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 $f:[0,1] \to \mathbb R$ be bounded and $$ f_\odot :[0,1] \to \mathbb R: x \mapsto \sup \{f(y) : y \in [x,1] \} $$ This is well defined since $f$ is bouned.

Claim: If $f$ is continuous then $f_\odot$, too.

I begun as follows: Let $x_0 \in [0,1]$ and $\epsilon > 0$. First: Find $y_0 \in [x_0,1]$ s.t. $f_\odot(x_0) - \epsilon < f(y_0) \leq f_\odot(x_0)$. Then using continuity of $f$ I get a $\delta > 0$ s.t. $\forall a \in (y_0-\delta,y_0+\delta) : f(y_0) - \epsilon < f(a) < f(y_0) + \epsilon$ and thus also $|f(a)-f_\odot(x_0)|<2\epsilon$ for $a \in (y_0-\delta,y_0+\delta)$. Now I get suck. I think that this $\delta$ also works for $f_\odot$ somehow but can't figure it out.

share|improve this question
2  
Does this function have a house? –  Asaf Karagila Nov 8 '13 at 18:51
    
What do you mean ? –  André Nov 8 '13 at 19:05
    
@Andre I think he's referring to the House of the Rising Sun. –  IBWiglin Nov 8 '13 at 19:21

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Note that by continuity of $f$ we have $\sup=\max$ on compact intervals. Thus we may assume that in fact $f_\odot(x_0)=f(y_0)$.

If $f(x_0)<f_\odot(x_0)$, then $y_0>x_0$ and we have $f(x)<f_\odot(x_0)$ in some $\delta$-neighbourhood of $x_0$. Without loss of generality, $\delta<y_0-x_0$ and hence $f_\odot(x)=f(y_0)$ for $x\in(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$.

If on the other hand $f(x_0)=f_\odot(x_0)$, then $f(x)\le f_\odot(x)\le f(x_0)$ for $x\ge x_0$ and if we pick $\delta>0$ such that $|f(x)-f(x_0)|<\epsilon$ for $|x_0-x|<\delta$, then $f(x_0)-\epsilon<f(x)\le f_\odot(x)\le f_\odot(x_0)$ for $x_0\le x<x_0+\delta$ and also $f(x_0)\le f_\odot(x)<f(x_0)+\epsilon = f_\odot(x_0)+\epsilon$ for $x_0-\delta<x\le x_0$.

share|improve this answer

Another method to prove this is the following:

1) Show that for any function $f$ (continuous or not), that for $x_1, x_2 \in [0,1]$ such that $x_1 < x_2$, the following equality holds $$ 0 \leq f_{\odot}(x_1)-f_{\odot}(x_2) = \sup\{f(y) : y \in [x_1,1]\}-\sup\{f(y) : y \in [x_2,1]\} \\\leq \sup\{f(y) : y\in [x_1,x_2]\}-\inf\{f(y):y \in [x_1,x_2]\} $$

2) Assuming that $f$ is continuous then it is uniformly continuous on $[0,1]$. So take $\epsilon >0$ and find a $\delta$ such that for any $x_1, x_2 \in [0,1]$ with $|x_1 - x_2|<\delta$ then $|f(x_1)-f(x_2)| < \epsilon$.

3) Apply part 2 to part 1 and use that when $f$ is continuous, there is some $a \in [x_1,x_2]$ and $b\in [x_1,x_2]$ such that $f(a) = \sup\{f(y) : y\in [x_1,x_2]\}$ and $f(b) =\inf\{f(y):y \in [x_1,x_2]\}$. Therefore, you will have if $|x_1 - x_2|<\delta$ $$ |f_{\odot}(x_1) - f_{\odot}(x_2)| \leq |f(a) - f(b)| < \epsilon $$ since $|a-b|< |x_1-x_2|<\delta$.

share|improve this answer
    
This is also a nice method. I just have to ckeck point 1). –  André Nov 8 '13 at 19:08
    
Yeah, there's a little bit of work to do here. The method I wrote down is doubtfully the fastest, but more just to understand the "nature" of the function $f_{\odot}$ (ie. it was a fun function to play around with!). It was a good question. –  Tom Nov 8 '13 at 19:39
    
Indeed, it is not hard to show that 1) is true. For interested people: Call the quantities in the second line $\alpha$ resp. $\beta$. Then we want that $f_\odot(x_1) \leq \alpha-\beta + f_\odot(x_2)$. Let $y \in [x_1,1]$. First if $x_1 \leq y \leq x_2$ then $f(y) \leq \alpha$ and $f_\odot(x_2) \geq \beta$ since $\beta \leq f(x_2) \leq f_\odot(x_2)$. If $x_2 < y \leq 1$ then $f(y) \leq f_\odot(x_2)$. Then $\alpha - \beta \geq 0$ which is obvoius. Thus $f(y) \leq \alpha - \beta + f_\odot(x_2)$ for all $y \in [x_1,1]$ which proves 1). –  André Nov 8 '13 at 19:50

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.