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

Suppose that $\{f_n\}$ is a sequence of nondecreasing functions which map the unit interval into itself. Suppose that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} f_n(x)=f(x)$$ pointwise and that $f$ is a continuous function. Prove that $f_n(x) \rightarrow f(x)$ uniformly as $n \rightarrow \infty$, $0\leq x\leq1$. Note that the functions $f_n$ are not necessarily continuous.

This is one of the preliminary exam from UC Berkeley, the solution goes like this:

Because $f$ is continuous on $[0,1]$, which is compact, it is then uniformly continuous. Hence there exists $\delta >0$ such that if $|x-y|<\delta$ then $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$.

We then partition the interval with $x_0=0, \cdots ,x_m=1$ such that the distance $x_{i}-x_{i-1}$ is less than $\delta$.

Note that since there are only finite number of $x_m$, there is $N\in \mathbb{N}$ such that if $n\geq N$ then $|f_n(x_i)-f(x_i)|<\epsilon$ where $i=0,\cdots, m$

Now if $x\in[0,1]$, then $x\in[x_{i-1},x_i]$ for some $i\in\{1, \cdots m\}$.

My question is how to use the nondecreasingness to arrived at this inequality, for $n\geq N$


Can someone please help, I have been staring at the inequality for about a day now. Thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
Essentially the same problem appeared before: – Jonas Meyer Jul 3 '12 at 5:04
up vote 3 down vote accepted

BenjaLim has already dealt with the first half of the inequality. For the second half, note

$$f_n(x)-f(x_{i-1})\leq f_n(x_i)-f(x_{i-1})= (f_n(x_i)-f(x_i))+(f(x_i)-f(x_{i-1}))<\epsilon+\epsilon=2\epsilon.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks bobobinks and BenjaLim !!! – KWO Jun 29 '12 at 1:28
@bobobinks +1 I did not see that. – user38268 Jun 29 '12 at 1:30
Thanks everyone!!! I did not see that too. How to "declare" that the problem has been solved? – KWO Jun 29 '12 at 1:31
@KWO Accepting an answer is sufficient. – Benji Jun 29 '12 at 1:36
Thanks all, I am logging off. Bye – KWO Jun 29 '12 at 1:37

For the first part of the inequality we know that there is a natural number $N$ such that

$$ n\geq N \implies |f_n(x_{i-1}) - f(x_{i-1})| < \epsilon$$

Opening up the absolutely value signs, this means in particular that for $n \geq N$,

$$-\epsilon + f(x_{i-1}) < f_n(x_{i-1}).$$

Now suppose that $x \in [x_{i-1},x_i]$. Then this means that $x_{i-1} \leq x$ and because each $f_n$ is non-decreasing, for all $f_n$ such that $n$ is sufficiently large we have that

$$f_n(x_{i-1}) \leq f_n(x)$$

and so using the first inequality I obtained, we have that

$$f(x_{i-1}) - \epsilon < f_n(x).$$

Edit: Thanks to bobokinks we can now finish the problem. From you inequality we get that there is $N \in \Bbb{N}$ such that for all $n \geq N$, we have

$$|f_n(x) - f(x_{i-1})| < 2\epsilon.$$

I was an idiot before and proved nonsense. Here is the correct version: We have $$\begin{eqnarray*} |f_n(x) - f(x)| &<& |f_n(x) - f(x_{i-1})| + |f(x_{i-1}) - f(x)| \\ &<& 2\epsilon + \epsilon\\ &=& 3\epsilon. \end{eqnarray*}$$

The latter quantity being less than $\epsilon$ comes from uniform continuity of $f$ on $[0,1]$ and the fact that we chose each $[x_{i-1},x_i]$ to be of width less than $\delta$. Since $\epsilon > 0$ was arbitrary, we have proven that for any $x \in [0,1]$, as long as $n \geq N$ we have $f_n \longrightarrow f$ uniformly.

share|cite|improve this answer
I got the first part too, is the second part that trouble me. – KWO Jun 29 '12 at 1:00
@KWO You did not state which part you did not get, so I just thought that you did not get any part of the inequality at all. – user38268 Jun 29 '12 at 1:02
any thought about the second? – KWO Jun 29 '12 at 1:02
@KWO Btw I think your inequality only holds when $n \geq N$. – user38268 Jun 29 '12 at 1:02
@KWO I am working on that now. – user38268 Jun 29 '12 at 1:03

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.