A uniformly Cauchy sequence of functions is uniformly convergent proof
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $f_n:Asubseteqmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$
$f_n$ is uniformly Cauchy $implies$ $exists f:Atomathbb{R}$ : $f_nxrightarrow{u}f$ in A
proof.
$forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnu$ : $forall n,m>nu$ $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<varepsilon$
I don't know why we start like that, I know by definition that a uniformly Cauchy is the second step of this proof
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n,m>nu$ $forall xin A$ $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<varepsilon$
Where is sup now?
So if $mto+infty$
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n>nu$ $forall xin A$ $|f_n(x)-f(x)|leqvarepsilon$
Ok it's clear why m disappears but I don't understand why $<varepsilon$ becomes $leqvarepsilon$
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n>nu$ $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f(x)|leqvarepsilon$
This is not clear, where does sup come from?
$implieslim_{ntoinfty}sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f(x)|=0$
This is directly from the definition of limit, and this means that
$implies f_nxrightarrow{u}f$ in $A$
real-analysis
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $f_n:Asubseteqmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$
$f_n$ is uniformly Cauchy $implies$ $exists f:Atomathbb{R}$ : $f_nxrightarrow{u}f$ in A
proof.
$forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnu$ : $forall n,m>nu$ $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<varepsilon$
I don't know why we start like that, I know by definition that a uniformly Cauchy is the second step of this proof
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n,m>nu$ $forall xin A$ $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<varepsilon$
Where is sup now?
So if $mto+infty$
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n>nu$ $forall xin A$ $|f_n(x)-f(x)|leqvarepsilon$
Ok it's clear why m disappears but I don't understand why $<varepsilon$ becomes $leqvarepsilon$
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n>nu$ $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f(x)|leqvarepsilon$
This is not clear, where does sup come from?
$implieslim_{ntoinfty}sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f(x)|=0$
This is directly from the definition of limit, and this means that
$implies f_nxrightarrow{u}f$ in $A$
real-analysis
Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
– user667
Nov 19 at 14:11
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $f_n:Asubseteqmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$
$f_n$ is uniformly Cauchy $implies$ $exists f:Atomathbb{R}$ : $f_nxrightarrow{u}f$ in A
proof.
$forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnu$ : $forall n,m>nu$ $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<varepsilon$
I don't know why we start like that, I know by definition that a uniformly Cauchy is the second step of this proof
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n,m>nu$ $forall xin A$ $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<varepsilon$
Where is sup now?
So if $mto+infty$
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n>nu$ $forall xin A$ $|f_n(x)-f(x)|leqvarepsilon$
Ok it's clear why m disappears but I don't understand why $<varepsilon$ becomes $leqvarepsilon$
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n>nu$ $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f(x)|leqvarepsilon$
This is not clear, where does sup come from?
$implieslim_{ntoinfty}sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f(x)|=0$
This is directly from the definition of limit, and this means that
$implies f_nxrightarrow{u}f$ in $A$
real-analysis
Let $f_n:Asubseteqmathbb{R}tomathbb{R}$
$f_n$ is uniformly Cauchy $implies$ $exists f:Atomathbb{R}$ : $f_nxrightarrow{u}f$ in A
proof.
$forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnu$ : $forall n,m>nu$ $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<varepsilon$
I don't know why we start like that, I know by definition that a uniformly Cauchy is the second step of this proof
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n,m>nu$ $forall xin A$ $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<varepsilon$
Where is sup now?
So if $mto+infty$
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n>nu$ $forall xin A$ $|f_n(x)-f(x)|leqvarepsilon$
Ok it's clear why m disappears but I don't understand why $<varepsilon$ becomes $leqvarepsilon$
$implies forallvarepsilon>0$ $existsnuinmathbb{N}$ : $forall n>nu$ $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f(x)|leqvarepsilon$
This is not clear, where does sup come from?
$implieslim_{ntoinfty}sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f(x)|=0$
This is directly from the definition of limit, and this means that
$implies f_nxrightarrow{u}f$ in $A$
real-analysis
real-analysis
asked Nov 18 at 15:16
Archimedess
52
52
Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
– user667
Nov 19 at 14:11
add a comment |
Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
– user667
Nov 19 at 14:11
Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
– user667
Nov 19 at 14:11
Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
– user667
Nov 19 at 14:11
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Recall the definition of supremum (it is the least upper bound). Thus, if we can choose $v$ such that $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$ then we are guaranteed that $forall xin A, |f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$. Going the other way around, strict inequality could become non strict since the supremum is an upper bound itself. Thus if $|f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$ for all $xin A$, we have that $epsilon$ is an upper bound over all $x$. In particular, it could be the least upper bound (supremum). Thus we have to write $sup_{x in A}|f_n(x)-f|leqepsilon$ since equality could hold.
I agree that this proof is somewhat unclear. To be completely rigorous, we use the triangle inequality. Choose arbitrary $x in A$. We have, $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|$$where $f(x)$ is the pointwise limit of the sequence ${f_n(x)}$. We know that there is a pointwise limit because $mathbb{R}$ is complete. By definition of pointwise convergence, there exists some $N_1$ such that if $m>N_1$ we have $|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. By assumption, we can choose $N$ such that if $n,m>N$ we have $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. Now set $m>max{N_1,N}$ (this step is a rigorous way of saying $m rightarrow infty$). Putting it all together $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}+frac{epsilon}{2}=epsilon$$Because $x$ was an arbitrary point of $A$, we have found an $N$ (independent of $xin A$) such that, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Recall the definition of supremum (it is the least upper bound). Thus, if we can choose $v$ such that $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$ then we are guaranteed that $forall xin A, |f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$. Going the other way around, strict inequality could become non strict since the supremum is an upper bound itself. Thus if $|f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$ for all $xin A$, we have that $epsilon$ is an upper bound over all $x$. In particular, it could be the least upper bound (supremum). Thus we have to write $sup_{x in A}|f_n(x)-f|leqepsilon$ since equality could hold.
