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.

Let $\{f_n\}$ converge point-wise to $f$, where each $f_n:[a,b]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and each $f_n$ is a continuous convex function. Furthermore, assume that $f$ is continuous. Prove that the convergence is uniform.

I was trying to do something like: Consider $a=a_0<a_i<...<a_k=b$, where $a_{i+1}-a_i<\delta$, where the $\delta $ is such that $|x-y|<\delta$ imply that $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$. Then letting $N_i$ be such that $f_n(a_i)$ is $\epsilon$-close to $f(x_i)$, let $N$ be the max of $N_1,...,N_k$, and hence$$|f(x)-f_n(x)|\leq |f(x)-f(x_i)|+|f(x_i)-f_n(x_i)|+|f_n(x_i)-f_n(x)|$$I can make the first summand small since $f$ is continuos, and the second summand small by letting $n\geq N$. I am having trouble using the fact that they are convex.

share|improve this question
How do you extend this result to $\mathbb{R}^n$? –  Clark Kent Apr 30 at 1:16

3 Answers 3

Suppose that the convergence is not uniform. Then there exists $\epsilon > 0$ and for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists $x_n\in [a,b]$ such that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)|> \epsilon$. By compactness of $[a,b]$, the sequence $\{x_n\}$ has an accumulation point in $[a, b]$ - call this point $x$ (that is, there is a subsequence $\{x_{n_k}\}$ which converges to $x$). By pointwise convergence of $\{f_n\}$ to $f$, we know that for some $N\in\mathbb{N}$ and all $k\geq N$, $|f_{n_k}(x) - f(x)| < \epsilon/4$.

Since $f$ is continuous, it is uniformly continuous. Let $\delta > 0$ be such that for all $y_1, y_2\in [x - \delta, x + \delta]$, $|f(y_1) - f(y_2)| < \epsilon/2$. Let $\tilde{x}\in[a,b]$ with $\tilde{x} < x$ (assuming $x\neq a$; otherwise, take $\tilde{x} > x$), and $|\tilde{x}-x|< \delta$. Assume also that there are infinitely many terms of the subsequence $\{x_{n_k}\}$ which lie in $[\tilde{x}, x]$. But then we have the following situation: for all $k$ sufficiently large, $|f_{n_k}(x) - f(x)| < \epsilon/4$, $|f_{n_k}(\tilde{x}) - f(\tilde{x})| < \epsilon/4$ and there exists $y\in [\tilde{x}, x]$ with $|f_{n_k}(y) - f(y)| > \epsilon$. This then violates convexity of $f_{n_k}$ (to see this, consider lines connecting $\tilde{x}$ to $x_{n_k}$, one connecting $x_{n_k}$ to $x$, and one connecting $x$ to $\tilde{x}$ - one of these will lie below the graph of $f_{n_k}$).

share|improve this answer
Do you want to respond to Bernard's query below? –  user31373 Sep 13 '12 at 20:21

I hope the following proof is correct.

First, let us show that given $\varepsilon >0$, one can find $N^+\in\mathbb N$ such that $$\forall n\geq N^+\,\forall t\in [a,b]\;:\; f_n(t)\leq f(t)+\varepsilon\, . $$ Since $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[a,b]$, one can find $a=a_0<\dots <a_K=b$ such that for $i=0,\dots ,K-1$, it holds that $$\forall t\in [a_i,a_{i+1}]\;:\;f(t)\geq \max(f(a_i), f(a_{i+1}))-\frac\varepsilon2\cdot$$ Choose $N^+$ such that if $n\geq N^+$, then $\vert f_n(a_i)-f(a_i)\vert\leq\frac\varepsilon2$ for $i=0,\dots ,K$. Since $f_n$ is convex, you then have for $i=0,\dots ,K-1$ and $t\in [a_i,a_{i+1}]$: $$f_n(t)\leq \max(f_n(a_i), f_n(a_{i+1}))\leq \max(f(a_i), f(a_{i+1}))+\frac\varepsilon2\cdot$$ If you compare with the previous inequality, this gives that if $n\geq N^+$, then $f_n(t)\leq f(t)+\varepsilon$ for all $t\in[a,b]$, as required.

Now, let us show that given $\varepsilon >0$, one can find $N^-$ such that $$\forall n\geq N^+\,\forall t\in [a,b]\;:\; f_n(t)\geq f(t)-\varepsilon\, . $$

Towards a contradiction, assume that this is not the case. Then one can find a sequence $(t_k)\subset [a,b]$ and a subsequence $f_{n_k}$ of $(f_n)$ such that $$\forall k\in\mathbb N\; :\; f_{n_k}(t_k)< f(t_k)-\varepsilon\, . $$ By compactness, we may assume that the sequence $(t_k)$ is convergent; and there is no loss of generality in assuming that $t_k\to a$ or $t_k\to b$. Let's assume for example that $$ t_k\to a\, .$$

For each $k$, let $\psi_k$ be the unique affine function such that $f_{n_k}(a)-\psi_k(a)=0=f_{n_k}(b)-\psi_k(b)$. Since $f_{n_k}(a)\to f(a)$ and $f_{n_k}(b)\to f(b)$, one can check easily that $(\psi_k)$ converges uniformly on $[a,b]$ to the unique affine function $\psi$ such that $f(a)-\psi(a)=0=f(b)-\psi(b)$. Replacing $f_{n_k}$ by $f_{n_k}-\psi_k$ and $f$ by $f-\psi$, it follows that without loss of generality, we may assume that $$\forall k\in\mathbb N\; :\; f_{n_k}(a)=0=f_{n_k}(b)\, .$$ Then $f(a)=0=f(b)$. In particular, since $f$ is continuous, we may choose $\delta>0$ such that $f(t)\geq-\frac\varepsilon3$ on $[0,\delta]$. We may of course assume that $\delta\leq \frac{a+b}2$, and since $t_k\to a$ we may also assume that $t_k\in[0,\delta]$ for all $k$.

