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 would like to prove the following:

Let $g$ be a monotone increasing function on $[0,1]$. Then the set of points where $g$ is not continuous is at most countable.

My attempt:

Let $g(x^-)~,g(x^+)$ denote the left and right hand limits of $g$ respectively. Let $A$ be the set of points where $g$ is not continuous. Then for any $x\in A$, there is a rational, say, $f(x)$ such that $g(x^-)\lt f(x)\lt g(x^+)$. For $x_1\lt x_2$, we have that $g(x_1^+)\leq g(x_2^-)$. Thus $f(x_1)\neq f(x_2)$ if $x_1\neq x_2$. This shows an injection between $A$ and a subset of the rationals. Since the rationals are countable, $A$ is countable, being a subset of a countable set.

Is my work okay? Are there better/cleaner ways of approaching it?

share|improve this question
    
Related posts: 56831 and 14458. –  Srivatsan Nov 23 '11 at 7:15
2  
This is the standard proof. It looks fine to me, except that I'd call $f$ an injection "of $A$ into the rationals", rather than "between $A$ and a subset of the rationals". –  Robert Israel Nov 23 '11 at 7:19
    
@RobertIsrael: Thanks. Point well noted. –  AKM Nov 23 '11 at 13:50
    
@Srivatsan: Thanks for the links –  AKM Nov 23 '11 at 13:50
    
you have writen g(x+)<f(x)<g(x-) is it not posible dat g(x+)<=f(x)<g(x-) since a function is also discntnous when left and right hand limit are not equal but function value is equal to one of th limit –  user28374 Apr 5 '12 at 4:42
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

This looks beautiful to me: or, more truthfully, it looks like exactly what I would write.

If anything else can be asked of this argument, maybe it is a justification that monotone functions have discontinuities as you have described. I happen to have recently written this up in lecture notes for a "Spivak calculus" course: see $\S 3$ here. Although the fact is quite well known, many texts do not treat it explicitly. I think this may be a mistake: in the the same section of my notes, I explain how this can be used to give a quick proof of the Continuous Inverse Function Theorem.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks very much for sharing your notes. –  AKM Nov 23 '11 at 13:51
    
Where did we use that $f$ is defined on $[0,1]$? Would the argument work if $f$ is defined on $\mathbb{R}$? Thank you. –  Leo Schmidt Feb 23 at 7:56
    
The argument would work for functions defined on any interval in $\mathbb{R}$. –  Pete L. Clark Feb 23 at 17:04
add comment

Just for slight variation, another proof.

Assume $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb R$ is monotonically increasing and let $D$ be its set of discontinuities. For every $x\in D$ let $c_x=\lim_{t\to x+}f(t)-\lim_{t\to x-}f(t)$ (since $f$ is monotone the one-sided limits exist (and are finite)). As $x$ was a point of discontinuity it follows that $c_x>0$. Now, let $S$ be the sum of all $c_x$. More formally, consider the set $T$ of all finite sums of elements of the form $c_x$, and let $S$ be its supremum.

Now, for every finite sum $s=c_{x_1}+ \cdots +c_{x_n}$ (we may assume the points $x_i$ appear in their natural order in $[a,b]$) using monotonicity of $f$ it follows that the total variation of $f$, that is $f(b)-f(a)$, is not less than the sum $s$ (intuitively, because that sum is the sum of total variations at points along the way from $a$ to $b$). In symbols: $s\le f(b)-f(a)$. It follows that the supremum also satisfies $S\le f(b)-f(a)$. But a sum of infinitely many positive elements can be bounded only if there are countably many elements. Thus, $D$ is countable.

share|improve this answer
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.