1
$\begingroup$

Here is Prob. 14, Sec. 5.4, in the book Introduction To Real Analysis by Robert G. Bartle & Donald R. Sherbert, 4th edition:

A function $f \colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is said to be periodic on $\mathbb{R}$ if there exists a real number $p > 0$ such that $f(x+p) = f(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. Prove that a continuous periodic function on $\mathbb{R}$ is bounded and uniformly continuous on $\mathbb{R}$.

Here is another Mathematics Stack Exchange post on this very problem.

In this post, the boundedness part is clear. Here is my presentation thereof.

As $f$ is continuous on the closed bounded interval $[0, p]$, so $f$ is bounded on this interval, by virtue of Theorem 5.3.2 in Bartle & Sherbert. So there exists a real number $M > 0$ such that $$ \lvert f(x) \rvert < M \qquad \mbox{ for all } x \in [0, p]. $$

Now if $x$ is any real number, then since $p > 0$, we can find a natural number $n$ such that $np > x$; let $N$ be the smallest such natural number. Then $$ Np > x \geq (N-1)p. $$ So $$ p > x - (N-1)p \geq 0, $$ and therefore $$ \big\lvert f \big( x-(N-1)p \big) \big\rvert < M. $$ As $f$ is periodic with period $p$, so we must have $$ f(x) = f \big( x-(N-1)p \big), $$ which implies that $$ \lvert f(x) \rvert = \big\lvert f \big( x-(N-1)p \big) \big\rvert < M. $$

Hence $$ \lvert f(x) \rvert < M \qquad \mbox{ for all } x \in \mathbb{R}. $$ So $f$ is bounded on $\mathbb{R}$.

Is this proof correct and any clearer?

Now for the uniform continuity of $f$!!

Let us take any real number $\varepsilon > 0$.

As $f$ is continuous on the closed bounded interval $[0, 2p]$, so $f$ is uniformly continuous on this interval, by Theorem 5.4.3 in Bartle & Sherbert. So there exists a real number $\delta > 0$ (and this $\delta$ depends only on our $\varepsilon$) such that $$ \lvert f(x) - f(u) \rvert < \varepsilon $$ for any points $x, u \in [0, 2p]$ such that $$ \lvert x-u \rvert < \delta. $$ Let us choose our $\delta$ such that $\delta < p$.

Now let $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\lvert x - y \rvert< \delta$.

As $2p > 0$, so we can find natural numbers $m$ and $n$ such that $2pm > x$ and $2pn > y$; let $M$ and $N$ be the smallest such natural numbers. Then we must have $$ 2pM > x \geq 2p(M-1) \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad 2pN > y \geq 2p(N-1), $$ and so $$ 2p > x - 2p(M-1) \geq 0 \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad 2p > y - 2p(N-1) \geq 0. $$ Since $f$ is periodic with period $p$, we also have $$ f(x) = f\big( x - 2p(M-1) \big) \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad f(y) = f\big( y - 2p(N-1) \big). $$

Now if we could show that the $M$ and the $N$ postulated above must be equal, then we must have $$ \left\lvert \big( x-2p(M-1) \big) - \big( y-2p(N-1) \big) \right\rvert = \lvert x-y \rvert < \delta, $$ and also both $x-2p(M-1)$ and $y-2p(N-1)$ are in the interval $[0, 2p]$ (in fact the interval $[0, 2p)$). Therefore we obtain $$ \lvert f(x) - f(y) \rvert = \left\lvert f\big( x-2p(M-1) \big) - f \big( y-2p(N-1) \big) \right\rvert < \varepsilon, $$ from which it follows that $f$ is uniformly continuous on $\mathbb{R}$.

But how to show that the $M$ and the $N$ must be equal? Or, is this the way pointed out in one of the answers to the question here?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The proof of boundedness on ${\mathbb R}$ seems correct but can be made considerably shorter. As a general guideline, I recommend preferring prose to notation as much as possible.

Having proved that $f(x)$ is bounded in modulus by $M$ on the interval $[0, p]$, consider, as a first case, a point $a > p$ in ${\mathbb R}$. Since ${\mathbb R}$ is an Archimedean field, there exists the largest integer $N$ such that $Np < a < (N+1)p$. It follows that $$ Np - a \in [0, p], $$ so $f(a) = f(a - Np)$. Therefore, $|f(a)| \leq M$. The proof for the case $a < 0$ is analogous.

As for uniform continuity, given an $\epsilon > 0$, the same $\delta_{\epsilon} > 0$ will satisfy the condition $$ |x_{1} - x_{2}| < \delta_{\epsilon} \quad \mbox{ implies } \quad |f(x_{1}) - f(x_{2})| < \epsilon $$ on every subinterval $[N p, (N+1) p]$ of ${\mathbb R}$ (where $N$ ranges over the integers). And if the points $x_{1}, x_{2}$ have between them an integral multiple $K p$ of $p$, then $$ |x_{1} - K p| \leq |x_{1} - x_{2}| < \delta_{\epsilon} \mbox{ and } |x_{2} - K p| \leq |x_{1} - x_{2}| < \delta_{\epsilon}, $$ so $$ |x_{1} - x_{2}| \leq |x_{1} - K p| + |x_{2} - K p| < 2\delta_{\epsilon}. \quad \mbox{(the first inequality is the triangle inequality.)} $$ Therefore, the condition $$ |x_{1} - x_{2}| < 2 \delta_{\epsilon} \quad \mbox{ implies } \quad |f(x_{1}) - f(x_{2})| < 2 \epsilon $$ holds on the union of the subintervals $[N p, (N+1) p]$; i.e., on ${\mathbb R}$.

$\endgroup$

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.