Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My lecturer was talking today (in the context of probability, more specifically Kolmogorov's axioms) about the additive property of functions, namely that:

$$f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y)$$

I've been trying to find what functions satisfy this. Intuition says that, for functions over $\mathbb{R}$, the only functions should be of the form $f(x) = ax$ for some real a. Unfortunately I've only shown this is true when the domain of the function is the rational multiples of a given real number.

My question is if it is possible to extend this result (that $f(x) = ax$ given additivity) to the real numbers, possibly without assuming the continuity of f. It seems to me that additivity introduces so many constrains on a function that nothing but the trivial case would be able to sneak through. The following is a summary of my thoughts to date, though they're obviously long and not 'compulsory reading'. :)

When x is rational - Preliminary Investigation

It is not hard to see that:

$$f(x + x + x) = 3f(x)$$

and more generally, for $a\in \mathbb{N}$, $$f(ax) = af(x)$$ It is not too hard to prove (well, it took half a bus trip ... ) that this also applies first for $a\in \mathbb{Z}$ and then for $a\in \mathbb{Q}$, (for the latter you just need to consider $a=m/n$ and then note that:

$$f\Big(\frac{m}{n}x\Big)=mf\Big(\frac{x}{n}\Big)=\frac{m}{n}\cdot nf\Big(\frac{x}{n}\Big)=\frac{m}{n}\cdot f\Big(n\frac{x}{n}\Big)=\frac{m}{n}\cdot f(x)$$

The reason this little equation is cool is that we can set $x = 1$ and get:

$$f(a)=a\cdot f(1)$$

which is equivalent to what was expected intuitively, namely (after changing $a$ to $y$ and $f(1)$ to $a$)

$$f(y) = a\cdot y$$

as long as y is rational

$y$ is a rational multiple of a real number

But we can do a bit better than that. If we substitute in $x = \sqrt{2}$ or any other real number in $f(ax) = af(x)$ (which we know for rational $a$), you can conduct the exact same argument above and show that, for instance

$$f(y) = \Big(\frac{f(\sqrt{2})}{\sqrt{2}}\Big)\cdot y=a\cdot y$$

Whenever $y = \frac{m}{n}\sqrt{2}$ i.e. whenever $y$ is a rational multiple of $\sqrt{2}$. Note however, that the value of the coefficient $a$ (i.e. the slope of the line) is apparently completely unrelated to the value taken in the case where $y$ is purely rational.

What I'm actually asking

We still haven't shown that $$f(x) = ax$$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$, as the slope of the line may change depending on what real number we are taking rational multiples of. As far as I've shown now, we might have $f(x) = x$ when $x$ is rational, $f(x) = 3x$ when $x$ is a rational multiple of $\sqrt{2}$, etc.

I still feel that $f(x) = ax$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. One reason for thinking this comes from noting that $$f(2) = f(2-\sqrt{2})+f(\sqrt{2})$$

$2$, $2-\sqrt{2}$ and $\sqrt{2}$ are not rational multiples of each other, however the equation above gives a restraint on the slopes of the lines formed by their rational multiples (which we'll call $a_1, a_2$ and $a_3$ for the slopes on the rational multiples of $2, 2-\sqrt{2}$ and $\sqrt{2}$ respectively). We have $2a_1 = (2-\sqrt{2}) a_2 + \sqrt{2} a_3$

There's so many constraints here - all the rational multipes have the same coefficient, whenever 2 (or more) numbers which aren't rational multiples of each other are added together we get another constraint on their coefficients. The trivial solution is just that$$f(x) = ax$$

over $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and I really struggle to see how any other solution could possible squeeze through all these constraints.

Is there an additive function on $\mathbb{R}$ not of the form $f(x) = ax$?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Yea. See the Wikipedia article on Cauchy's Functional Equation.

share|improve this answer
2  
It’s probably worth pointing out that they require the axiom of choice and therefore cannot be constructed explicitly. –  Brian M. Scott Mar 1 '12 at 11:27
1  
They're also discontinuous, so if you have a standing assumption that $f$ is continuous then you're correct. And your proof is almost complete as well, you can use a limiting argument on $f\left(\frac{m}{n}x\right)=\frac{m}{n}f(1)$ to finish it. –  Matt Pressland Mar 1 '12 at 11:58
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.