3
$\begingroup$

Let $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be defined by

$$f(x)= \begin{cases} 5x+7 & \text{ if } x \text{ is rational } \\ x+11 & \text{ if } x \text{ is irrational } \end{cases}$$

Show that f is continuous at exactly one point.

My attempt:
Let $a \in \mathbb R$, and take a rational sequence $(x_n)$ and an irrational sequence $(y_n)$ such that $x_n \to a$ and $y_n \to a$.
Then $f(x_n) = 5x_n + 7 \to 5a+7$ and $f(y_n) = y_n + 11 \to a + 11$.
We have $lim_{n \to \infty}f(x_n) = lim_{n \to \infty}f(y_n) = f(a) \iff a = 1$. Therefore $f$ is continuous only at $x = 1$.

Is the above valid? In the above, I have shown that for every sequence $(z_n)$ such that $(z_n) \to 1$, $lim_{n \to \infty} f(z_n) = f(1)$. Doesn't that prove that $f$ is continuous at $x = 1$? In the given solutions they also used the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition of continuity to prove that $f$ is continuous at $x = 1$, I'm not sure if that is necessary, or why it is necessary. Can anyone explain?

Thanks.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Using the sequential criterion for continuity is fine, but I think you have to make clear, why $\bigl(f(z_n)\bigr)$ converges for all $z_n \to 1$, even when not all $z_n$ are rational or all irrational. That almost follows from your argument (just look at the subseqeunces of the rational resp. irrational $z_n$), but you can expand on this a little:

Let $z_n \to 1$ be any sequence. If all but finitely many $z_n$ are rational, then $f(z_n) \to f(1)$, as allready shown (the finitely many terms do not make a difference), same if all but finitely many $z_n$ are irrational. Otherwise (that is we have infinitely many rational and irrational $z_n$) let $(z_{n_k})$ denote the subsequence of rational and $(z_{n'_k})$ the subsequence of irrational numbers. Then $(z_{n_k})$ and $(z_{n'_k})$ cover $(z_n)$ and have the same limit $f(1)$ (as shown), hence $f(z_n) \to f(1)$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, my proof doesn't consider real-valued sequences $(z_n)$ which contain both rational and irrational values. Is that why we have to use the $\epsilon-\delta$ definition to complete the proof? $\endgroup$ – Vizuna Apr 24 '15 at 6:51
  • $\begingroup$ No, you haven't, you can stick to sequences if you like and expanding your proof. I'll be more concrete on this. $\endgroup$ – martini Apr 24 '15 at 6:58
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your edit. You say that if $(z_n)$ contains finitely many irrational values, and infinitely many rational values, then the finitely many terms do not make a difference, so $f(z_n) \to f(1)$ as shown earlier. Intuitively I think I see the logic behind this, as $(z_n)$ would behave like a rational sequence in this case, but is there any theorem or argument that proves this result (that we can disregard the finitely many terms)? $\endgroup$ – Vizuna Apr 24 '15 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ This follows from the very definition of convergence for a sequence. $\endgroup$ – martini Apr 24 '15 at 7:29
  • $\begingroup$ At a finite $K \in \mathbb N^+$, for all $n \ge K$, each $z_n$ is rational? $\endgroup$ – Vizuna Apr 24 '15 at 7:34

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.