1
$\begingroup$

I have proven the Boundedness Theorem for continuous functions and would now like to prove the Extreme Value Theorem; that is, show that the upper bound is indeed attained for continuous functions. I would like to use the most direct approach as possible, straight from the properties of real continuous functions (the approach in Spivak's Calculus seems too clever for me). I also want to avoid using sequences.

Assuming that $f$ is continuous and bounded on $[a,b]$, here's what I've done so far:

Let $g(x) = \sup \{f(t), t \in [a,x] \}$ and $A = \{x : x \in [a,b] \text{ and } g(x)=g(b)\}$. Let $\alpha = \inf A$, then $\alpha \in [a,b]$, so $f(\alpha)$ is defined. Also $f(\alpha) \leq g(b)$ since $g(b) = \sup \{f(t) : t \in [a,b]\}$. So we only need to show that $f(\alpha) < g(b)$ entails a contradiction.

Assume $f(\alpha) < g(b)$, then $g(b)-f(\alpha) > 0$. Then by continuity of $f$ at $\alpha$, there is a $\delta$, such that $f(x)-f(\alpha) < g(b) - f(\alpha)$ and so $f(x) < g(b)$ for all $x \in [\alpha-\delta, \alpha + \delta]$. But since $\alpha$ is a greatest upper bound, there is an $x' \in [\alpha, \alpha + \delta]$ such that $x' \in A$ and so $g(x') = g(b)$.

Can this proof be finished or am I just headed for nowhere?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your proof is correct and you have already finished the proof. There are minor typos. You need to use open intervals in last paragraph like $(\alpha-\delta, \alpha + \delta)$ and $(\alpha, \alpha + \delta)$. Rest is OK. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jun 30 '15 at 5:28
  • $\begingroup$ You may also use the nested interval principle. Let $M$ be supremum of $f$ on $[a, b]$. Then $M$ must be the sup on at least one of $[a, c]$ and $[c, b]$ where $c = (a + b)/2$. Call that interval as $[a_{1}, b_{1}]$. Repeat the same and you get a nested sequence of intervals $[a_{n}, b_{n}]$ such that there is a unique $\alpha$ which lies in all these nested intervals. Prove $f(\alpha) = M$. For a survey of various proofs of properties of continuous functions see my posts starting from paramanands.blogspot.com/2011/06/… $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jun 30 '15 at 5:35
  • $\begingroup$ But I still need to show that the fact that there's an $x' \in [\alpha, \alpha+\delta]$ such that $g(x')=g(b)$ contradicts the fact that $f(x)<g(b)$ for all $x \in [\alpha-\delta, \alpha+\delta]$. It doesn't seem quite trivial to me. $\endgroup$ – Simeon Jun 30 '15 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thats really trivial. Since $\alpha - \delta < \alpha$ it is clear that $\alpha - \delta \notin A$. In fact all the numbers of $[a, \alpha - \delta]$ are not in $A$. and hence $g(x) < g(b)$ for all $x \in [a, \alpha - \delta]$ and since $f(x) < g(b)$ in $[\alpha - \delta, \alpha + \delta]$ it follows that $g(x) < g(b)$ for all $x \in [a, \alpha + \delta]$. Now you get the contradiction. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jun 30 '15 at 9:18
  • $\begingroup$ I see, but how does it follow that if $f(x) < g(b)$ in $[a-\delta, a+\delta]$, then $g(x) < g(b)$ in $[a-\delta, a+\delta]$? $g$ gives the upper bound of $f$, not the maximum value. $\endgroup$ – Simeon Jun 30 '15 at 9:28
1
$\begingroup$

Let's use the notation provided by OP. Thus we have $$g(x) = \sup\,\{f(t)\mid t \in [a, x]\},\,\, A = \inf\,\{x\mid x \in [a, b], g(x) = g(b)\},\,\, \alpha = \inf\, A$$ Clearly we can see that $M = g(b)$ is the supremum of $f$ on whole interval $[a, b]$ and $\alpha \in [a, b]$. And our objective is to find a point $x \in [a, b]$ such that $f(x) = M$.

If $f(a) = M$ then we are done. Hence let's assume that $f(a) < M$. This ensures that there is a range of values of $x$ near $a$ where $f(x) < M$ and hence we have an $h > 0$ such that $f(x) < (M + f(a))/2$ for all $x \in [a, a + h]$ (this is derived by using continuity of $f$ at $a$ using the value of $\epsilon = (M - f(a))/2$). This implies that $g(x) < M$ for all $x \in [a, a + h]$. So $A$ does not contain any point of $[a, a + h]$ and hence $\alpha > a$. Same way we can assume that $f(b) \neq M$ and deduce that $\alpha < b$. Thus $\alpha \in (a, b)$.

We now claim that $f(\alpha) = M = g(b)$. Suppose that it is not the case then $f(\alpha) < M$ and let's put $\epsilon = (M - f(\alpha))/2$. Then we have a $\delta > 0$ such that $(\alpha - \delta, \alpha + \delta) \subseteq [a, b]$ and $$f(\alpha) - \epsilon < f(x) < f(\alpha) + \epsilon$$ for all $x \in (\alpha - \delta, \alpha + \delta)$. It follows that $$K = \sup\,\{f(x) \mid x \in (\alpha - \delta, \alpha + \delta)\}\leq f(\alpha) + \epsilon = \frac{M + f(\alpha)}{2} < M\tag{1}$$ Consider the number $\beta = \alpha -(\delta/2)$. Clearly $\alpha - \delta < \beta < \alpha$ and hence $\beta \notin A$. This means that $g(\beta) < g(b) = M$. Thus supremum of $f$ on interval $[a, \beta]$ is less than $M$ and from equation supremum of $f$ on $(\alpha - \delta, \alpha + \delta)$ is also less than $M$. Since these two intervals have an interior point in common it follows that supremum of $f$ on their union $[a, \alpha + \delta)$ is also less than $M$.

Now by definition of $\alpha = \inf\, A$ it follows that there is a $\gamma \in A$ such that $\alpha < \gamma < \alpha + \delta$ and hence supremum of $f$ on $[a, \gamma]$ is $g(b) = M$. This is contrary to the fact established in last paragraph (because $\gamma$ is interior point of $[a, a + \delta)$).

The contradiction shows that $f(\alpha) = M = g(b)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Aha! I just needed to use $\frac{M-f(a)}{2}$ as my epsilon. $\endgroup$ – Simeon Jun 30 '15 at 11:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Simeon: Now you understand the trick... Actually we need to limit the values of $f$ to something less than a number $K$ and this $K$ needs to be any number satisfying $f(a) < K < M$. This can be done by choosing $0 < \epsilon < M - f(a)$. We have chosen a specific $\epsilon$ which ensures that $K$ lies halfway between $M$ and $f(a)$. But you can choose any value of $\epsilon$ with $0 < \epsilon < M - f(a)$. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Jun 30 '15 at 11:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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