Now, consider for each $k$ the function $\varphi_k$ defined as follows : $\varphi_k(a)=0=\varphi_k(b)$, $\varphi_k(t_k)=f(t_k)-\varepsilon$, and $\varphi_k$ is affine on $[a,t_k]$ and on $[t_k,b]$. Since $f_{n_k}$ is convex and not greater than $\varphi_k$ at the "node" points, we have $f_{n_k}\leq\varphi_k$ on $[a,b]$. In particular, $$f_{n_k}(\delta)\leq \varphi_k(\delta)=\varphi_k(t_k)+\frac{\varphi_k(b)-\varphi(t_k)}{b-t_k}\, (\delta-t_k)\, ;$$ that is, $$f_{n_k}(\delta)\leq f(t_k)-\varepsilon+\frac{\varepsilon-f(t_k) }{b-t_k }\, (\delta- t_k)\cdot $$ Since $f_{n_k}(\delta)\to f(\delta)$, $t_k\to a $ and $f(t_k)\to f(a)=0$, it follows that $$f(\delta)\leq -\varepsilon +\frac{\delta-a}{b-a}\,\varepsilon\leq -\frac\varepsilon2\, , $$ where we have used the fact that $\delta\leq\frac{a+b}2\cdot$ Since $f(\delta)\geq -\frac\varepsilon3$, this is a contradiction.

Hence, the integer $N^-$ does exist, and the proof is complete.

share|improve this answer

I was trying to go through William's argument, but I got a bit confused towards the end. My guess is William was trying to show that by convexity that $|f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})-f(x_{n_k})|< \epsilon$ thus contradicting the construction of the sequence $x_n$. So, my approach to that was to try to prove that $f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})-f(x_{n_k})< \epsilon$ and also $f(x_{n_k})-f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})< \epsilon$. The first follows easily by convexity of $f_{n_k}$ and uniform continuity of $f$.

It is the second inequality I am having trouble with.

If we try to use convexity for $f_{n_k}$ we get nowhere since that leads to the first inequality. Thus we are almost forced to use convexity of $f$. But then, we get at some point on the RHS the terms $|f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})-f_{n_k}(x)|$ and $|f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})-f_{n_k}(y)|$.

But how can we bound these termes by some multiple of $\epsilon$? There is no guarantee that $x_{n_k}$ are close enough to x or y for the continuity of $f_{n_k}$ to work; this would essentially imply that the sequence is equicontinuous, so then we would be done by Arzela-Ascoli, right?

Is there something I am missing here?

Or is the approach to the second inequality completely different than the above?

Thanks in advance for any help...

share|improve this answer
No, that's not what I was trying to do. If $f_{n_k}(y) > f(y)$, then we are done. But it may happen that $f_{n_k} < f(y)$, then one needs to partition the interval $[\tilde{x}, x]$ into sufficiently small subintervals such that at each endpoint, $f_{n_k}$ is within $\epsilon/4$ of $f$ (for $k$ sufficiently large, of course) and then again use the fact that $f_{n_k}(y)$ is farther than $\epsilon$ from $f(y)$ for some $y$ in $(\tilde{x},x)$. –  William Sep 14 '12 at 2:26
Sorry, I still fail to see how you do that. If you divide $[y,x]$ so that $f_{n_k}$ is within $\epsilon /4$ of $f$ at the endpoints, then you can't guarantee that $f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})$ will be within $\epsilon /4$ of the value of $f_{n_k}$ at the endpoints of the subinterval containing $x_{n_k}$. If you fix $n_k$, and pick the lengths of the interval by uniform continuity for $f_{n_k}$ then you do cannot guarantee that at the endpoints $f_{n_k}$ is within $\epsilon /4$ of f. Unless you use a trick or something; in which case, could you explain more? Thanks. –  Bernard Sep 15 '12 at 5:21
I don't want to guarantee that $f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})$ will be within $\epsilon/4$ of the value of $f_{n_k}$ at the endpoints. I want just the opposite: $f_{n_k}(x_{n_k})$ is distance at least $\epsilon$ away from $f$, hence at least $3\epsilon/4$ away from the value of $f_{n_k}$ at the endpoints. This would force the graph of $f_{n_k}$ at at least one of those endpoints to lie above either the line connecting $(y, 0)$ to $(x_{n_k}, f_{n_k}(x_{n_k}))$, or the line connecting $(x, 0)$ to $(x_{n_k}, f_{n_k}(x_{n_k}))$ (assuming $f_{n_k}(x_{n_k}) < f(x_{n_k})$, violating convexity of $f_{n_k}$. –  William Sep 15 '12 at 8:09
Occasionally, comments get too long or complex, and they need to be posted as answers; I have done this several times. However, to keep flags from being raised, I try to preface my comment-answers with something like: "this was intended to be a comment to someone's question/answer, but it was too long." –  robjohn May 10 '13 at 15:29

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.