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

Let $(S,d)$ and $(S^*, d^*)$ be metric spaces. If $f:S \to S^*$ is uniformly continuous and if $(s_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence in $S$, then $(f(s_n))$ is a Cauchy sequence in $S^*$.

$f:S \to S^*$ is uniformly continuous: $(\forall \varepsilon >0)( \exists > 0)(\forall s,t \in S)$ $d(s,t) < \delta \implies d(f(s), f(t)) < \varepsilon$.

$(s_n)$ Cauchy: $(\forall \varepsilon > 0)(\exists N \in \mathbb{N})$ such that $\forall n,m \geq N$ we have $d(s_n,s_m)) < \varepsilon$.

Now I need to show that $(\forall \varepsilon > 0)(\exists N \in \mathbb{N})$ such that $\forall n,m \geq N$ we have $d(f(s_n),f(s_m)) < \varepsilon$.

Since $f$ is uniformly continuous, $\delta$ will depend on $\varepsilon$ only. Then I separate the problem into two cases:

Suppose $\varepsilon < \delta$: Since I know $(s_n)$ is Cauchy, I can take the same $N$ to get $d(s_n,s_m) < \varepsilon < \delta$ which implies $d(f(s_n),f(s_m)) < \varepsilon$ by uniform continuity.

Suppose $\delta \leq \varepsilon$: Since $f$ is uniformly continuous, $d(s,t) < \delta \implies d(f(s),f(t)) < \varepsilon$ will hold for all $s,t \in S$. So let $N=1$, then $d(s_n,s_m) < \delta$ which implies $d(f(s_n),f(s_m)) < \varepsilon$.

Could someone give me feedback on my proof?

Edit For every $\varepsilon > 0$, since $f$ is uniformly continuous, there exists a $\delta >0$ such that for all $s, t \in S$, $d(s, t) < \delta \implies d(f(s),f(t)) < \varepsilon$. Then for any $\delta >0$ there exists an $N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for all $n,m \geq N$, $d(s_n, s_m) < \delta$. By uniform continuity, $d(s_n, s_m) < \delta \implies d(f(s_n),f(s_m)) < \varepsilon$.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The first part (case $\varepsilon<\delta$) is correct, but I can't follow the second part. The conclusion $N=1$ is clearly wrong for arbitrarily small $\varepsilon$'s.

In the definition of uniform continuity, the presence of $\delta$ is always around $S$ and $\varepsilon$ is around $S^*$. So, we want to prove $f(s_n)$ is Cauchy:

Let's assume an $\varepsilon>0$ is given. For this we can choose a $\delta$, and for this $\varepsilon':=\delta$ we can choose an $N$ for $s_n$ by the Cauchy property.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why are we allowed to choose $\delta$ and $N$? In the definitions I only know that there exists $\delta$ and $N$. – Student Jun 26 '13 at 23:12
How about this: for every $\varepsilon >0$, there exists a $\delta$ so that $f$ is uniformly continuous. For any $\delta >0$ since $(s_n)$ is Cauchy, there exists an $N$ such that $d(s_n,s_m) < \delta$. So by uniform continuity, $d(f(s_n),f(s_m)) < \varepsilon$. – Student Jun 26 '13 at 23:21
No, First uniform continuity gives us a $\delta$. Then we feed the definition of Cauchy sequence by this $\delta$ as $\varepsilon$. – Berci Jun 26 '13 at 23:30
Isn't that what I have written above? – Student Jun 26 '13 at 23:31
Sorry I see what you mean now. – Student Jun 26 '13 at 23:36

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.