Re: Analysis problem and continuity
- From: The World Wide Wade <aderamey.addw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:30:21 -0700
In article
<50fc6221-a286-40f3-8f24-377730e4df1e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Carl R." <solrac140@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 sep, 21:58, The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<d0c02c70-bfb5-45d5-86fe-1590390a8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Carl R." <solrac...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 sep, 07:50, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Carl R." <solrac...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fd66f253-0435-4d81-92b8-9a03e85b7a4e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let f: R - > C be a map from the set of real numbers to the comple
numbers.
Define phi(x,delta):= sup { | f(s) - f(t) | : s, t in (x-delta, x
+delta)}
Let r(x):= inf { phi(x,delta) : delta >0 }
Prove that
a) f is continuous in x iff r(x) = 0.
So here's my work.
Asumme f is continuous in x then for all e>0 we can find delta >0
such
that
if |y-x|< delta then |f(y) - f(x) | < epsilon.
But if |y-x|< delta then y,s are in (x-delta,x+delta) , thus
phi(x,delta): = sup { epsilon } = epsilon.
Thus r(x) := inf { epsilon : epsilon > 0} = 0 because epsilon>0.
This is the general idea but the proof is pretty weak and not
formulated in
the "general style".
Let phi(x, d) = sup{|f(s) - f(t)|} for s and t in (x - d, x + d)
suppose f is continuous,
|s - t| < d ==> |f(s) - f(t)| < e
then 0 <= phi(x,d) < e (this is actually a bit vague... it is true
exactly
because sup(f(x)) takes on its maximum... there is a theorem and it
happens
because f(x) is continuous)
hence 0 <= r(x) < phi(x,d) < e
since e can be chosen arbitrarily we have r(x) = 0.
This is a bit better, but not necessarily the best. It's logic is much
clear
than what you have said. Your's is a bit more "intuitive" but it also
shows
and it is not the standard method of proving things.
i.e,., your last 2 statements are not common. It is almost exactly what
I
said but you skip the steps:
phi(x,delta): = sup { epsilon } = epsilon.
why does phi(x,delta) = sup{epsilon}? Surely it can only be <= epsilon
Thus r(x) := inf { epsilon : epsilon > 0} = 0 because epsilon>0.
the same here... why does r(x) = inf{epsilon} = 0?
You must always go back to the definitions!!!!!!!!
inf(X) <= X <= sup(X)!!!
(it is because epsilon can be chosen arbitrarily small, which you can
see
how I wrote it.
Where I'm stuck is the part that if r(x) = 0 then f is continuous in
x. Can you please help?
always start with your definitions:
inf{phi(x,d)} = 0
implies that phi(x,d) can be made arbitrarily small.
e.g., there exists a delta that makes it smaller than we wish
i.e.,
phi(x,d) < e for some d
but now phi(x,d) = sup{|f(s) - f(t)|}
but this is easy
|f(s) - f(t)| <= phi(x,d) < e
so we can choose |s - t| < d
which will make r(x) < e
(definition of infimum)
which is just
|f(s) - f(t)| <= phi(x,d) < e
which shows that f(x) is continuous.
I'll leave you to put it all together.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
Thanks very much John, I understood your proof, very clear!
Can you please give a hint to show that the set of discontinuity
points of f is a G_delta set?
That will be difficult, because it's false. Reread the problem.- Ocultar
texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
The set of continuity points, that is, sorry.
Show that for any e > 0, {x : r(x) < e} is open. Then show {x : r(x) =
0} is the intersection of countably many of such open sets.
.
- References:
- Analysis problem and continuity
- From: Carl R.
- Re: Analysis problem and continuity
- From: Jon Slaughter
- Re: Analysis problem and continuity
- From: Carl R.
- Re: Analysis problem and continuity
- From: The World Wide Wade
- Re: Analysis problem and continuity
- From: Carl R.
- Analysis problem and continuity
- Prev by Date: Re: elementary differential geometry of curves
- Next by Date: Re: Finding all fixed points
- Previous by thread: Re: Analysis problem and continuity
- Next by thread: Re: Analysis problem and continuity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|