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.

Recalling how nowhere continuous functions such as the Dirichlet function can sometimes be modified on a $\lambda$-null set of points (in this instance, a countable set) to become everywhere continuous, I was wondering whether a Weierstrass nowhere differentiable function can be modified on a $\lambda$-null set of points to become piecewise (or even everywhere) differentiable. If not, is there an example of such a nowhere differentiable function that remains nowhere differentiable irrespective of modifications on $\lambda$-null sets? And such nowhere continuous functions?

($\lambda$ denotes Lebesgue measure)

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

You can't fix a continuous nowhere differentiable function by redefining it on a set of measure zero.

Claim. Suppose $f$ is continuous and $f'(a)$ does not exist. If $f=g$ almost everywhere, then $g'(a)$ does not exist.

Proof. Suppose $g'(a)$ exists. Then $g(a)=f(a)$; otherwise $g$ would not be even continuous at $a$. Subtracting a linear function from both $f,g$ we can make $g'(a)=0$. Since it's not true that $f'(a)=0$, there is $c>0$ such that the set $$U = \{x: |f(x)-f(a)|> c|x-a|\}$$ has $a$ as its limit point. Since $f$ is continuous, $U$ is open. Therefore, the intersection of $U$ with $(a-r,a+r)$ has positive measure for every $r$. Let $$ V=\{x : |g(x)-g(a)|> c|x-a|\}$$ Since $$\lambda(V\cap (a-r,a+r)) = \lambda(U\cap (a-r,a+r)) >0$$ the intersection $V\cap (a-r,a+r)$ is nonempty. It follows that $a$ is a limit point of $V$, which contradicts $g'(a)=0$. $\Box$

And such nowhere continuous functions?

Yes, there are nowhere continuous functions that remain nowhere continuous, no matter how they are redefined on a null set. The characteristic function of this set is an example.

share|improve this answer
Very nice proof. One minor point: You only assume $f$ to be continuous at $a$, but use continuity in at least a neighbourhood of $a$ to conclude that $U$ is open (openness of $U\cap V$ for some neighbourhood $V$ of $a$ would suffice). –  PhoemueX Jun 9 at 20:39
@PhoemueX Thanks for the correction. The continuity only at $a$ indeed wouldn't be enough. To keep things simple, in the revised version I assumed $f$ to be continuous everywhere. This is enough to answer the question, and it should be clear to the reader that the matters of continuity and differentiability are local. –  Care Bear Jun 9 at 20:43
Does the fact $a$ is a limit point of $U$ also depend on the continuity of $f$? –  Sai Jun 9 at 22:31
@Sai No, that one does not. The openness of $U$ does. And the openness is used to show that if $a$ will remain a limit point even if we remove a null set from $U$. –  Care Bear Jun 9 at 22:39
@Sai I edited the answer to clarify. –  Care Bear Jun 9 at 23:52

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.