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.

I am trying to understand one commonly stated necessary and sufficient condition for a function to be (lower) semicontinuous:

$$f(x) \leq \liminf_{y \rightarrow x}{f(y)} \iff \forall a \in \mathbb{R} \quad Z(f,a) \equiv \{ x : f(x) \le a \} \mbox{ is closed} $$

I can easily prove the forward direction with limits of sequences of elements taken from $Z(f,a)$, but I'm having trouble proving the backward direction. I can prove the following, however,

$$f(x) \leq \liminf_{y \rightarrow x}{f(y)} \iff \mbox{epi}(f) \equiv \{(x,y) : f(x) \le y\} \mbox{ is closed} $$

I would like to be able to make some connection between $\mbox{epi}(f)$ and $Z(f,a)$, but none of the usual countable union properties of closed sets can help me. Is this the wrong path to be going down, or is there perhaps some simple step I'm missing?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Here is a proof by contradiction of the backward implication.

For every $x$, let $g(x)=\liminf\limits_{z\to x}f(z)$ and assume that there exists $x$ such that $f(x)>g(x)$. Choose any $a$ such that $g(x)<a<f(x)$, for example $a=\frac12(f(x)+g(x))$.

On the one hand, $x$ is not in $Z(f,a)$ because $f(x)>a$. On the other hand, $g(x)<a$ and there exists a sequence $(x_n)$ such that $x_n\to x$ and $f(x_n)\to g(x)$, hence $f(x_n)<a$ for every $n$ large enough, that is, $x_n$ is in $Z(f,a)$. Since $x_n\to x$, this proves that $Z(f,a)$ is not closed.

Hence, if $Z(f,a)$ is closed for every $a$, then $f\le g$.

share|improve this answer
    
Splendid! I have a single question -- why can we say that $ \exists (x_{n}) \mbox{ s.t. } f(x_{n}) \rightarrow g(x)$? By assuming $f(x) > g(x)$, we've assumed that $f$ isn't continuous at $x$. –  duckworthd Aug 31 '11 at 9:28
    
...because if $g(x) = \liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} f(x_n)$ then $\exists (x_{n_{i}}) \in (x_{n}) \mbox{ s.t. } \rightarrow x$. Is that correct? –  duckworthd Aug 31 '11 at 9:31
    
This does not concern the value of $f$ at $x$ nor its dis/continuity. Simply, for every neighborhood $U$ of $x$ and every positive $\epsilon$, there exists some $y$ in $U$ such that $|f(y)-g(x)|\le\epsilon$. (You may try to prove this by contradiction.) Hence you can construct a sequnce $(x_n)$ such that $x_n\to x$ and $|f(x_n)-g(x)|\le1/n$. Please tell me if you meet obstacles. –  Did Aug 31 '11 at 18:33
add comment

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.