Pointwise/Uniform Convergence proof

In summary: For c), I am not sure if what I am trying to do is possible. What am I missing?In summary, the function does not converge uniformly on [0,a). It converges pointwise to f(x) on (0,\infty), but it does not converge uniformly on [0,a).
  • #1
Visceral
59
0

Homework Statement


Wondering if you guys could check my proof. This is my first problem with sequences of functions

Let [itex]a > 0 [/itex] and [itex]f_{n}(x) = \frac{nx}{1+nx}. [/itex]

a) Show that the sequence of functions [itex] (f_{n})[/itex] converges pointwise on [itex] [0,∞)[/itex]

b) Show that [itex](f_{n})[/itex] converges uniformly on [itex][a,∞) [/itex]

c) Show that [itex](f_{n})[/itex] does not converges uniformly on [itex][0,a) [/itex]

Homework Equations


ummm, theorems for pointwise convergence and uniform convergence.

edit: definitions given here

http://www.math.psu.edu/wade/M401-notes1.pdf

The Attempt at a Solution



OK so for part a) it seems that the function will converge uniformly on [itex] [0,∞)[/itex] if we let [itex] f(x) = 0 [/itex] for [itex] x=0[/itex] and [itex] f(x) = 1[/itex] for [itex] x>0[/itex]...I believe this is correct

For b), since [itex]a>0[/itex] this implies [itex]f(a) = 1[/itex]. So by the definition of uniform convergence, [itex]|\frac{na}{1+na}-1|< ε[/itex]. This can be simplified down to [itex]|\frac{1}{na}|< ε[/itex].

So now we can let [itex]ε>0[/itex] so that [itex]\frac{1}{aε}>0[/itex]. Then by Archimedes principle there exists an [itex]N(ε)[/itex] in the Reals such that [itex]N(ε)>\frac{1}{aε}[/itex]. Now if [itex]n>N(ε)[/itex] this implies that [itex]|f_{n}(x)-f(x)| = |\frac{1}{na}| = \frac{1}{na} < \frac{1}{N(ε)a}<ε[/itex]. And hence [itex]f_{n}
[/itex] converges uniformly on [itex][a,∞)[/itex].

I wasn't sure about leaving the "a" in there, but I think that might work?

For c)

I let [itex]ε=\frac{1}{2}[/itex], and I let [itex]x = \frac{1}{n}[/itex]. If you go through with this, you end up getting [itex]|f_{n}(x)-f(x)| = \frac{1}{2} = ε[/itex], which can't happen. Therefore it is not uniformly convergent on [itex][0,a)[/itex].

Did I go wrong anywhere? This is from a final exam practice for real analysis, which I have mine on monday next week and there are no answers given.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Thx micromass. I do have a question, though. It seems as though the functions will converge also for x less than -1. Could we then say it is pointwise convergent on [0,infinity) AND (-infinity,-1), and just let f(x) = -1 for x < -1?
 
  • #4
f(x)=+1 for x<-1.
 
  • #5
oops yes you are right. So could this work? The only "bad areas" for the function seem to be when x is in [-1,0)
 
  • #6
I'm sorry, but there are several problems with your solution.

For part a), the sequence [itex]f_{n}(x) = \frac{nx}{1+nx} [/itex] does not converge uniformly on [itex][0,∞)[/itex]. To show that it does converge pointwise to 1 on [itex](0,\infty)[/itex], fix [itex]c\in(0,\infty)[/itex] and demonstrate that [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_n(c)=1[/itex]. Since [itex]f_n(0)=0[/itex] for all [itex]n[/itex], the sequence of functions converges to [itex]0[/itex] at [itex]x=0[/itex].

In part b), you make the mistake of assuming the uniform converge to derive a result. You never want to assume the result before you've proved it. You are supposed to use the data ([itex]a>0[/itex], [itex]f_{n}(x) = \frac{nx}{1+nx}[/itex]) to demonstrate the uniform convergence. Here is one way to do so:

Fix [itex]a\in(0,\infty)[/itex]. For each [itex]n[/itex],use elementary methods from calculus to find the absolute max/min (maybe inf/sup) of [itex]f_n[/itex] on [itex][a,\infty)[/itex]. Show that the max/min (or inf/sup) of [itex]f_n[/itex] goes to [itex]1[/itex] as [itex]n\rightarrow\infty[/itex].

You have the right idea in part c), but the part where you say "this can't happen" needs cleaning up. It can happen (and in fact does here!). The point you want to make is that for each [itex]n[/itex] large enough, there is always a point in [itex][0,a)[/itex], namely [itex]\frac{1}{n}[/itex], where [itex]f_n[/itex] is "far away" from [itex]f[/itex].
 
  • #7
gopher_p said:
I'm sorry, but there are several problems with your solution.

For part a), the sequence [itex]f_{n}(x) = \frac{nx}{1+nx} [/itex] does not converge uniformly on [itex][0,∞)[/itex]. To show that it does converge pointwise to 1 on [itex](0,\infty)[/itex], fix [itex]c\in(0,\infty)[/itex] and demonstrate that [itex]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_n(c)=1[/itex]. Since [itex]f_n(0)=0[/itex] for all [itex]n[/itex], the sequence of functions converges to [itex]0[/itex] at [itex]x=0[/itex].

