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

The oscillation of $\omega_f(A)$ of $f$ on a set $A$ to be the number $$\omega_f(A)=\sup\limits_{x,y\in A}|f(x)-f(y)|=M_A(f)-m_A(f).$$

The following equality is where I'm scratching my head a bit: $$\sup\limits_{x,y\in A}|f(x)-f(y)|=M_A(f)-m_A(f).$$
Where $M_A(f)=\sup\limits_{x\in A} f(x)$, $m_Af(x)=\inf\limits_{x\in A} f(x)$, and $f$ is a bounded function on $A$.

So here is my attempt to prove the equality. Putting how we defined $M_A(f)$ and $m_A(f)$ together: $$M_A(f)-m_A(f)=\sup\limits_{x\in A} f(x)-\inf\limits_{x\in A} f(x).$$

Since $f$ is bounded: $\inf\limits_{x \in A} f(x)=-\sup\limits_{x \in A} -f(x)$.

So, $$M_A(f)-m_A(f)=\sup\limits_{x\in A} f(x)+\sup\limits_{x \in A} -f(x).$$ $$M_A(f)-m_A(f)=\sup\limits_{x\in A} f(x)-\sup\limits_{x \in A} f(x).$$

I'm wondering if this is right so far or if I've drifted off to far left field.

share|cite|improve this question
$\sup(-f(x))$ is not $-\sup f(x)$. The correct equality is $\sup(-f(x))=-\inf f(x)$. (You have used this one in the first part of your proof.) – Martin Sleziak Nov 3 '12 at 8:25
up vote 1 down vote accepted

You're doing fine, right up until your last line.

Next, I'd rewrite as $$M_A(f)-m_A(f)=\sup\limits_{x\in A}f(x)+\sup\limits_{y\in A}-f(y).$$ Note also that we can drop the absolute value bars in the definition of $\omega_f(A)$. (Why?) Think you can get the rest of the way from there?

Alternately, you can prove that $$M_A(f)=m_A(f)+\omega_f(A),$$ which you might find to be a simpler task.

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm actually confused about why I can remove the absolute value bars. – emka Nov 4 '12 at 9:05
Note that $|f(x)-f(y)|$ is equal to either $f(x)-f(y)$ or $f(y)-f(x)$, regardless of our choice of $x,y\in A$. so any value that $|f(x)-f(y)|$ takes can be obtained by $f(x)-f(y)$ instead (swapping $x$ and $y$, if necessary). Put another way, $f(x)-f(y)$ takes on "twice as many values" (in a sense) as $|f(x)-f(y)|$ does, but they have the same supremum. – Cameron Buie Nov 4 '12 at 9:57
At the point where $\sup-f(y)$ how do I pull out the negative sign...or to put it another way, is the sup an operator which I can factor out. – emka Nov 5 '12 at 1:26
Indeed, yes! That's precisely what we need. Having rewritten it with a $y$ instead of an $x$, we have $\begin{eqnarray*} \sup_{x\in A}\bigl(f(x)\bigr)+\sup_{y\in A}\bigl(-f(y)\bigr) & = & \sup_{x\in A}\left(f(x)+\sup_{y\in A}\bigl(-f(y)\bigr)\right)\\ & = & \sup_{x\in A}\left(\sup_{y\in A}\bigl(f(x)+-f(y)\bigr)\right)\\ & = & \sup_{x\in A}\sup_{y\in A}\bigl(f(x)-f(y)\bigr)\\ & = & \sup_{x,y\in A}\bigl(f(x)-f(y)\bigr).\end{eqnarray*}$ – Cameron Buie Nov 5 '12 at 1:34
I was hesitant about treating it like a distributable operator. – emka Nov 5 '12 at 2:02

That can't be right, because you've just proved that $M_A(f)-m_A(f)=0$ (you can't change $\sup -f(x)$ into $-\sup f(x)$).

Let $S=\{|f(x)-f(y)| : x,y \in A\}$. It's not hard to show that $M_A(f)-m_A(f)$ is an upper bound of $S$: $$\mbox{*** $M_A$ and $m_A$ go here ***} \le f(x)-f(y) \le \mbox{*** $M_A$ and $m_A$ go here ***}$$

Now suppose that $c$ is an upper bound of $S$. Here's a guide without any quantifiers:

$$f(x)-f(y) \le c \\ f(x)-c \le f(y) \\ f(x)-c \le m_A(f) \\ f(x) \le m_A(f)+c \\ M_A(f) \le m_A(f)+c $$

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.