Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

How one demonstrates this claim: Let $F:\mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be a continuous function, if $X \subset \mathbb{R}^m$ is bounded then $F(X)$ is bounded.

share|cite|improve this question
this is indeed true see Andres answer – Jr. May 4 '12 at 1:56
up vote 12 down vote accepted

Jr., I am writing a full answer, since the answers so far seem misleading. If $X$ is bounded, so is its closure $\bar X$, which is then a compact set. By continuity of $F$, $F(\bar X)$ is compact and therefore bounded. Since $F(X)\subseteq F(\bar X)$, then $F(X)$ is bounded as well.

As pointed out by others, the result is false in general without the assumption that $F$ is defined on all of ${\mathbb R}^m$.

share|cite|improve this answer
thank you for the explanation :) – Jr. May 4 '12 at 1:59

Complete Revision of Earlier Answer: If $F$ is defined on all of $\Bbb R^m$, the statement is indeed true. If $X$ is bounded, then $\operatorname{cl}X$ is also bounded and therefore compact, and since $F$ is continuous, $F[\operatorname{cl}X]$ is a compact and hence bounded subset of $\Bbb R^n$. Since obviously $F[X]\subseteq F[\operatorname{cl}X]$, the result follows.

My original answer, based on a too-hasty reading of the question, noted that if $F$ is not required to be defined on all of $\Bbb R^m$, the result is false even for $m=n=1$, a simple counterexample being $X=(0,1)$ and $F(x)=1/x$.

share|cite|improve this answer
@Dylan: True, but I ought to fix it anyway! – Brian M. Scott May 4 '12 at 1:50
But now $F$ isn't continuous! I think there is a difficulty after all. – Dylan Moreland May 4 '12 at 1:54
@BrianM.Scott now this $F$ is not continuous... – Jr. May 4 '12 at 1:56
@Dylan: And in fact I was being an idiot, because if $F$ is required to be defined and continuous on all of $\Bbb R^m$, the result is actually true. – Brian M. Scott May 4 '12 at 2:05

Just in case you want a solution that doesn't use Heine-Borel etc, here's a somewhat more elementary proof. Suppose $F(X)$ is not bounded. Since $X$ is bounded, $X$ is contained in the union of some finite collection of $m$-cubes $\{x: a_i \le x_i \le a_i+1\ \text{for}\ i=1\ldots m\}$ (say with the $a_i$ integers). Therefore $F$ would have to be unbounded on at least one of these $m$-cubes, say $C_0$. Now $C_0$ is the union of $2^m$ $m$-cubes of side $1/2$, so $F$ is also unbounded on at least one of those, say $C_1$. Inductively, we get a nested sequence of $m$-cubes $C_k$ of side $2^{-k}$ with each $F(C_k)$ unbounded. Picking a point in each $C_k$ gives us a Cauchy sequence, which converges to some point $p$ of ${\mathbb R}^m$. Since $F$ is continuous at $p$, there is some $\delta > 0$ such that for every $x$ with $\text{dist}(x,p) < \delta$, $|F(x) - F(p)| < 1$. In particular, $F$ is bounded on the open ball $B$ of radius $\delta$ centred at $p$. But for $k$ sufficiently large, $C_k$ is contained in $B$, and we get a contradiction since $F(C_k)$ is supposed to be unbounded.

You can even get away without appealing to completeness of ${\mathbb R}^m$ if you accept the fact that real numbers can be specified by infinite strings of digits $a.d_1 d_2 d_3 \ldots$: instead of splitting $C_k$ into $2^m$ sub-cubes of side $2^{-k}$, split it into $10^m$ sub-cubes. Each $C_k$ is of the form $\{x: a_i \le x_i \le a_i + 10^{-k} \ \text{for}\ i=1\ldots k\}$ where $a_i$ is a number with $k$ digits after the decimal point (for simplicity I'll assume $a_i \ge 0$), and the $a_i$ for $C_{k+1}$ is obtained by appending another decimal digit 0 to 9 to the $a_i$ for $C_k$. The $i$'th coordinate of the point $p$ then is the real number that agrees with the $a_i$ of each $C_k$ up to the $k$'th digit after the decimal point.

share|cite|improve this answer

Probably you meant that the domain is closed and bounded, in which case by the Heine-Borel theorem it $X$ is compact. Any continuous function on a compact domain attains a maximum and minimum, and hence is bounded. You can prove this using the Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.