In part b), you make the mistake of assuming the uniform converge to derive a result. You never want to assume the result before you've proved it. You are supposed to use the data ([itex]a>0[/itex], [itex]f_{n}(x) = \frac{nx}{1+nx}[/itex]) to demonstrate the uniform convergence. Here is one way to do so:

Fix [itex]a\in(0,\infty)[/itex]. For each [itex]n[/itex],use elementary methods from calculus to find the absolute max/min (maybe inf/sup) of [itex]f_n[/itex] on [itex][a,\infty)[/itex]. Show that the max/min (or inf/sup) of [itex]f_n[/itex] goes to [itex]1[/itex] as [itex]n\rightarrow\infty[/itex].

You have the right idea in part c), but the part where you say "this can't happen" needs cleaning up. It can happen (and in fact does here!). The point you want to make is that for each [itex]n[/itex] large enough, there is always a point in [itex][0,a)[/itex], namely [itex]\frac{1}{n}[/itex], where [itex]f_n[/itex] is "far away" from [itex]f[/itex].



Thanks for the reply. I have some questions though. For part a) I do not see what I did wrong. I showed that it converged pointwise on [0,∞) to f(x) which I defined as f(x)=1 if x > 0 and f(x) = 0 if x=0 for all x in [0,∞). I know it is not uniformly convergent there.

In b) I did not mean to imply that I assumed what I was trying to prove. I meant to say that I needed to show [itex]| \frac{nx}{1+nx}-1| < ε[/itex] to prove it is uniformly convergent on [a,∞). I was not assuming that and sorry for misleading anyone.

for c)...yeah I guess "this can't happen" was a bad choice of words. I was thinking in my head that that result contradicts uniform convergence, therefore its not uniformly convergent. But you are right, once you pass n, [itex]f_{n}[/itex] is not within ε of f(x), hence its not uniformly convergent.
 
  • #8
Visceral said:
For part a) I do not see what I did wrong. I showed that it converged pointwise on [0,∞) to f(x) which I defined as f(x)=1 if x > 0 and f(x) = 0 if x=0 for all x in [0,∞).

You state (correctly) what the sequence converges to, but you need to also justify/prove this statement.

Visceral said:
In b) I did not mean to imply that I assumed what I was trying to prove. I meant to say that I needed to show [itex]| \frac{nx}{1+nx}-1| < ε[/itex] to prove it is uniformly convergent on [a,∞). I was not assuming that and sorry for misleading anyone.

Yes. I see now what you were intending. I'm assuming that [itex]\frac{1}{na}[/itex] is the max of [itex]| \frac{nx}{1+nx}-1|[/itex] on [itex][a,\infty)[/itex]? Also, I'm guessing this is true for [itex]n[/itex] sufficiently large? If this is so, then you're on the right track. But, again, this is something you need to state and prove being careful to include the "[itex]n[/itex] sufficiently large" part.

Visceral said:
for c)...yeah I guess "this can't happen" was a bad choice of words. I was thinking in my head that that result contradicts uniform convergence, therefore its not uniformly convergent. But you are right, once you pass n, [itex]f_{n}[/itex] is not within ε of f(x), hence its not uniformly convergent.

Exactly.
 
  • #9
gopher_p said:
You state (correctly) what the sequence converges to, but you need to also justify/prove this statement.



Yes. I see now what you were intending. I'm assuming that [itex]\frac{1}{na}[/itex] is the max of [itex]| \frac{nx}{1+nx}-1|[/itex] on [itex][a,\infty)[/itex]? Also, I'm guessing this is true for [itex]n[/itex] sufficiently large? If this is so, then you're on the right track. But, again, this is something you need to state and prove being careful to include the "[itex]n[/itex] sufficiently large" part.



Exactly.

Cool. Thanks for the advice/clarifications
 

FAQ: Pointwise/Uniform Convergence proof

What is the definition of pointwise convergence?

Pointwise convergence refers to the convergence of a sequence of functions at each individual point in the domain. In other words, for every fixed value of x, the sequence of function values approaches a single limit as the index of the sequence increases.

How is uniform convergence different from pointwise convergence?

Uniform convergence is a stronger form of convergence than pointwise convergence. It means that the sequence of functions approaches the limit function uniformly, meaning that the difference between the function values and the limit function can be made arbitrarily small for all values of x in the domain, rather than just at individual points.

What is the importance of uniform convergence in analysis?

Uniform convergence is important in analysis because it guarantees that the limit function is continuous, and allows for the interchange of limits and integrals or derivatives. It also allows for the use of many powerful convergence tests, such as the Weierstrass M-test and the Cauchy criterion.

How is uniform convergence proven?

To prove uniform convergence, one must show that the difference between the sequence of functions and the limit function can be made arbitrarily small for all x in the domain. This is typically done by using the definition of the limit and choosing a suitable value of N (the index of the sequence) that works for all x.

What is the relationship between uniform convergence and continuity?

Uniform convergence implies continuity, meaning that if a sequence of functions converges uniformly to a limit function, then the limit function is continuous. However, the converse is not always true - a function can be continuous without converging uniformly to a limit function.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
364
Replies
4
Views
999
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
845
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
793
Back
Top