# $\lim_{n\to \infty}f(nx)=0$ implies $\lim_{x\to \infty}f(x)=0$ [duplicate]

Can anyone help me with this problem?

Let $f:[0,\infty)\longrightarrow \mathbb R$ be a continuous function such that for each $x>0$, we have $\lim_{n\to \infty}f(nx)=0$. Then prove that $\lim_{x\to \infty}f(x)=0$.

Our teacher told first to prove Baire's theorem, and then show that this is a consequence of that theorem. I proved Baire's theorem, and I spend a few hours thinking on how Baire's theorem is related to this problem, but I couldn't find anything. I'd really appreciate your help.

-

## marked as duplicate by Nate Eldredge, saz, Claude Leibovici, USER91500, MankindSep 13 '15 at 11:33

– Byron Schmuland Jan 21 '12 at 20:26

Fix $\epsilon>0$ and put $F_n:=\left\{x\geq 0,\forall k\geq n, |f(kx)|\leqslant \varepsilon\right\}$. Then for all $n$ $F_n$ is closed since $f$ is continuous and $\bigcup_n F_n=[0,+\infty[$. By Baire's theorem we can find $x_0\geq 0$, $r>0$ and $n_0$ such that $]x_0-r,x_0+r[\subset F_{n_0}$. Put $t_0:=n_1x_0$ where $n_1$ is an integer $\geqslant n_0$ and such that $\frac{x_0}{n_1}<r$. Take $x\geq t_0$. Then we can write $x=n_xx_0+\beta$ where $n_x$ is an integer $\geqslant n_1$ and $0\leqslant \beta<x_0$. So $$|f(x)|=\left|f(n_xx_0+\beta)\right|=\left|f\left(n_x\left(x_0+\frac{\beta}{n_x}\right)\right)\right|\leqslant \varepsilon$$ since $n_x\geqslant n_1$ and $x_0+\frac{\beta}{n_x}\in ]x_0-r,x_0+r[\subset F_{n_0}$ (this because $\left|\frac{\beta}{n_x}\right|\leqslant \frac{x_0}{n_x}\leqslant \frac{x_0}{n_1}<r$).

So we have shown that given a $\varepsilon>0$, we can find $t_0$ such that for $x\geqslant t_0$, $|f(x)|\leq\varepsilon$.

The result is more easy to establish when $f$ is supposed to be uniformly continuous on $[0,+\infty[$.

-
How is $n_x x_0 + \beta = n_x \Big( x_0 + \dfrac{\beta}{n_x x_0} \Big)$ ? – user123733 Jan 2 '15 at 14:18
@user123733 Thanks for catching this mistake. It is fixed now. – Davide Giraudo Mar 27 at 10:56

You might also be interested in this article by Timothy Gowers, where he describes a thought process of how one might arrive at an elementary proof of this statement (without using the Baire theorem).

-