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

If $\{h_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is a sequence of real-valued continuous functions on the real line, and $0<h_{k}(x)\leq 1,\;\forall x\in\mathbb{R}$ and all $k$. Assume that $h_{k}(x)\to 0$ uniformly on $\mathbb{R}$. Is it true that $h_{k}(x+x_{k})\to 0$ as $k\to \infty$, for any sequence of points $\{x_{k}\}\subset \mathbb{R} $ and any $x\in \mathbb{R}$? If so how to prove it?

Thanks for help in advance!

Ok, what I have tried: I'm trying to use induction on $x_{k}$: Fix any $x\in\mathbb{R}, $we have

for $x_{1}$: $h_{k}(x+x_{1})\to 0$

for $x_{2}$: $h_{k}(x+x_{2})\to 0$

for $x_{3}$: $h_{k}(x+x_{3})\to 0$




for $x_{m}$: $h_{k}(x+x_{m})\to 0$

so, its true for all $m$, hence for $k$. Not sure!

Edit: I had a typo, sorry. My previous question was about $h_{k}(x_{k})\to 0$, but the correct question is about $h_{k}(x+x_{k})\to 0$

share|cite|improve this question
Let $a_k=h_k(x_k)$. The question is whether this sequence of numbers $a_1,a_2,a_3,\ldots$ converges to $0$. It might help to write out exactly what that would mean, to know what goal you are trying to achieve. Because the sequence $(x_k)$ is completely arbitrary, the important hypothesis is that $(h_k)$ converges to $0$ uniformly. I might help to write out exactly what that means, to know how you can use it to show that $(a_k)$ converges to $0$. I don't understand your work. – Jonas Meyer Jun 18 '12 at 20:07
Do you know what it means for $h_k(x)$ to converge uniformly to $0$? If you write down the definition, it will help a lot. – N.U. Jun 18 '12 at 20:09
@Jonas Meyer: Oh ok. Let $k\geq 1$, then the point $x_{k}$ is the point where the $\sup$ of $h_{k}(x)$ is attained, i.e. $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}|h_{k}(x)|=|h_{k}(x_{k})|$, (of course we could have more than one point where the sup is attained but we can take the first occurrence). – Zack M Jun 18 '12 at 20:11
@ZackM: The $\sup$ might not be attained. A counter-example is $h_n(x)=\frac1n\left(1-\frac1{2+x^2}\right)$. – Dejan Govc Jun 18 '12 at 20:16
@DejanGoc: I know, but lets assume it is attained at these points – Zack M Jun 18 '12 at 20:18

This should be fairly direct.

The statement that $h_k(x) \to 0$ uniformly on $\mathbb{R}$ means that for any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists some $K_\epsilon$ such that $k>K_\epsilon$ implies that $|h_k(x)|<\epsilon$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. If $\{x_k\}$ is some sequence in $\mathbb{R}$, then we certainly have that $|h_k(x_k)| < \epsilon$ for all $k>K_\epsilon$, and so $h_k(x_k) \to 0$.

Uniform convergence is a very powerful property.

share|cite|improve this answer
He changed the question, but your proof is still correct (with $x+x_k$ instead of $x_k$). That is how nice uniform convergence is =) – N.U. Jun 18 '12 at 20:26

The idea Greg Zitelli points out in his answer should work with the new version of the problem too.

I'd just like to add that your idea of proof (if I understand it correctly) won't work. Here's an example that should demonstrate what the problem is. Let $$f_n(x)=\begin{cases}0;&x<n\\1;&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$$ and let $x_n=n$. Then for every term $x_i$ of this sequence you have: $f_n(x_i)\to0$, but $f_n(x_n)\to1$. Of course here the convergence is not uniform and the functions are not continuous, but it still shows that the convergence of $f_n(x_n)$ does not follow from that of $f_n(x_i)$.

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.