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

I have to prove the following

THEOREM Let $f:[a,b]\to\Bbb R$ be such that $\lim\limits_{y\to x}f(y)$ exists for every $x\in[a,b]$. Then the set $\Delta\subset[a,b]$ where $f$ is discontinuous is countable.


PROPOSITION Let $f:[a,b]\to\Bbb R$ be such that $\lim\limits_{y\to x}f(y)$ exists for every $x\in[a,b]$. Define $g:[a,b]\to\Bbb R$ as $$g(x)=\lim_{y\to x}f(y)$$ Then $g$ is continuous.


Let $\alpha\in[a,b]$. Then $g(\alpha)=\lim_{y\to\alpha}f(y)$. Thus, for $\epsilon >0$ given there exists a $\delta>0$ such that $0<|y-\alpha|<\delta$ implies $|g(\alpha)-f(y)|<\epsilon/2$. This is $g(\alpha)-\epsilon/2<f(y)<g(\alpha)+\epsilon/2$. Let $x$ such that $0<|x-\alpha|<\delta$. Then

$$g(\alpha)-\epsilon/2\leq \lim_{y\to x}f(y)\leq g(\alpha)+\epsilon/2$$

But this means $|g(x)-g(\alpha)|\leq \epsilon/2<\epsilon$.$\;\blacktriangle$

Now we can move on:

PROOF Let $\epsilon >0$ and consider the set $$\Lambda(\epsilon)=\left\{x\in[a,b]:\left|\lim\limits_{y\to x}f(y)-f(x)\right|>\epsilon\right\}$$

The claim is that $\Lambda(\epsilon)$ is finite for every choice of $\epsilon$. Indeed, suppose $\Lambda(\epsilon)\subset[a,b]$ was not finite. Then, it has an accumulation point, $\lambda$, in $[a,b]$. By hypothesis $\lim\limits_{y\to \lambda}f(y)$ exists. Thus for this $\epsilon >0$ there exists a $\delta >0$ such that $$\tag 1 \left|f(y)-\lim_{x\to \lambda}f(x)\right|<\epsilon /2$$ whenever $0<|y-\lambda |<\delta$. Since $\lambda$ is an accumulation point, for each $\delta >0$ there exists a $w\in\Lambda(\epsilon)$ such that $0<|w-\lambda|<\delta$ and

$$\tag 2 \left|f(w)-\lim_{x\to w}f(x)\right|>\epsilon$$

And because of the previous proposition, for this $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\delta' >0$ such that for each $y$ with $0<|y-\lambda|<\delta'$ we have

$$\tag 3 \left|\lim_{x\to y}f(x)-\lim_{x\to \lambda}f(x)\right|<\epsilon/2$$

Let $\delta''=\min(\delta,\delta')$. We thus obtain from $(1)$,$(2)$ and $(3)$ a $w\in \Lambda(\epsilon)$ such that $0<|w-\lambda|<\delta''$ with

$$ \left|f(w)-\lim_{x\to \lambda}f(x)\right|<\epsilon /2$$

$$ \left|f(w)-\lim_{x\to w}f(x)\right|>\epsilon$$

$$ \left|\lim_{x\to w}f(x)-\lim_{x\to \lambda}f(x)\right|<\epsilon/2$$

which, by the triangle inequiality, is absurd. Then $\Lambda(\epsilon)$ is finite for each $\epsilon>0$. In particular, for each $n\in\Bbb N$, $\Lambda(1/n)$ is finite. But

$$\bigcup_{n\in\Bbb N}\Lambda(1/n)=\Delta$$ which is the countable union of finite sets, whence, it is at most countable.$\; \blacktriangle$

ADD I cannot understand Spivak's proof of this. He considers $[0,1]$ in his exercise (I had forgotten)

If the set of such $a$ was infinite, it would have an accumulation point in $[0,1]$. Call it $x$. For every $\delta >0$ there would be an $a$ such that $0<|x-a|<\delta/2$ and $$\tag 1 \lim_{y\to a}f(y)-f(a)|>\epsilon$$ Thus, there would exist an $a'$ such that $|a'-a|<\delta/2$ (from where $0<|x-a'|<\delta$) such that $$\tag 2 |f(a')-f(a)|>\epsilon$$ But since $\ell=\lim\limits_{y\to x }f(y)$ for some $\ell$, there exists a $\delta >0$ such that $$|f(y)-\ell|<\epsilon/2$$ whenever $0<|y-x|<\delta$. In particular, if $0<|x-a|<\delta$ and $0<|x-a'|<\delta$ then $\epsilon < |f(a')-f(a)|<|f(a')-\ell|+|f(a)-\ell|<\epsilon$ which is absurd.

My question is: where does he get $$\epsilon < |f(a')-f(a)|$$ from?

share|cite|improve this question
I would like to know an example of such $f$ with infinite $\Delta$. – Makoto Kato Nov 19 '12 at 20:18
@MakotoKato I don't know if this is too simple, but set $f(x)=0$ if $x\neq 1/n$ and $1/n$ otherwise. – Pedro Tamaroff Nov 19 '12 at 20:23
Isn't your first proposition redundant? You don't seem to use it in the proof of the theorem. – Rhys Nov 19 '12 at 20:41
@Rhys I use it to get $(3)$. – Pedro Tamaroff Nov 19 '12 at 20:43
In the start of the spivack's proof should not you write "if $a$ was uncountable". I think the difference between your proof and spivack's is the spivack does not prove why for that every $a$ you have $\tag 1 \lim_{y\to a}f(y)-f(a)|>\epsilon$ where $\epsilon$ is fixed for every $a$. – clark Nov 19 '12 at 21:36
up vote 1 down vote accepted

In Spivak’s proof let $$L=\lim_{y\to a}f(a)\;,$$ and let

$$d=|L-f(a)|=\left|\lim_{y\to a}f(y)-f(a)\right|>\epsilon\;.$$

Then there is an $\eta>0$ such that $|L-f(y)|<\frac12(d-\epsilon)$ whenever $0<|y-a|<\eta$ and $y\in[0,1]$, and for all such $y$ we have


Now just pick $a'$ so that $0<|a'-a|<\min\left\{\frac{\delta}2,\eta\right\}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Oh, OK. And what about my proof? – Pedro Tamaroff Nov 19 '12 at 21:03
@Peter: It appears to be okay. – Brian M. Scott Nov 19 '12 at 21:09

In step 1, when he mentions $$|\lim_{y\rightarrow a}f(y) - f(a)| > \epsilon $$ $$\Rightarrow \liminf_{y\rightarrow a}f(y) > f(a) + \epsilon $$ $$\Rightarrow f(y) > f(a) + \epsilon$$ for infinitely many $y \in N_{\delta}(a)$. So let one of those $y=a'$. Thus we get $f(a') - f(a) > \epsilon$. Since both sides are non negative, your desired result follows.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks. Could this be done without $\liminf$ considerations?. What about my proof? – Pedro Tamaroff Nov 19 '12 at 20:57
The proof appears fine. At least I didn't see any flaws in it. – Gautam Shenoy Nov 19 '12 at 21:05

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.