1
$\begingroup$

The following Theorem as stated is from Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis.

7.25 Theorem If $K$ is compact, if $f_n \in \mathscr{C}(K)$ for $n = 1,2,3,...,$ and if $\{f_n\}$ is pointwise bounded and equicontinuous on $K$, then

(a) $\{f_n\}$ is uniformly bounded on $K$,

(b) $\{f_n\}$ contains a uniformly convergent subsequence.

Question If $\{f_n\}$ is a family of equicontinuous functions on a compact $K$, then doesn't that automatically imply $f_n \in \mathscr{C}(K)$, where $\mathscr{C}(K)$ is the set of complex-valued, continuous, bounded functions? If so, why did Rudin include the $``$if $f_n \in \mathscr{C}(K)$ for $n = 1, 2, 3, ...,$'' part in his hypothesis? Is there something I am missing?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It's redundant, sure, but in a sense the hypothesis about $f_n$ is sort of specifying the type of objects we're looking at, and the rest is specifying what they do. This is a common situation in mathematics. If you didn't write that, you'd still want to say "$f_n : K \to \mathbb{C}$" (or "$f_n$ are real-valued functions on $K$", or similar) and it would take even more symbols to write out anyway. $\endgroup$ – Ian Mar 22 '17 at 18:33
3
$\begingroup$

Logically it is redundant, but it makes sense to say it this way.

Equicontinuity is a property of families of continuous functions so semantically it makes more sense to establish first that you have a family of continuous functions and then introduce the assumption that they are equicontinuous.

I personally don't like repeated "if"s, so I would say something more like

Let $K$ be a compact set and $\{f_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty} \in C(K)$. If $\{f_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is equicontinuous, then .....

So that you only have a clear single, "if.., then..." statement.

$\endgroup$

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.