1
$\begingroup$

$f_n$ forms a sequence of equicontinuous functions in $C^0$, and domain is $[a,b]$. For $p$ belongs to $[a,b]$, we have $f_n(p)$ to be a bounded sequence in $R$. Prove $f_n$ to be uniformly bounded.

What I can do is to use connectedness of $[a,b]$ (chain connected) and pointwise bounded at one point to prove pointwise boundedness at every point. Then use pointwise boundedness and compactness of $[a,b]$ to show uniformly bounded.

But is there any method that we can avoid the use of chain connected to show $f_n$ is pointwise bounded at every point (i.e. only using equicontinuous and compactness of the domain). We can have another condition for the Arzela-Ascoli theorem to be true, if we can avoid the use of connectedness. (Clearly, one condition is that pointwise bounded at every point, but I am wondering if we can extend it to pointwise bounded at one single point, given the compact domain).

Thanks!

Here is the question, and part b asks a weaker condition. So is boundedness at one point enough or we need pointwise bounded for all points? enter image description here

And the chain-connected argument comes from a previous question: enter image description here

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Take the statement for equicontinuity instantiated with $\varepsilon=1$. This creates an open cover of $[a,b]$. Compactness allows you to extract a finite subcover. Then $|f_n(x)|=|f_n(p)-f_n(p)+f_n(x)| \leq |f_n(p)|+|f_n(x)-f_n(p)|$. But $|f_n(x)-f_n(p)| \leq N$ where $N$ is the number of elements in our subcover, and $|f_n(p)|$ is bounded by hypothesis.

This is the standard trick used to prove things like the Heine-Cantor theorem. I'm not sure if this is actually what you meant by "chain connectedness", though.

Edit: Yeah, this is pretty much the chain-connectedness argument, just expanded out in this special case.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ I have added a picture for the chain connected part $\endgroup$
    – Toad Jiang
    Feb 20 '15 at 21:29
  • $\begingroup$ So if the domain is just a general compact set, we do not have such argument? $\endgroup$
    – Toad Jiang
    Feb 20 '15 at 21:31
  • $\begingroup$ And answer to part b question 18 is just pointwise bounded at all points? $\endgroup$
    – Toad Jiang
    Feb 20 '15 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ @12345 It couldn't be with just a general compact set, because in that case you could have boundedness in one connected component and unboundedness in the other. As for part b, I assume the best you can do is a decomposition into chain-connected components. $\endgroup$
    – Ian
    Feb 20 '15 at 21:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @12345 It doesn't follow just from compactness. What happens is that you get a finite subcover, then chain connectedness lets you "jump" from one open set in the cover to the next, each time increasing $|f_n|$ by at most $1$. Since there are only finitely many sets in the cover and you also have chain connectedness, you can reach any other point in $[a,b]$ in this manner and obtain a bound. As I said, just compactness is not sufficient. $\endgroup$
    – Ian
    Feb 20 '15 at 23:18

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.