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.

Let $f$ fail to be of bounded variation on [0,1]. Show that there is a point $x_0$ in [0,1] such that $f$ fails to be of bounded variation on each nondegenerate closed subinterval of [0,1] that contains $x_0$. I'm trying proving this directly, but I think maybe a proof by contradiction could work here. Couldn't we just assume that $f$ is of bounded variation on every closed, bounded subset of [0,1] to begin the proof by contradiction? Perhaps then we could split up the interval [0,1] so that we end up with a situation where $f$ is of bounded variation on a subinterval that contains $x_0$? I'd appreciate some help here.

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

As Didier mentioned, the right statement probably is:

Show that there is a point x0 in [0,1] such that f fails to be of bounded variation on each nondegenerate closed subinterval of [0,1] which is a neighborhood of x0 in [0,1].

Here is an alternative proof:

We use the standard notation $V_a^b(f))$ to denote the variation of $f$ on $[a,b]$.

Let $A : =\{ x \in [0,1] | V_0^x(f) < \infty \}$.

Then $0 \in A , 1 \notin A$ and it is very easy to see that $x_0=\sup A$ works.

share|improve this answer

I bet on compactness...

You want to prove that if $f\notin BV([0,1])$, then the following holds: $$ \exists x_0\in [0,1] :\ \forall I \subseteq [0,1] \text{ nondegenerate closed subinterval containing } x_0,\ f\notin BV(I) $$

If you argue by contradiction, you assume that:

$$\forall x\in [0,1],\ \exists I_x\subseteq [0,1] \text{ nondegenerate closed subinterval containing } x:\ f\in BV(I)$$

The family $\{\text{int }I_x\}_{x\in [0,1]}$ covers $[0,1]$ ($\text{int}$ denotes the interior w.r.t. the topology induced on $[0,1]$), hence by compactness you can find $x_1,\ldots ,x_N \in [0,1]$ s.t. $[0,1]=\bigcup_{n=1}^N \text{int }I_{x_n}$, so $[0,1]=\bigcup_{n=1}^N I_{x_n}$; now $f\in BV(I_{x_n})$ for $n=1,\ldots ,N$, therefore $f\in BV([0,1])$, which is a contradiction.

I think it works... But you have to check the details.

share|improve this answer
    
Indeed, compactness is going to have to come in somehow. Note that the theorem is false if you replace $[0,1]$ by $(0,1)$. –  Nate Eldredge Apr 8 '11 at 15:09
    
Good job. –  Did Apr 8 '11 at 15:10
    
@Didier, @Pacciu: Something's wrong. See my answer. –  TonyK Apr 8 '11 at 17:39
    
(Just came back to a computer after two days without any.) The faulty step is to say that the family of the interiors covers $[0,1]$. But this step holds again if you modify things as suggested in a comment on TonyK's answer. –  Did Apr 10 '11 at 20:39
    
@Didier: So the problem is that $x_0$ may be contained in the boundary of the closed interval... Fair! But I bet Sachin's statement has to be interpreted as you wrote in your comment on TonyK's answer. Thank you Didier. ;-D –  Pacciu Apr 10 '11 at 22:39

I spent half an hour trying to prove this before I realised that it's obviously wrong. Take for instance:

$f(x) = 0$ if $x \le \frac{1}{2}$, otherwise $f(x) = 1/(x-\frac{1}{2})$

Did you want $f$ to be continuous? I think it's still wrong. Something like:

$f(x) = 0$ if $x \le \frac{1}{2}$, otherwise $f(x) = (x-\frac{1}{2})\sin(1/(x-\frac{1}{2}))$

share|improve this answer
    
It seems to me both of your $f$s fail to be of bounded variation in $[0,1]$ and in any neighbourhood of $1/2$; hence Sachin's assertion holds with $x_0=1/2$. But maybe I can't see the point... –  Pacciu Apr 9 '11 at 12:27
    
(Just came back to a computer after two days without any.) If you replace on each nondegenerate closed subinterval of $[0,1]$ that contains $x_0$* by *on each nondegenerate closed subinterval of $[0,1]$ which is a neighborhood of $x_0$ in $[0,1]$, it sems the assertion holds. (But I do not understand your second example: the function is BV.) –  Did Apr 10 '11 at 20:37
    
@Pacciu: OP's conjecture didn't say 'any neighbourhood of $x$', it said 'each nondegenerate closed subinterval that contains $x$'. So it's false. In my counterexample, if $x=1/2$ just take the interval $[0,1/2]$. –  TonyK Apr 12 '11 at 5:27
    
@Didier: So we are agreed that OP's statement is false as it stands. And you were right about my second example function: I have corrected it. –  TonyK Apr 12 '11 at 5:41

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.