8
$\begingroup$

I have encountered the following problem:

Prove that there is no continuous function $U\colon [\,0;1\,]\times[\,0;1\,]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, so that $\forall f\in C[\,0;1\,], \quad|f(x)|\leq1\quad \forall x\in[\,0;1\,]$, exists such $y_f\in[\,0;1\,]$ so that $f(x)\equiv U(x,y_f)$.

It ia advised to use Baire theorem, but I have no idea which sets to choose. What sould I try?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure the order of quantifiers in "for all x in [0,1] there exists y in [0,1]" shouldn't be swapped? Because y would depend on x and I'm not sure that is desired. $\endgroup$
    – abnry
    Jan 24, 2017 at 18:58
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @pasta The statement is rather informal, but I believe what he means is $$\forall f\in C([0,1])((\forall x\ |f(x)|\le1)\implies\exists\ y_f\in[0,1]\dots)$$ or in other words, every continuous function $f:[0,1]\to[-1,1]$ is identical to the function $x\mapsto U(x,y_f)$ for some $y_f.$ $\endgroup$
    – bof
    Jan 24, 2017 at 23:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @pasta I mean, that absolute value of $f$ is not greater than $1$ for every $x$. Statement about exsistence of $y_f$ is the next one. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Freimann
    Jan 26, 2017 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, got you. To be precise, quantifiers always precede the property claimed. $\forall x: P(x)$ is correct but $P(x) \; \forall x$ is informal and not technically precise. $\endgroup$
    – abnry
    Jan 26, 2017 at 21:24

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
6
+100
$\begingroup$

Assume that such a $U$ exists. Since $U$ is continuous and $[0,1]\times[0,1]$ is compact, $U$ is uniformly continuous. Therefore we can choose $\varepsilon$ so that $0\lt\varepsilon\lt1$ and, for all $x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2\in[0,1],$ $$\sqrt{(x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2}\le\varepsilon\implies|U(x_1,y_1)-U(x_2,y_2)|\le1;$$ in particular, $$0\le x\le\varepsilon,\ 0\le y\le1\implies|U(0,y)-U(\varepsilon,y)|\le1.$$ Define a continuous function $f:[0,1]\to[-1,1]$ with $f(0)=1$ and $f(\varepsilon)=-1.$ Then there is no $y_f\in[0,1]$ such that $f(x)\equiv U(x,y_f),$ contradicting the assumed universality of $U.$

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Nice, I can only award the bounty tomorrow however (having posted it today). Do you see a method to do with Baire? $\endgroup$
    – s.harp
    Jan 24, 2017 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, Baire theorem application will be very much appreciated. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Freimann
    Jan 24, 2017 at 18:41
  • $\begingroup$ You mean the Baire category theorem? No, I'm sorry, I don't see how to use that. Is the use of BCT mandatory? $\endgroup$
    – bof
    Jan 24, 2017 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ @s.harp No, leave the bounty open until someone posts a solution using Baire's theorem. $\endgroup$
    – bof
    Jan 24, 2017 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I think your answer is fine as an answer, but if somebody does it with Baire 'll give them the bounty :). If it doesn't look like anybody will answer before the bounty expires I'll give it to you so you get the $100$ and not half. $\endgroup$
    – s.harp
    Jan 25, 2017 at 19:17
3
$\begingroup$

Consider the functions $f_n(x)=x^n$ which are in $C[0,1]$ and have $|f_n(x)| \leq 1$. Assuming the conclusion, there exists a sequence of $y_n$ such that $U(x,y_n)=x^n$. Because $y_n \in [0,1]$, there exists a convergent subsequence $y_{n_k} \to y \in [0,1]$. By continuity of $U$ we must have $U(x,y) = \chi_{\{1\}}(x)$. As pointed out in the comments, this violates the continuity of $U$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $U(x,y')=\chi_{\{1\}}(x)$ immediately contradicts continuity of $U$. This proof makes the result seem very easy and it seems very strange that the Baire Category Theorem is suggested as useful! $\endgroup$
    – s.harp
    Jan 27, 2017 at 15:47
  • $\begingroup$ You are right. Thanks for making that point. I agree, using Baire Category seems strange without any additional context. However, I bet there is a way to approach it that would generalize to other cases. If the problem prompted a way to start a BCT argument, that'd be better. $\endgroup$
    – abnry
    Jan 28, 2017 at 1:54
2
$\begingroup$

Write $$ g :[0,1]\rightarrow C([0,1])\\ y\rightarrow g(y)=U(\cdot,y) $$ It's not difficult to see that $g$ is continuous ($C([0,1])$ has the $\left \| \cdot \right \|_{\infty}$ topology). Since $[0,1]$ is compact, $g([0,1])$ is compact. The hypotesis asserts that $g([0,1]) = \{ h\in C([0,1]):\left \| h \right \|_{\infty}\leq 1 \}=:B$. But $B$ is not compact, because $C([0,1])$ has infinite dimension.

pd. This doesn't use the Baire's theorem, but I think we can use it by showing that compact subsets of $C([0,1])$ has empty interior.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I think you mean $g:[0,1]\to C([0,1])$, and that $g$ is continuous (not $U$). I don't directly see how $g$ is continuous though, can't quite combine the uniform continuity of $U$ and the compactness of $[0,1]$ in the right way. $\endgroup$
    – s.harp
    Jan 30, 2017 at 10:12
  • $\begingroup$ Let $\epsilon >0,\ x\in [0,1],\ f=g(x)$. Take $\delta>0$ such that $\left \| (a,b)-(c,d) \right \| < \delta \Rightarrow |U(a,b)-U(c,d)|<\epsilon$. If $|y-x|<\delta$, we have, for all $z\in [0,1]$: $$ \| (z,y)-(z,x) \| = |y-x| < \delta $$ Then, $| g(y)(z) - g(x)(z) | = | U(z,y) - U(z,x) |< \delta$. So, $\| g(y)-g(x)\|_{\infty} < \epsilon$ $\endgroup$
    – Veridian Dynamics
    Jan 30, 2017 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ Oh right. Was thinking in the wrong direction. $\endgroup$
    – s.harp
    Jan 30, 2017 at 12:37

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.