The Extreme Value Theorem: a bootstrap approach

-

At the very end of last week I was teaching the first-year mathematics students about the Extreme Value Theorem.

Here is a reminder of what the theorem says.

Theorem (Extreme Value Theorem)
Let $a,b$ be real numbers with $a<b$, and let $f:[a,b]\to\R$ be continuous. Then there exist points $c$ and $d$ in $[a,b]$ such that, for all $x \in [a,b]$, we have $f(c)\leq f(x) \leq f(d)$.

Here we have

\[f(c)=\min\{f(x):x\in[a,b]\}=\inf\{f(x):x\in[a,b]\}\]

and 

\[f(d)=\max\{f(x):x\in[a,b]\}=\sup\{f(x):x\in[a,b]\}\,.\]

Unfortunately I only had a few minutes left for this, ran out of time, and didn't finish the proof. As I am on a very tight schedule this year, I had to refer the students to the the typed notes for the rest of the proof. On the other hand, I did finish the first part of the proof, showing that a continuous real-valued function $f$ on a closed and bounded interval $[a,b]$ is always bounded above, i.e., the set $f([a,b])$ is bounded above.

In this post I want to see how you can use just this fact to prove the rest of the Extreme Value Theorem without having to repeat aspects of the proof.

I will take the following lemma as my starting point.

Lemma
Let $a,b$ be real numbers with $a<b$, and let $f:[a,b]\to\R$ be continuous. Then there exists $M>0$ such that, for all $x \in [a,b]$, we have $f(x)\leq M$. $\quad\square$

Our first step is to see that we can use this lemma to show that $f$ is bounded below.

Corollary
Let $a,b$ be real numbers with $a<b$, and let $f:[a,b]\to\R$ be continuous. Then there exists $M>0$ such that, for all $x \in [a,b]$, we have $f(x)\geq {-M}$.

We can prove this Corollary by applying the Lemma to either of the functions $-f$ or $|f|$, where the latter function is the function $x \mapsto |f(x)|$. $\quad\square$

Proof of the Extreme Value Theorem

We already know that the set $f([a,b])=\{f(x):x\in[a,b]\}$ is bounded (i.e., both bounded below and bounded above). We now prove the existence of a suitable point $d$. (The proof for $c$ is the same, but flipped as usual.)

Set $S=\sup f([a,b]) =\sup \{f(x):x\in[a,b]\} \in \R\,.$ We need to show that there exists a point $d \in[a,b]$ such that $f(d)=S$. Assume, towards a contradiction, that there is no such point $d$. In that case, since $S$ is an upper bound for $f([a,b])$, we must actually have $f(x)<S$ for all $x \in [a,b]$. 

Consider the function $g:[a,b]\to \R$ defined by $g(x)=1/(S-f(x))$. Then, since $f(x)<S$ for all $x\in[a,b]$, $g$ is a well-defined, continuous, real-valued function on $[a,b]$, and moreover $g(x)>0$ for all $x\in[a,b]$.

By our Lemma, $g$ is bounded above, i.e., there exists $M>0$ such that, for all $x \in [a,b]$, we have $g(x)\leq M$.

Since these real numbers are strictly positive, we can take reciprocals and obtain, for all $x \in [a,b]$, that $1/g(x) \geq 1/M$, i.e., $S-f(x) \geq 1/M$. Note that $1/M>0$. Rearranging we have, for all $x \in [a,b]$, that

\[f(x) \leq S - \frac1M\,.\]

But then $S-1/M$ is an upper bound for $f([a,b])$, and $S-1/M < S$, which contradicts the fact that $S$ is the least upper bound for $f([a,b])$. (That is the definition of supremum!)

We have obtained a contradiction, and so there must be a point $d\in[a,b]$ with $f(d)=S$, as required.

The proof for $c$ is similar, or you can apply the result about maximum to the function $-f$ to find a point $c$ where $-f$ attains its maximum value, and then $f$ attains its minimum value there. $\quad\square$

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A rule of thumb for when to use the Ratio Test

-
The Ratio Test is a powerful test for both sequences and series of non-zero real numbers. It comes in various forms, but here is one commonly used version. Theorem (Ratio Test) Let $(x_n)_{n\in\N}$ be a sequence of non-zero real numbers. Suppose that \[\frac{|x_{n+1}|}{|x_n|}\to L \text{ as } n\to\infty\,,\] where $L$ is either a non-negative real number or $+\infty$. (a) If $L>1$, then $|x_n| \to +\infty$ as $n \to + \infty$, the sequence $(x_n)$ is divergent, and the series $\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^\infty x_n$ diverges. (b) If $L \in [0,1)$, then the series $\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^\infty x_n$ is absolutely convergent (and hence convergent), and the sequence $(x_n)$ converges to $0$. (c) If $L=1$, then the Ratio Test is inconclusive , and you need to use a different test . (The Ratio Test tells you nothing in this case about the convergence or otherwise of either the sequence or the series.) Notes Here (b) does not tell you anything about the value of the sum of the series ...
Read more

Discussion of the proof that the uniform norm really is a norm

-
In response to a request on Piazza, I gave a detailed proof that the uniform really is a norm, including some comments and warnings on possible pitfalls along the way. Here (essentially) is what I said. Let’s have a look at \(\|\cdot\|_\infty\) on the bounded, real-valued functions on \([0,1]\) (but you can also work with bounded functions on any non-empty set you like, and the same proof will work). We define \(\ell_\infty([0,1]) = \{f: f \textrm{ is a bounded, real-valued function on }[0,1]\,\}\,,\) and this is the set/space we will look at. So we set \(Y=\ell_\infty([0,1])\). Then you can check for yourselves that \(Y\) really is a vector space over \(\mathbb{R}\) (using the usual "pointwise" operations for functions). Note that the zero element in this vector space is the constant function \(0\) (from \([0,1]\) to \(\mathbb{R}\)), which I'll denote by \(\mathbf{0}\) here for clarity. (We also used \(Z\) for this function in one of the exercises.) I'll first give...
Read more