalities
f(x_t)<= 1/t but I am not sure why we can say that since we are given f(x_n)<1/n 
HapaxOromenon3
 Follow
 2 followers
 3 badges
 Send a private message to HapaxOromenon3
Offline3ReputationRep: Follow
 17
 10012017 14:08
(Original post by DFranklin)
I'm thinking continuity comes in via the "nonstandard analysis treatment of infinitesimals". However, there's something *else* he hasn't used that is also pretty crucial (the result is false without it). [Not trying to be coy to you, but I don't want to spell it out for Hapax].
The problem I have with nonstandard analysis is that it seems very easy to convince yourself that "I don't need to worry about XXX, because ... infinitesimal" when this isn't actually the case. Pretty sure that's going on here. 
 Follow
 18
 10012017 14:09
(Original post by spacewalker)
I agree. However, as far as I understand the only way to get this is to say that
f(x_t)<= 1/t but I am not sure why we can say that since we are given f(x_n)<1/n 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 19
 10012017 14:25
(Original post by HapaxOromenon3)
The idea that I was trying to convey is that as n gets larger and larger, f(x) is forced into smaller and smaller intervals of the form [k, k], and since f(x) is continuous, these intervals must eventually "converge" (I don't know if that's precisely the right word) to the single point 0.
I don't think it is helpful for you to continue derailing this thread. If you want to discuss nonstandard analysis, start your own thread (but be warned that I doubt many will care to reply to it). 
DFranklin
 Follow
 57 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 20
 10012017 14:31
(Original post by spacewalker)
I agree. However, as far as I understand the only way to get this is to say that
f(x_t)<= 1/t but I am not sure why we can say that since we are given f(x_n)<1/n
to .
That is, limits don't respect strong inequalities, but applying a limit to a strong inequality gives a valid weak inequality.
[This is really no different from what RichE is saying, just a slightly different way of thinking about it].
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
 The Proof is Trivial!
 Official TSR Mathematical Society
 MAT Prep Thread 2017 [2nd November 2017]
 The hard integral thread.
 Year 12 Maths Help Thread
 Mega A Level Maths Thread MKIII.
 Oxford MAT Nov 4th 2015
 Edexcel AS Mathematics C1/C2  18th/25th May 2016  Official ...
 STEP / AEA Revision Thread (ie useful tips and tricks)
 UKMT Maths Competitions Thread
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
Updated: January 10, 2017
Share this discussion:
Tweet