Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If $f$ is continuous on $I$, then: whenever $a, b \in I$, $a < b$ and $y$ lies between $f(a)$ and $f(b)$, then there exists at least one $x \in (a,b)$ such that $f(x) = y$.

Proof: Suppose $f(b) < y < f(a)$. Let $S := \{x \in [a,b] : y < f(x)\}$. Since obviously $a \in S$, then $S$ is not empty, therefore $\inf S = x_0 \in [a,b]$. Now, for every positive integer $n$, $x_0 + \frac{1}{n}$ is not a lower bound for $S$. hence, there exists $(s_n) \subseteq S$ such that $$x_0 \leq s_n < x_0 + \frac{1}{n}$$

By the squeeze rule, obviously $\lim s_n = x_0$. By continuity of $f$, $\lim f(s_n) = f(x_0)$. Hence since $f(s_n) > y$, then

\begin{align} f(x_0) \geq y. \tag{I} \end{align}

Now, let $t_n = \max\{b, x_0 - \frac{1}{n}\}$. Then, we have that $x_0 - \frac{1}{n} \leq t_n \leq x_0$. So, by squeeze rule, $\lim t_n = x_0$. But, we also have $t_n \notin S$, therefore, $f(t_n) \leq y$ for all $n$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $\lim f(t_n)$ =

\begin{align} f(x_0) \leq y. \tag{II} \end{align}

(I) and (II) gives desired result.

Is this proof correct? Is there a better way to solve this problem? Thanks.

share|improve this question
Yes, it looks ok. This is the standard proof of the Intermediate Value Theorem. Another popular proof is by the method of bisection. –  Siminore Oct 22 '12 at 9:36
What if a=b? Should probably make an assertion about that or else a=x=b. –  Emmad Kareem Oct 22 '12 at 9:59
The quoted problem has $a<b$. –  Kevin Carlson Oct 22 '12 at 10:21
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

It’s not quite right: as you’ve defined $S$, $\inf S=a$. You want to let $x_0=\sup S$ and choose a sequence $\langle s_n:n\in\Bbb Z^+\rangle$ in $S$ such that $$x_0-\frac1n<s_n\le x_0$$ for each $n\in\Bbb Z^+$. You still get $f(x_0)\ge y$, and then you want to let $t_n=\min\left\{b,x_0+\frac1n\right\}$ to get $f(x_0)\le y$.

In other words, you somehow got the picture turned around at the beginning, but the logic is otherwise correct. You could also fix it by assuming that $f(a)<y<f(b)$, defining $S$ exactly as you did, and noting that $b\in S$, so $S\ne\varnothing$. The rest is then correct as it stands.

Added: I should have said that apart from that one glitch, it’s very nicely written.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.