5
$\begingroup$

Ok, I know the same question has already been asked here, and I am not looking for an answer even though my proof looks kind of the same. But, I need to know whether or not I am on the right track. Also, the choice of $y$ on the other proof doesn't many much sense to me. So, here it goes:

Show that $f(x) = x^2$ is not uniformly continuous on $[0,\infty)$

This is what I did:

Suppose, it is. Then, fix $\epsilon = 1 > 0.$ Let, $x < \delta \in [0, \infty)$ and $y = 2x \in [0,\infty)$. Then, according to the definition,

$$\forall \epsilon > 0, \quad\exists \delta > 0\quad\text{such that} \quad\forall x,y \in [0,\infty),\qquad\mid x-y\mid < \delta\quad \implies\quad\mid f(x) - f(y)\mid < \epsilon$$

If we replace $y = 2x$, then $$\mid x -2x\mid = \mid -x\mid = x < \delta.$$ So, that holds. Now, $$\mid f(x) - f(y)\mid = \mid x^2 - 4x^2\mid = \mid -3x^2\mid = 3x^2 > \epsilon = 1,$$ which is a contradiction depending on the choice of $x$.

Is it correct? Can I do that? Thanks.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No this proof is not correct. Did you study thoroughly the answer to the question on the other page? What did you fail to get about it? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Jun 26 '15 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ Absolute continuity is stronger than uniform continuity. $\endgroup$
    – TomGrubb
    Jun 26 '15 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Jellyfish You can't choose $x$ as big as you want because you need to satisfy $|x|<\delta$ in order to be able to choose $y=2x$. Indeed, you could choose $y=x+\delta/2$. $\endgroup$
    – Surb
    Jun 26 '15 at 20:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JackD'Aurizio ??? What's your definition of "absolutely continuous"? The term has a standard definition, and absolutely continuous functions certainly need not be sublinear. Same for uniformly continuous functions - I don't see how absolute continuity has anything to do with the question. Maybe you were thinking of $Lip_1$ functions? $\endgroup$ Jun 26 '15 at 20:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JackD'Aurizio Do you think this can help an OP asking for a proof that $x\mapsto x^2$ is not uniformly continuous? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Jun 26 '15 at 20:19
12
$\begingroup$

Your proof is wrong but the idea of contradiction is good. The problem in setting $y=2x$, is that the condition $|x-y|<\delta$ forces you to choose $|x|<\delta$ and so you can't guarantee a contradiction with $3x^2 >\epsilon$ ($\delta$ might be extremely small).

Suppose by contradiction that for $\epsilon =1$ there exists $\delta >0$ such that $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$ for every $|x-y|<\delta$.

Note that $\delta$ here is given and you don't know what it is, it can be anything very small or very big (but usually very small).

You want to find $x,y>0$ such that $|x-y|<\delta$ and $|f(x)-f(y)|>\epsilon$, this would imply a contradiction.

Your idea to choose $y$ so that $x$ comes out when you evaluate $|f(x)-f(y)|$ (for getting the contradiction) is good. Since you need $|x-y|<\delta$ you have to choose $y\in ]x-\delta,x+\delta[$.

For example, we can take $y=x+\delta/2$ to get $$|f(x)-f(y)|=|x^2-(x+\delta/2)^2| =|x\delta +\delta^2/4|=x\delta + \delta^2/4\qquad \qquad \forall x\geq 0$$

Finally, choose $x$ big enough to get the contradiction. That is, we want $x\geq 0$ such that $$|f(x)-f(y)|=x\delta+\delta^2/4\geq \epsilon = 1 \implies x\geq \dfrac{1-\delta^2/4}{\delta}.$$ It follows that any $x$ such that $x\geq \dfrac{1-\delta^2/4}{\delta}$ will lead to a contradiction.

You can try to find such bound for $y=x+\alpha$ with $|\alpha|<\delta$. This is a good exercise to check if you really understood the proof.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ you can choose $y=x+\alpha$ for any $0<\alpha<\delta$ if you prefer, e.g. $y=x+\delta/123798$. The important thing is to be sure that $|x-y|<\delta$. $\endgroup$
    – Surb
    Jun 26 '15 at 20:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you so much for your detail answer. $\endgroup$
    – Jellyfish
    Jun 26 '15 at 21:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jellyfish I edited my answer. Is it ok now? (don't be sorry, it's a pleasure to answer someone who is really interested in understanding the answer :) ) $\endgroup$
    – Surb
    Jun 29 '15 at 21:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry! one more thing. I think there is a computational mistake where you computed $\mid x^2 - (x+\delta/2)^2\mid$ I think it should be $\mid x^2 - (x^2 + 2*x*\delta/2 + \delta^2 / 4)\mid = \mid -x\delta-\delta^2/4\mid = x\delta + \delta^2/4$. But, then again, it's more about understanding the idea that counts. Thank you so much. $\endgroup$
    – Jellyfish
    Jul 5 '15 at 0:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jellyfish good job :), thanks for pointing out this miscalculation. I edited in consequence. Should be correct now :). Thank you for your feedback. $\endgroup$
    – Surb
    Jul 5 '15 at 13:59
2
$\begingroup$

No, your proof method is invalid. Uniform continuity means, effectively, that if I give you any value $\epsilon > 0$, no matter how small, there is some number $\delta$ such that the neighborhood of size $\delta$ around every point $x$ is mapped to a neighborhood of size $\epsilon$ or smaller around $f(x)$. Importantly, this $\delta$ has to be the same for all $x$. What you've shown, on the other hand, is that the neighborhoods of size $\delta$ around the specific point $x = \delta$ (in other words, the intervals $(0, 2 \delta)$) will be mapped to a neighborhood around $f(\delta)$ whose size is greater than 1 if we choose $\delta$ to be sufficiently large. These are not the same proposition.

The easiest way to actually prove that a function is not uniformly continuous is to show that $\delta$ can't exist. In other words, you need to show that for a given $\epsilon$ and $\delta$, you can always find an $x$ value such that the $\delta$-neighborhood around $x$ will be mapped to a neighborhood of $f(x)$ whose size is greater than $\epsilon$.

$\endgroup$

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.