2
$\begingroup$

I need some help with the demonstration of the Heine-Cantor theorem:

Given a continuous function $f: A\rightarrow B$, with $A, B \subseteq \Bbb R$ and $A$ compact (closed and limited set), $f$ is uniformly continuous in $A$.

Proof:

Suppose $f$ is not uniformly continuous. Then:

$\exists \epsilon _{0}>0$ for which $\forall \delta>0, \exists x, y \in A$, with $|x-y| < \delta$ and $|f(x) - f(y)| \ge \epsilon_{0}$

Now choose $\delta \in \{\frac{1}{n}, n \in \Bbb N^{+}$} and build two sequences $(x_{n})_{n}$ and $(y_{n})_{n}$ such that $|x_{n} - y_{n}| < \delta$ and $|f(x_{n}) - f(y_{n})| \ge \epsilon_{0}$ for each $n \in \Bbb N^+$

As seen that $A$ is compact, then we can extract a subsequence of $x_{n}$, that we call $(x_{k_{n}})_{n}$, that converges to a certain point $x_{0} \in A$.

It follows that (as $|x_{n} - y_{n}| < \delta$): $x_{k_n} - \frac{1}{k_n} \le y_{k_n} \le x_{k_n} + \frac{1}{k_n}$ so $(y_{k_n})_n$ converges to $x_0$ too.

Because $f$ is continuous we get that $\lim_{n \to \infty}{f(x_{k_n})} = f(x) = \lim_{n \to \infty}{f(y_{k_n})}$. Therefore: $\lim_{n \to \infty}{[f(x_{k_n}) - f(y_{k_n})]} = 0$ but this result is absurd because of the hypothesis ($|f(x_{n}) - f(y_{n})| \ge \epsilon_{0}$ for each $n \in \Bbb N^+$ ). $\blacksquare$


The part in bold is what I do not understand. Why do we need to extract a subsequence? I mean: if $x_{k_n}$ converges to a value $x_0$ don't any subsequence of $x_n$ and $x_n$ itself do the same? So what's the point in building subsequences? And: why have we built two sequences of points? That's what is not clear to me.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ From what is stated, though, you just have a sequence of points $x_n$. The sequence is not necessarily convergent but it does necessarily have a convergent subsequence. $\endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Mar 24 '17 at 21:47
1
$\begingroup$

Think about the sequence $$1, {1\over 2}, 1, {1\over 3}, 1, {1\over 4}, 1, {1\over 5}, ...$$ "Half" of it converges to zero: ${1\over 2}, {1\over 3}, {1\over 4}, ...$ But the whole sequence doesn't, because of those $1$s. So while the whole sequence isn't convergent, it has a subsequence which is. And this is why we need to pass to a subsequence in this argument (and in lots of other arguments).


As to your other question: when we assume that $f$ isn't uniformly continuous, that means (roughly) that for each $\delta>0$ we can find points $x, y$ which are "close" but whose $f$-values are "far apart." Note that these $x, y$ depend on $\delta$: if I change $\delta$, I (might) get different $x, y$s. So when we think about a sequence of $\delta$s going to $0$ (the proof above uses ${1\over 2}, {1\over 3}, {1\over 4}, ...$ but we could use any other similar sequence), we immediately get a pair of sequences: the $x$s, and the $y$s, corresponding to each $\delta$. So it's not that we've decided to go looking for a pair of sequences, but rather the assumption of non-uniform continuity gave us a pair of sequences, and so we'll play around with them.

$\endgroup$

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.