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.

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

In an attempt to better understand the definition of an equicontinuous family of continuous functions, I want to find a simple non-example.

My intuition says that the family $\{f_n\colon[0,1]\to\mathbb R\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ given by $f_n(x)=x^n$ is not equicontinuous, but I do not know how to show this.

Any help is appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
Can you elaborate on your "intuition?" Where do you think this family family fails to be equicontinuous? – Alex R. Jul 6 '12 at 15:18
Could this also be tagged functional-analysis? – Rudy the Reindeer Jul 6 '12 at 15:38
@MattN. In my opinion, not really. While the concept of equicontinuity plays a role in a functional analysis, the question here asks for the explicit construction of a counterexample, giving the question a much more real-analytic flavor. – user12014 Jul 6 '12 at 17:55
@PZZ Ok. Thanks for the comment! – Rudy the Reindeer Jul 6 '12 at 17:57

We claim that the point $x=1$ ruins the family's chance at equicontinuity. We choose $\epsilon = \frac{1}{2}$ and let $\delta>0$ be given. Pick any $y\in(1-\delta,1)$ you want. Letting $n\to \infty$ we have $y^n \to 0,$ so we may choose an $n$ large enough that $y^n < \frac{1}{2}$, then we would have $$ |f_n(1)-f_n(y)| = |1-y^n| \geq \frac{1}{2}. $$

Hence the family is not equicontinuous at $x=1$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I think you should mention that you chose a $y \in (1 - \delta, 1)$. – el_tenedor Apr 4 '15 at 15:58

According to Wikipedia (link given in OP): "...the limit of an equicontinuous pointwise convergent sequence of continuous functions $f_n$ on either metric space or locally compact space is continuous. ..."

In your example the pointwise limit of $f_n$ is not continuous. It is $0$ everywhere except at $1$ (where it's $1$). So we may conclude that $f_n$ are not equicontinuous.

share|cite|improve this answer
I hope I'm not missing anything. – Rudy the Reindeer Jul 6 '12 at 15:35

The problem is at $1$. Indeed, assume that $\{f_n\}$ is equi-continuous at $1$. Then we can find a $\delta>0$ such that if $|1-x|\leq \delta$ and $0\leq x\leq 1$ then for each integer $n$, $|f_n(x)-f_n(1))|\leq 1/3$, hence $|x^n-1|\leq 1/3$ and $x^n\geq 2/3$. If $1/{n^2}\leq \delta$ then we should have $\left(1-\frac 1{n^2}\right)^n\geq 2/3$. It's impossible, since the RHS converges to $0$.

In fact, we know by Arzela-Ascoli-'s theorem that a uniformly bounded sequence of equi-continuous functions on a compact interval admit a converging subsequence for the uniform norm (and this limit is continuous). We can check that the pointwise limit of $\{f_n\}$ is not continuous.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why can we simply check that $f_n$ is non-uniformly convergent? Doesn't the Arzela-Ascoli theorem you quoted refer to subsequences? I mean, even if we show that $f_n$ is non-uniformly convergent, does this necessarily mean that all its subsequences are too? – Ryan Nov 11 '13 at 9:44
The pointwise limit of subsequences is non-continuous (as it's the case for the whole sequence) so the argument applies. – Davide Giraudo Nov 11 '13 at 9:50

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.