2
$\begingroup$

What's wrong with my following proof?

Suppose $f:\Bbb R\to \Bbb R$ is continuous. Take $x,y\in \Bbb R$.

Given $\epsilon >0$ there exists $\delta_1,\delta_2$ such that $$ 0<|x-x_0|<\delta_1 \rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<\epsilon\\ 0<|y-x_0|<\delta_2\rightarrow |f(y)-f(x_0)|<\epsilon $$ For some fixed $x_0$.

Then $|f(x)-f(y)|\leq |f(x)-f(x_0)|+|f(y)-f(x_0)|<2\epsilon$ provided $|x-y|<\min\{\delta_1,\delta_2\}$.

So we've found a $\delta$ which works for all $x,y$. This is obviously wrong somewhere, but where?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The assumption $|x-y|<\min\{\delta_1, \delta_2\}$ does not imply that $|x-x_0|<\delta_1$ and/or $|y-x_0|<\delta_2$. $\endgroup$ – Dustan Levenstein Mar 1 '16 at 18:44
1
$\begingroup$

The $\delta$ you found only works for $x$ and $y$ that are close to $x_0$, so choosing a different $x_0$ means you might need a different $\delta$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

It has to work for every $x_0$! Who would be $x,y$ in the definition of uniform continuity?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm using the $x,y$ as the ones in the part $\forall\epsilon\,\exists \delta \,\forall x\,\forall y (|x-y|<\delta \cdots)$, so it shouldn't matter if I fix some $x_0$ in between. $\endgroup$ – user1293038 Mar 1 '16 at 18:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But your value of $\delta$ depends, potentially, on $x_0$, which it must not do for uniform continuity. Try your approach on $1/x$ over $(0, \infty)$. $\endgroup$ – Brian Tung Mar 1 '16 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ @BrianTung Yes $\delta=\delta(x_0)$, but I claim that this does not matter because we're only picking one $x_0$ (therefore just a single $\delta$), what's wrong with this? $\endgroup$ – user1293038 Mar 1 '16 at 19:04
  • $\begingroup$ @user1293038: Consider the function I mentioned: $1/x$ over $(0, \infty)$. What value of $x_0$ are you going to choose? Suppose $\varepsilon = 1/10$. (Uniform continuity requires that $\delta$ depend only on $\varepsilon$, not on $x$.) What value of $\delta$ will you produce? Will that $\delta$ work for $x = 1/10$? For $x = 1/100$? For $x = 1/1000$? Etc. $\endgroup$ – Brian Tung Mar 1 '16 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ This comment is not quite clear. Could you clarify? $\endgroup$ – Rory Daulton Mar 1 '16 at 19:37
0
$\begingroup$

Uniform continuity requires you to find, for any given $\varepsilon > 0$, a $\delta$ that works for the entire domain of $f(x)$: The $\delta$-neighborhood of any $x$ maps into the $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $f(x)$.

That is not what you've shown. You've (more or less) shown that for any given $\varepsilon > 0$ and any given $x$, you can find a $\delta$-neighborhood of $x$ such that any two points in that neighborhood map to points that are within $\varepsilon$ of each other. That isn't really any different from bog-standard continuity.

$\endgroup$

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.