Tell me more ×
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.
up vote 2 down vote favorite

Suppose c is an isolated point in the domain D of a function f. In the delta neighbourhood of c, does the function f have the value f(c).

share|improve this question
1  
If delta is small, which elements of D are going to be in a delta neighborhood of c? – Jonas Meyer Dec 27 '10 at 5:48
@Jonas:If no elements are there in the delta neighbourhood of c, then f is not defined at this delta heighbourhood no. – Vinod Dec 27 '10 at 5:54
It never happens that the delta neighborhood is empty. After all, it contains c. – Jonas Meyer Dec 27 '10 at 5:55
@Jonas:Understood. It contains c ONLY. – Vinod Dec 27 '10 at 5:58
Yes, for sufficiently small delta. Then you can see all values f can have in such a neighborhood. – Jonas Meyer Dec 27 '10 at 5:59

2 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

You can also see this is true using the topological definition of continuity at a point: a function is continuous at a point $f(x)$ if for any neighborhood $V$ of $f(x)$ there is a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that $f(U)$ is contained in $V$. For an isolated point, you can take the neighborhood consisting of just the point $c$, so its image $f(c)$ will obviously be contained in $V$, as $V$ is a neighborhood of $f(c)$.

share|improve this answer
Please enlighten me: I fail to see how $f: \mathbb{N} \mapsto \mathbb{R} | f(n) = \frac{1}{n}$ is continuous at every point in $\mathbb{N}$. (Let's say $0\not\in\mathbb{N}$.) – TestSubject528491 Apr 3 '12 at 1:27
$f$ is continuous if the preimage of any open set in $\mathbb{R}$ is open. Assuming you give $\mathbb{N}$ the topology inherited from $\mathbb{R}$, every set in $\mathbb{N}$ is open, so the statement is vacuously true. To show that any set is open, consider the set $(n-1/2, n+1/2)\cap\mathbb{N}$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$. This is an open set; it's also equal to $\{n\}$. So, $\{n\}$ is open for all $n$; the fact that every set is open follows directly (in other words, $\mathbb{N}$ inherits the discrete topology from $\mathbb{R}$). – Ben Lerner Apr 4 '12 at 3:33
I'm not sure what all this has to do with continuity at isolated points. Here's a counterexample: Let $A=[0,1]\cup\{2\}$ and $f(x)=\big\{0:x\in[0,1];1:\text{otherwise}\big\}$. Choose $c=2$ and $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}$. No matter which $\delta$ is chosen, $0<|x-c|<\delta$ implies $|f(x)-f(c)|=1\not<\epsilon$. Therefore $f$ is not continuous at $c$, which is an isolated point in $A$. – TestSubject528491 Apr 14 '12 at 19:51
That counterexample is wrong - let's examine it closely. Take $f:A\to\mathbb{R}$ and see if it's continuous at 2. Take any open set containing 1 in $\mathbb{R}$, and take the open set with $\delta = 1/2$ around 2 in $A$. This is just $\{2\}$, so $f(2) = 1$ is contained in the open set in $\mathbb{R}$. So, $f$ is continuous at 2. (Obviously, if you take $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}, it's not continuous at 2.) – Ben Lerner Apr 16 '12 at 3:00
I thought the condition for continuity requires $\delta\not=0$. You're choosing $x=c$, (in this case, 2), which isn't allowed (at least in the defn of continuity I'm familiar with). If $0<|x-2|<\delta$ (and $x\in A$) then $x\in[0,1]$. Therefore $f(x)=0$, but $f(2) = 1$. I still don't see how $f$ is continuous at 2. Am I missing something? – TestSubject528491 Apr 16 '12 at 6:04
show 1 more comment
up vote 3 down vote

I see now that the comments above provide essentially the answer, with whatever definition of continuity you have. The following ties everything together.

Let's use as the definition of continuity $\lim_{x \rightarrow c}\,f(x) = f(c)$. Expand: For all $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $\delta > 0$ such that whenever $0 < |x-c| < \delta$ it is true that $|f(x)-f(c)| < \varepsilon$. When $\delta$ is small enough, there are no points $x$ which work, so the part after the such that is vacuously true.

share|improve this answer
1  
Often continuity is stated using $|x-c|\lt\delta$ instead of $0 < |x-c| < \delta$, which makes no logical difference, but in this case avoids appeal to vacuous truth. – Jonas Meyer Dec 27 '10 at 6:14
1  
You are of course correct. It is interesting, and the OP should convince himself the two are equivalent because we require the limit to equal the value of the function. – TNi Dec 27 '10 at 6:24

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.