5
$\begingroup$

$f_1,f_2,...$ is a sequence of continuous functions defined on $\mathbb R$ such that $\forall x \in \mathbb R$ $\lim_{n \to \infty}f_n(x)=f(x)$, and $\{x_n\}\subseteq \mathbb R$ is a sequence converging to $x$.

Can we prove that $\lim_{n \to \infty}f_n(x_n)=f(x)$?

My attempt (motivated by Show that $f_n(x_n) \to f(x).$)

\begin{align*}|f_n(x_n)-f(x)|&=|f_n(x_n)-f(x_n)+f(x_n)-f(x)|\\ & \leq |f_n(x_n)-f(x_n)|+|f(x_n)-f(x)|\\ & \leq \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} |f_n(t)-f(t)|+|f(x_n)-f(x)|\\ & \to 0\end{align*}

To complete the proof we need to show that $\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} |f_n(t)-f(t)| \to 0$.

Using the definition of convergence, we know that $$\forall \epsilon\, \forall t\, \exists n^*(t) \text{ such that }|f_n(t)-f(t)|<\epsilon\quad \forall n \ge n^*(t)$$ We could complete the proof by showing that the $n*(t)$ are bounded above; that is, we need to show that there exists an integer $n^*$ such that $$n^*=\max_{t \in \mathbb R}n^*(t)$$ since then we will have $$\forall t\, \forall n \ge n^*\quad|f_n(t)-f(t)|< \epsilon$$ and therefore $$\forall n \ge n^*\quad\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} |f_n(t)-f(t)| \le \epsilon$$

How can we show that $n^*$ exists?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ To complete the proof you need to assume uniform convergence $\endgroup$ – Winther Feb 4 '15 at 21:23
8
$\begingroup$

This is only true if $f_n(x)$ converges uniformly to $f(x)$. In fact, it will break for any situation where $f_n(x)\rightarrow f(x)$ pointwise but not uniform on an interval $[L,R]$. In other words, there exists $\epsilon>0$ s.t. for all $N>0$, there exists a point $a$ such that $|f_n(a)-f(a)|>\epsilon$. Pick a sequence of $\epsilon_n$ and increasing $N_n$. This gives a sequence of $a_n$. By Bolzano-Weierstrass, pick a convergent subsequence of $a_n$ that converges, and call it $x_n$. Now follow through the proof.

Example: $f_n(x)=2^nx$ when $0\leq x\leq 2^{-n}$, $f_n(x)=2-2^nx$ when $2^{-n}\leq x\leq 2^{-n+1}$ and 0 elsewhere. Then $f_n(x)\rightarrow 0$. Yet pick $x_n=1/2^n$. Then $x_n\rightarrow 0$ but $f_n(x_n)=1$. Essentially you have a bump which is clamped to 0 on either side of $[0,1]$, it's squishing to the left but there's always a sequences which rides on the value 1.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ While the conclusion may be true, the counterexample doesn't actually address the question, since the hypothesis ${x_n}\to x$ is not met by $x_n=n+3$ $\endgroup$ – Alan Feb 4 '15 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Alan: see edit. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Alex R. Feb 4 '15 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ Not a problem, much improved and worthy of an up vote :) $\endgroup$ – Alan Feb 5 '15 at 1:35
-1
$\begingroup$

Alternatively, we may assume that the family $\{f_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is equicontinuous at $x$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.