I need help in order to confirm whether my proof is approved or not. It follows as:
Claim: Let $f: [a,\infty) \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ where $f$ is continous. If $\exists \lim_{x \rightarrow\infty}f(x)=L$ for some $L\in \mathbb{R}$, then the function $f$ must be bounded.
Proof: Let's assume that $f$ isn't bounded. Then in order to prove the statement above, this assumption must give us that $\nexists \lim_{x \rightarrow\infty}f(x)=L$.
If $f$ isn't bounded in $[a,\infty)$ then $\nexists C \in \mathbb{R} | f(x) \leq C, \forall x \in [a,\infty)$.
In other terms, $\forall N > 0, \exists \omega \geq a | \forall x\in [a,\infty), x > \omega \Rightarrow f(x) > N$
or
$\forall N < 0, \exists \omega \geq a | \forall x\in [a,\infty), x > \omega \Rightarrow f(x) < N$
But the statement above, is equivalent to the statement:
$\lim_{x \rightarrow\infty}f(x)=\infty$ and $\exists \lim_{x \rightarrow\infty}f(x)=-\infty$ respectively.
But then this is equivalent to $\nexists \lim_{x \rightarrow\infty}f(x)=L$
Hence, as we proved the contrapositive statement, the claim must hold true.
$\blacksquare$
I'd be glad if you could share some tips for improvements, and maybe share your own proofs, so we can discuss them together. Thank you!