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 $A$










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
    – user667
    Nov 19 at 14:11















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 $A$










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
    – user667
    Nov 19 at 14:11













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 $A$










share|cite|improve this question













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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 18 at 15:16









Archimedess

52




52












  • 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




Please consider accepting my answer if it has helped :)
– user667
Nov 19 at 14:11










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, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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

























    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, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      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, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        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, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$






        share|cite|improve this answer














        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, $$forall xin A, n>N, |f_n(x)-f(x)|<epsilon$$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 18 at 18:21

























        answered Nov 18 at 18:15









        user667

        10415




        10415






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa