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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there an easy way to see that the Cantor function is not absolutely continuous that directly uses the definition of absolutely continuous?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 18 down vote accepted

A function $f: E \to \mathbb{R}$ is absolutely continuous on an interval $E$ if for every $\epsilon > 0$ there is a $\delta > 0$ such that whenever a finite sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $E$ satisfies

$$ \sum_{k} |y_{k} - x_{k}| < \delta$$


$$\sum_{k} |f(y_{k}) - f(x_{k})| < \epsilon$$

Put in words, an absolutely continuous function does not fluctuate on a set of measure zero. To see that the Cantor function is not absolutely continuous, pick $\epsilon < 1$. Then, for every $\delta > 0$, I can find a collection of intervals $(x_{k},y_{k})$ that cover the Cantor points in $[0,1]$ such that

$$ \sum_{k} |y_{k} - x_{k}| < \delta$$

this is because the Cantor set has measure zero. However, since the Cantor function only changes on the Cantor set,

$$\sum_{k} |f(y_{k}) - f(x_{k})| = 1$$

and absolute continuity is violated.

More generally, note that the Cantor function is singular. It is easy to prove (and feels right intuitively) that an absolutely continuous, singular function must be constant. However, the Cantor function is far from constant.

share|cite|improve this answer
Excellent answer – Daniel Montealegre Mar 28 '12 at 6:55
The answer taken is not correct since one can not cover canter set by finite union of sets with arbitrarily small measure in total. One can check Royden (4ed) P120 for reference to this question. And the solution taken will become true (with some modification) after proveing Prob38 on P123. – user49021 Nov 11 '12 at 16:33
The Cantor set $C$ is the intersection of sets $C_n$ constructed iteratively. We know that $C_n \supset C_{n+1}$. Moreover, the total length of the line segments in $C_n$ is $(2/3)^n$. Note that a cover for any $C_n$ is automatically a cover for $C$. Do you not think that I can take $N$ large enough to make $(2/3)^N$ smaller than some fixed $\delta$? – Isaac Solomon Nov 11 '12 at 18:44
Dear Issac Solomon, I couldn't understood last equality (sum of mods is 1) in your answer. Can you explain it – Groups Sep 30 '14 at 8:40
Isaac Solomon: Well, in that case you probably should not write that finding a finite cover of $C$ with measure smaller than $\delta$ is possible because $C$ has measure zero. As you wrote yourself, this is not the case and is rather due to the specific construction of $C$. – balu Dec 6 '15 at 16:43

One definition of absolutely continuous functions is that they map sets of measure zero to sets of measure zero. However, the cantor ternary function maps the cantor set (of measure zero) onto $[0,1]$.

share|cite|improve this answer

The variation of the Cantor function on each approximation $C_n$ of the Cantor set is $1$. The measure of $C_n$ goes to zero when $n\to\infty$. Ergo.

share|cite|improve this answer

Let $f$ the Cantor function. $f$ is increasing not negative, $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$. Then $f$ is differentiable a.e. and since $f$ is constant on every interval removed in the construction of the Cantor set, $f^\prime=0$ a.e.

Once we assume that $f$ is absolutely continuous, we have $$\int_0^1 f^\prime=f(1)-f(0),$$ but this says that $0=1$. Thus $f$ can not be absolutely continuous.

share|cite|improve this answer
Potential typo: "uniformly" should probably be "absolutely" (both times). – Quinn Culver Jun 11 '12 at 5:57

A function is absolutely continuous if and only if it satisfies the (Lebesgue) fundamental theorem of calculus. Since $f'=0$ a.e., $f$ satisfies the fundamental theorem calculus if and only if

$$f(1)-f(0) = \int_{0}^{1} f' = 0 $$

which we know is false.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is certainly a short (and clever) treatment, but it can't be said it "directly uses the definition of absolutely continuous". It also repeats a point made in one of the previous answers. – hardmath Jan 21 at 22:46
Ahh he wanted it direct, missed that. I kind of thought leo's answer didn't have the direct punch that makes it easy to follow for someone just learning the subject, so I decided to share this. – Chris Rackauckas Jan 21 at 22:54

Since Lipschitz's condition is absolutely continuous and cantor function does not satisfies lipschitz's condition.It follows that cantor function is not absolutely continuous.

share|cite|improve this answer
How does that follow? There are absolutely continuous functions that are not Lipschitz, for example $\sqrt{x}$ on $[0,1]$. – Martin Jan 30 '13 at 13:23

Your Answer


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.