Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

The definition for uniform continuity for a function $f : X \to Y$ is that

for all $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that $d_Y(f(p),f(q)) < \epsilon$ for all $p,q \in X$ such that $d_X(p,q) < \delta$.

Mathematically, we can write this definition as

$\forall \epsilon > 0, \exists \delta > 0 \textrm{ such that } d_Y(f(p),f(q) < \epsilon\ \forall p,q \in X \textrm{ for which } d_X(p,q) < \delta.$

I have learned that when negating a statement, one switches the quantifiers, and reverses any equality/inequality statements in the conclusion.

Following these rules, the definition for not uniformly continuous would be

$\exists \epsilon > 0\ \forall \delta > 0 \textrm{ such that } d_Y(f(p),f(q)) \ge \epsilon\ \exists p,q \in X \textrm{ for which } d_X(p,q) < \delta.$

This, however makes little sense as written. I believe that I would be better served writing this as

$\exists p,q \in X \textrm{ such that } \forall \delta > 0 \textrm { for which } d_X(p,q) < \delta, \exists \epsilon > 0 \textrm{ such that } d_Y(f(p),f(q)) \ge \epsilon.$

My question is: does my latter define criteria for which a function is not uniformly continuous? In other words, is this a proper negation of the definition? I believe that it should provide a criteria for a function not being uniformly continuous, but is this the same thing as the wholesale negation of the definition?

share|improve this question
2  
Try writing uniform continuity as : $\forall \epsilon > 0, \exists \delta > 0, \forall p,q \in X, (d(p,q) < \delta \implies d(f(p),f(q)) < \epsilon)$. –  mercio Oct 2 '12 at 1:41

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

You didn’t really entirely translate the original version into symbols; that would have given you

$$\forall\epsilon>0\exists\delta>0\forall p,q\in X\Big(d_X(p,q)<\delta\to d_Y\big(f(p),f(q)\big)<\epsilon\Big)\;.\tag{1}$$

Because you did the translation incorrectly, your attempts at negating it gave incorrect results.

Negating $(1)$ mechanically, we get

$$\exists\epsilon>0\forall\delta>0\exists p,q\in X\Big(d_X(p,q)<\delta\land d_Y\big(f(p),f(q)\big)\ge\epsilon\Big)\;.$$

In words, there is an $\epsilon>0$ such that no matter how small a $\delta>0$ you choose, there will be points $p,q\in X$ such that $d_X(p,q)<\delta$, but $d_Y\big(f(p),f(q)\big)\ge\epsilon$. An equivalent statement that may be more intuitively comprehensible is that there are an $\epsilon>0$ and sequences $\langle p_n:n\in\Bbb N\rangle$ and $\langle q_n:n\in\Bbb N\rangle$ in $X$ such that $d_X(p_n,q_n)<2^{-n}$ for each $n\in\Bbb N$, but $d_Y\big(f(p_n),f(q_n)\big)\ge\epsilon$ for each $n\in\Bbb N$.

share|improve this answer
    
Great, thanks! That makes much more sense. I must have copied my notes down incorrectly! –  Arkamis Oct 2 '12 at 2:29
    
@Ed: You’re welcome! –  Brian M. Scott Oct 2 '12 at 2:31

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.