Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I am reading a pair of "proofs" that a friend sent to me. I really don't understand some passages, so I hope someone could help me. The questions are the following

First Question. The result to be proved is: let $G$ and $H$ normed vector spaces and let $f\colon G \to H$ a linear map. If $f$ is continuous in a point $x_0$, then it is continuous everywhere.

The proof goes as $\forall \varepsilon >0, \exists \delta>0$ s.t. $\|(x_0+u)-x_0\|<\delta$ iff $\|u\|<\delta$, and that implies $\|f(x_0+u)-f(x_0)\|=\|f(u)\|<\varepsilon$...

I don't believe that this is a proof, I can't really see what has been proved. Should I assume that the proof is wrong? I know a proof of this theorem but it involves sequential continuity, any idea on how to prove it using an $\varepsilon-\delta$ argument?

Second Question. The result to be proved is: let $G$ and $H$ normed vector spaces and let $f\colon G \to H$ a linear continuous map. Then $f$ is bounded in norm.

The proof says: If $f$ is continuous in $x$, then it is continuous at every point, in particular in $u$. So, if $f$ is continuous in $u$, then for all $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta$ s.t. $$ \|u\|<\delta \implies \|f(u)\|<\varepsilon \iff \|f(\frac{d}{\|x\|}x)\|<\varepsilon $$

where $u=\frac{d}{\|x\|}x$. So linearity of $f$ implies $\|f(x)\|<\|x\|(\varepsilon/d)$. QED

Here I don't understand why it uses that $f$ is continuous in $x$: all I see is that it is really using the fact that it is continuous in $0$ (I know that these are equivalent, but it's the second that we are using in the proof).

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

For your first question:

It looks like he is assuming that $f$ is continuous at $x=0$, and then showing it must be continuous at any $x_0$. But it's badly phrased.

Here's a correct version: Let $f$ be continuous at $0$. Let $\epsilon>0$. Choose $\delta>0$ such that if $\Vert x-0\Vert<\delta$, then $\Vert f(x)-f(0)\Vert<\epsilon$. Then if $\Vert x_0-x\Vert<\delta$, we have $\Vert f(x_0-x) - f(0)\Vert<\epsilon$. But $\Vert f(x_0-x)-f(0)\Vert =\Vert f(x_0)-f(x)\Vert$. From this, it follows that $f$ is continuous at $x_0$.

For your second question; yes, all you need is continuity at $0$ (and the "$d$" there, should be "$\delta$").

share|cite|improve this answer

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.