I trying to solve the following question

Assume that $f : S → \mathbb{R}$ is a uniformly continuous function defined on a subset $S$ of a metric space $M$.
1. Prove that $f$ extends to a uniformly continuous function $f : \overline{S} → \mathbb{R}$.
2. Prove that $\overline{f}$ is the unique continuous extension of $f$ to a function defined on $\overline{S}$.
3. Prove the same things when $\mathbb{R}$ is replaced with a complete metric space $N$.

For the first question, I show that for some sequence $x_n \in S$ that converges to $\hat{x} \in \overline{S},$ $\overline{f}(x_n)$ converges to $\overline{f}(\hat{x})$ since uniformly continuous functions take Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences and since $\mathbb{R}$ is complete. However, I feel like while this shows that $\overline{f}(x_n)$ converges, it does not fully establish that $\overline{f}(x_n)$ converges to $\overline{f}(\hat{x})$.
Is this proof sufficient to show that $f$ extends to a uniformly continuous function $f : \overline{S} → \mathbb{R}$?

For number 3, the same proof applies since I used the completeness of $\mathbb{R}$ as the basis for my proof.

However, I don't understand how I would show that $\overline{f}$ is the unique extension of $f$. Is it sufficient to say that since all sequences in $S$ must converge to their unique limits in $\overline{S}$, $\overline{f}$ must also be unique?


To define $\bar f(\hat x)$, pick any sequence $x_n\to \hat x$ and let $\bar f(\hat x)=\lim f(x_n)$. As you said, this limit exists because $f$ is uniformly continuous.

This $\bar f$ is well-defined, i.e., does not on the particular choice of sequence(s); this is simply because the if we combine tqo sequences $x_n\to\hat x$ and $y_n\to \hat x$, we get another convergent sequence. The function values of this converge, but as $f(x_n)$ and $f(y_n)$ are subsequences of it, we conclude that that $\lim f(x_n)=\lim f(y_n)$, as was to be shown.

Also, $\bar f|_S=f$. This is clear because we can pick the constant sequence $x_n=\hat x$ for $\hat x\in S$.

Finally, $\hat f$ is uniformly continuous. Indeed, let $\epsilon>0$ be given. As $f$ is uniformly continuous, there exists $\delta>0$ such that $d(x,y)<\delta$ implies $|f(x)-f(y)|<\frac13\epsilon$. Then for $\hat x,\hat y\in \bar S$ with $d(\hat x,\hat y)<\frac 13\delta$, and accordingly sequences $x_n\to x$, $y_n\to y$, we have $|f(\hat x)-f(x_n)|<\frac13\epsilon$ and also $d(x_n\hat x)<\frac 13\delta$, if only $n$ is big enough. Likewise, we have $|f(\hat y)-f(y_n)|<\frac13\epsilon$ and $d(\hat y,y_n)<\frac13\delta$ for all sufficiently large $n$. Then for these $n$, we have $d(x_n,y_n)le d(x_n,\hat x)+d((\hat x,\hat y)+d(\hat y,y_n)<\delta$, hence $|f(x_n)-f(y-n)|<\frac13\epsilon$, hence $|f(\hat x)-f(\hat y)|\le |f(\hat x)-f(x_n)|+|f(x_n)-f(y-n)|+|f(y_n)-f(\hat y)|<\epsilon$, as desired.

Thus we have found a uniformly continuous extension of $f$ to all of $\bar S$.

Looking at the definition, we must have $\bar f(\hat x)=\lim_{n\to\infty}f(x_n)$ whenever $x_n\to\hat x$, or else $\hat f$ cannot be a continuous extension of $f$. As such a sequence $S\ni x_n\to\hat x$ exists for all $\hat x\in \bar S$, ew do not have any choice at all, i.e., our $\bar f$ above is the unique continuous extension.


First, you need to define $\overline{f}(\hat{x})$ for $\hat{x}$ in $\overline{S}\setminus S$ in some way.

You can define it as the limit you considered for some fixed sequence that tends to $\hat{x}$.

You can then proceed to show that it is independent/the same for any such sequence. To do this, for example, consider the sequence interleaving the two sequences.

This then more-or-less shows the uniqueness as the value of $g(\hat{x})$ for $\hat{x}$ in $\overline{S}\setminus S$ for every continuous extension must be the limit of $f(x_n)$ for a sequence $x_n \to x$.

What you still need to show is that the function you get is in fact uniformly continuous.


For $x\in \overline S$, there exists a sequence $(x_n) \subset S$ converging to $x$. Define $\overline f$ to be $f$ on $S$ and $\lim f(x_n)$ when $x \notin S$, where $(x_n)$ is any sequence converging to $x$. To show that $\overline f$ is well-defined, you need to prove that if $x_n \to x$ and $y_n \to x$, then $\lim f(x_n) = \lim f(y_n)$. Since $d(x_n,y_n) \to 0$, uniform continuity tells us that $d(f(x_n),f(y_n)) \to 0$, so we are done.

Now let $\epsilon >0$. By uniform continuity of $f$, there is $\delta >0$ such that for $a,b \in S$, $d(a,b) < 2\delta \implies d(f(a),f(b))<\epsilon/2$. For $x,y \in \overline S$, suppose that $d(x,y) < \delta$. There are $(x_n),(y_n) \subset S$ converging to each, and we have $d(x_n,y_n) \to d(x,y)$. There exists $n_0$ such that $|d(x_n,y_n) - d(x,y)| < \delta$, hence $d(x_n,y_n) < 2\delta$, for all $n\ge n_0$, so $d(f(x_n),f(y_n))<\epsilon/2$, for all $n\ge n_0$. By continuity, this gives $d(f(x),f(y)) \le \epsilon/2 < \epsilon$, i.e. $d(\overline f(x), \overline f(y)) < \epsilon$.

Now if $\hat f$ is another extension, then for $x\in \overline S$, choose a sequence $(x_n) \subset S$ converging to $x$. We have $\overline f(x) =\lim f(x_n) = \lim \hat f(x_n) = \hat f(\lim x_n) = \hat f(x)$.


Assuming you have provided the continuous extension, this may be one of those cases where, for uniqueness, the general result gives a clearer idea of what's going on and in fact, is not hard to prove.

Suppose $f:S\to Y$ is continuous and that $Y$ is Hausdorff. Then, there is a most one continuous extension of $f$ to $\overline S:$

Suppose $\overline f$ and $\overline g$ are two different extensions of $f$. This means that we may choose $x\in \overline S$ such that $\overline f(x)\neq \overline g(x).$ Since $Y$ is Hausdorff, we may also choose disjoint neighborhoods, $U$ and $U', $ of $\overline f(x)$ and $\overline g(x),$ respectively. Continuity of $\overline f$ and $\overline g$ now gives us a neighborhood $V$ of $x$ such that $\overline f(V)\subseteq U$ and $\overline g(V)\subseteq U'.$ Now observe that because $x\in \overline S, V$ must contain a point $p$ from $S$. But then $\overline f(p)\in U$ and $\overline g(p)\in U', $ so $\overline f(p)\neq \overline g(p), $ which is a contradiction, since $\overline f$ and $\overline g$ agree on $S$ (they are both extensions of $f$).


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.