I agree that this proof is somewhat unclear. To be completely rigorous, we use the triangle inequality. Choose arbitrary $x in A$. We have, $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|$$where $f(x)$ is the pointwise limit of the sequence ${f_n(x)}$. We know that there is a pointwise limit because $mathbb{R}$ is complete. By definition of pointwise convergence, there exists some $N_1$ such that if $m>N_1$ we have $|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. By assumption, we can choose $N$ such that if $n,m>N$ we have $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. Now set $m>max{N_1,N}$ (this step is a rigorous way of saying $m rightarrow infty$). Putting it all together $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}+frac{epsilon}{2}=epsilon$$Because $x$ was an arbitrary point of $A$, we have found an $N$ (independent of $xin A$) such that, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Recall the definition of supremum (it is the least upper bound). Thus, if we can choose $v$ such that $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$ then we are guaranteed that $forall xin A, |f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$. Going the other way around, strict inequality could become non strict since the supremum is an upper bound itself. Thus if $|f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$ for all $xin A$, we have that $epsilon$ is an upper bound over all $x$. In particular, it could be the least upper bound (supremum). Thus we have to write $sup_{x in A}|f_n(x)-f|leqepsilon$ since equality could hold.
I agree that this proof is somewhat unclear. To be completely rigorous, we use the triangle inequality. Choose arbitrary $x in A$. We have, $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|$$where $f(x)$ is the pointwise limit of the sequence ${f_n(x)}$. We know that there is a pointwise limit because $mathbb{R}$ is complete. By definition of pointwise convergence, there exists some $N_1$ such that if $m>N_1$ we have $|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. By assumption, we can choose $N$ such that if $n,m>N$ we have $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. Now set $m>max{N_1,N}$ (this step is a rigorous way of saying $m rightarrow infty$). Putting it all together $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}+frac{epsilon}{2}=epsilon$$Because $x$ was an arbitrary point of $A$, we have found an $N$ (independent of $xin A$) such that, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
Recall the definition of supremum (it is the least upper bound). Thus, if we can choose $v$ such that $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$ then we are guaranteed that $forall xin A, |f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$. Going the other way around, strict inequality could become non strict since the supremum is an upper bound itself. Thus if $|f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$ for all $xin A$, we have that $epsilon$ is an upper bound over all $x$. In particular, it could be the least upper bound (supremum). Thus we have to write $sup_{x in A}|f_n(x)-f|leqepsilon$ since equality could hold.
I agree that this proof is somewhat unclear. To be completely rigorous, we use the triangle inequality. Choose arbitrary $x in A$. We have, $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|$$where $f(x)$ is the pointwise limit of the sequence ${f_n(x)}$. We know that there is a pointwise limit because $mathbb{R}$ is complete. By definition of pointwise convergence, there exists some $N_1$ such that if $m>N_1$ we have $|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. By assumption, we can choose $N$ such that if $n,m>N$ we have $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. Now set $m>max{N_1,N}$ (this step is a rigorous way of saying $m rightarrow infty$). Putting it all together $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}+frac{epsilon}{2}=epsilon$$Because $x$ was an arbitrary point of $A$, we have found an $N$ (independent of $xin A$) such that, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$
Recall the definition of supremum (it is the least upper bound). Thus, if we can choose $v$ such that $sup_{xin A}|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$ then we are guaranteed that $forall xin A, |f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<epsilon$ whenever $n,m>v$. Going the other way around, strict inequality could become non strict since the supremum is an upper bound itself. Thus if $|f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$ for all $xin A$, we have that $epsilon$ is an upper bound over all $x$. In particular, it could be the least upper bound (supremum). Thus we have to write $sup_{x in A}|f_n(x)-f|leqepsilon$ since equality could hold.
I agree that this proof is somewhat unclear. To be completely rigorous, we use the triangle inequality. Choose arbitrary $x in A$. We have, $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|$$where $f(x)$ is the pointwise limit of the sequence ${f_n(x)}$. We know that there is a pointwise limit because $mathbb{R}$ is complete. By definition of pointwise convergence, there exists some $N_1$ such that if $m>N_1$ we have $|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. By assumption, we can choose $N$ such that if $n,m>N$ we have $|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}$. Now set $m>max{N_1,N}$ (this step is a rigorous way of saying $m rightarrow infty$). Putting it all together $$|f_n(x)-f(x)|leq|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|+|f_m(x)-f(x)|<frac{epsilon}{2}+frac{epsilon}{2}=epsilon$$Because $x$ was an arbitrary point of $A$, we have found an $N$ (independent of $xin A$) such that, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$
edited Nov 18 at 18:21
answered Nov 18 at 18:15
user667
10415
10415
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003660%2fa-uniformly-cauchy-sequence-of-functions-is-uniformly-convergent-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
– user667
Nov 19 at 14:11