4
$\begingroup$

I have one quick question regarding the proof of a theorem contained in here : https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~hunter/m125a/intro_analysis_ch5.pdf

Theorem 5.13. A sequence $(f_n)$ of functions $f_n : A → R$ converges uniformly on $A$ if and only if it is uniformly Cauchy on $A$.

enter image description here

Question:

In the triangle inequality part

$|f_n(x) - f(x)| \leq |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| + |f_m(x) - f(x)|$

Why do we know that $f_m(x) \to f(x)$ as $m \to \infty$ so that $|f_m(x) - f(x)| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}$

I mean, isn't $|f_m(x) - f(x)|$ basically the same as $|f_n(x) - f(x)|$ on the left hand side? Just one is indexed by $m$ instead $n$? Why do we know that $|f_m(x) - f(x)| < \epsilon$ but we do not know immediately whether $|f_n(x) - f(x)| < \epsilon$

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ This challenged my mind also when I first studied it. The left side is meant: take any $x\in A$ (and fix it). You want to show that the left side is less than $\epsilon$ for big enough $n$ and for that any $x$ (i.e for all $x\in A$). But you only have that $f_n(x)\to f(x)$ pointwise for each point $x$ (not uniformly). However, on the right side you use what you already now, namely the pointwise convergence. $\endgroup$
    – Svetoslav
    Feb 12 '16 at 20:43
6
$\begingroup$

Another way to look at it is as follows. This circumvents any consideration of the dependence of $m$ on $x$ which, clearly, is confusing.

It can be shown that for $n,m > N$ we have, for all $x \in A,$

$$|f_n(x) - f(x)| < \epsilon + |f_m(x) - f(x)|.$$

Hence,

$$|f_n(x) - f(x)| -\epsilon < |f_m(x) - f(x)|.$$

With $x$ fixed, we take the limit of both sides as $m \to \infty$. Since $f_m(x)$ converges pointwise to $f(x)$ and the LHS does not depend on $m$ it follows that for all $x \in A$ and $n > N$,

$$ |f_n(x) - f(x)| -\epsilon = \lim_{m \to \infty}\left(|f_n(x) - f(x)| -\epsilon\right) \leqslant \lim_{m \to \infty}|f_m(x) - f(x)| = 0 \\ \implies |f_n(x) - f(x)| \leqslant\epsilon .$$

Here we have used the following lemma which you can easily prove by contradiction:

$$a_m > a \, ,\forall m \in \mathbb{N} \implies \lim_{m \to \infty}a_m \geqslant a. $$

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The subtlety is that $m$ depends on $x$. In the triangle inequality $$|f_n(x) - f(x)| \leq |f_n(x) - f_m(x)| + |f_m(x) - f(x)| \leq \frac\epsilon2 + |f_m(x) - f(x)| $$ $x$ is arbitrary. Initially $m$ is known to exceed $N$, but later $m$ is chosen so that, in addition, the second term on the RHS is less than $\frac\epsilon2$. (This is possible since, for each fixed $x$, the real sequence $\{f_n(x)\}$ is Cauchy and therefore converges to $f(x)$.) Note that this $m$ varies with $x$, but once the second term is replaced by $\frac\epsilon2$, the RHS no longer varies with $x$. After this the bound on $|f_n(x)-f(x)|$ is $\epsilon$, and is valid for every $x$, which was the goal.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ In other words, given $\forall x\in A \forall m,n>N\;(|f_n(x)-f_m(x)|<e/2)$, we can ,for each $x\in A$, take $m(x)>N$ such that $|f_{m(x)}-f(x)|<e/2.$ The triangle inequality then gives $\forall x\in A (n>N\to |f_n(x)-f(x)|<e).$ $\endgroup$ Feb 12 '16 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ @grand_chat is the implication $ (f_n)$ uniform cauchy $\Rightarrow (f_n(x))$ is cauchy immediate? $\endgroup$
    – Fraïssé
    Feb 12 '16 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ @VerySoftCarpet Yes. The definition (5.12) of uniform cauchy specifies a $N$ that works for every $x$, so this $N$ will work for the specific sequence $\{f_n(x)\}$. $\endgroup$
    – grand_chat
    Feb 12 '16 at 21:46

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.