In general, I understand the proof, however, I have a difficulty understanding the proof given by my professor. It goes like the following which is very similar to most proofs given in many textbooks.

Suppose $f$ is continuous on the interval $[a,b]$ and $f(a)<S<f(b)$, then $\exists c$ s.t. $f(c)=S$


Define $V= \{x \in[a,b];f(x)\leq S \}$

Then $V$ is nonempty and has a least upper bound $c$.

Now, we claim that $f(c)=S$

First, suppose, $f(c)>S$ then by continuity $\exists \delta$ s.t. $f(x)$ is on the interval $(c-\delta,c]$

Then $c-\delta$ is an upper bound of $V$

Now suppose $S>f(c)$, then similarly, $\exists \delta$ s.t.$\forall x\in[c,c+\delta)$, we have $f(x)<S$

This implies that $c$ is not an upper bound of $V$

Therefore $f(c)=S$

Now what I'm especially confused is how he deduced $c-\delta$ as being an upper bound of $V$ by showing that $\exists \delta$ s.t. $f(x)$ is on the interval $(c-\delta,c]$

What is the justification behind this step?


If $f(c)>S$, there is a $\delta>0$ such that $f(x)>S$ for each $x\in(c-\delta,c]$. So, the set $V$ contains no element of $(c-\delta,c]$, which is impossible, since $c=\sup V$, by definition.


We have $V\subset [a,c].$

Suppose $f(c)>S.$ Then $c>a$. Let $e=f(c)-S.$ Then for some $d\in (0,c-a)$ we have $$x\in (-d+c,c]\implies |f(x)-f(c)|<e/2\implies f(x)>S.$$ That is, $(-d+c,c]$ is disjoint from $V,$ and since $V\subset [a,c],$ this implies $V\subset [a,-d+c].$ But then $\sup V\leq -d+c<c=\sup V,$ which is absurd.

Suppose $f(c)<S.$ Then $c<b$. Let $e'=S-f(c).$ So for some $d'\in (0,b-c)$ we have $$x\in [c,d'+c)\implies |f(x)-f(c)|<e'/2\implies f(x)<S$$ implying $[c, c+d')\subset V$. But then $\sup V\geq c+d'>c=\sup V.$ (Or at this point we could also say that $[c,c+d')\subset V$ contradicts $V\subset [a,c]).$


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.