7
$\begingroup$

Function $f: (0, \infty) \to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous. For every positive $x$ we have $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}f\left(\frac{x}{n}\right)=0$. Prove that $\lim\limits_{x \to 0}f(x)=0$. I have tried to deduce something from definition of continuity, but with no effect.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ What level course is this for? To me this is the kind of question that seems like a Baire Category Theorem thing. $\endgroup$ – Moya Jan 7 '19 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ $n$ is an integer? $\endgroup$ – leonbloy Jan 7 '19 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ But can you just not rewrite the limit such that $y=\frac{x}{n}$ and so you get what you need by letting $y$ going to 0, which does happen as $n$ goes to infinity and $x$ is any positive real and f is continuous of course so the limit exists? $\endgroup$ – Marco Bellocchi Jan 7 '19 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Moya introductory level $\endgroup$ – user4201961 Jan 7 '19 at 22:48
  • $\begingroup$ This I believe is just a bit more general than the following, you can proceed in a similar manner math.stackexchange.com/questions/3045776/… $\endgroup$ – Marco Bellocchi Jan 7 '19 at 22:59
1
$\begingroup$

The proof relies on the following lemma:

Let $I \subset (0,\infty)$ be a closed bounded interval. Let $U \subset (0,\infty)$ be an open subset accumulating at $0$. Then there exists some integer $N \geq 2$ and some closed interval $J \subset U$ such that $N \cdot J \subset I$.

Sketch of proof: take some $x \in U$ with $x$ lower than the length of $I$ and the minimum of $I$ . For some integer $N \geq 2$, $Nx \in \overset{\circ}{I}$, thus, there exists some compact interval $J \subset U$ such that $N \cdot J \subset I$.

Now, assume $f$ does not go to $0$ at $0$. Then, for some $\epsilon > 0$, $U=\{|f| > \epsilon\}$ is an open subset of $(0,\infty)$ accumulating at $0$.

By iterating the lemma, we can construct sequences of compact intervals $(I_n)$ and integers $(N_n)$ such that $N_{n+1}I_{n+1} \subset I_{n-1}$, $N_n \geq 2$.

Now, let $A_n=N_1 \ldots N_n$, then $A_n \rightarrow \infty$ and $K_n=A_n \cdot I_n$ is a non-increasing sequence of nonempty compact intervals in $I_0$. Thus, there exists $x$ that is in every $K_n$.

So, $x/A_n \in I_n \subset U$, for all $n$, thus $|f(x/A_n)| > \epsilon$ for all $n$, a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ (edited) This looks correct, but I think you can remove some of the intermediate claims without affecting the argument. In particular, you don't need any information about $\sup I_n$. Also, when you say the sequence $K_n$ is non-decreasing, I think you mean that it is decreasing, or in more familiar language, descending. And in the final sentence, "all $n$" should be "infinitely many $n$". $\endgroup$ – Chris Culter Jan 7 '19 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the remarks, I edited. However, in the last sentence, I definitely meant « for all $n$ » and not « for infinitely many $n$», however this does not affect the result. $\endgroup$ – Mindlack Jan 8 '19 at 0:02
  • $\begingroup$ Reminds me of the Axiom of Archimedes. $\endgroup$ – marty cohen Jan 8 '19 at 0:49
0
$\begingroup$

This is a standard application of Baire Category Theorem (BCT). Since $(0,\infty)=\cup_n \{x:|f(\frac x k)| \leq\epsilon \,\forall k \leq n\}$ there exists $n$ such that $\{x:|f(\frac x k)| \leq \epsilon \, \forall k \geq n\}$ contains some open interval $(a,b)$. [ Because $(0,\infty)$, being an open subset of $\mathbb R$ has an equivalent complete metric so BCT applies]. This gives UNIFORM convergence of $f(\frac x n)$ to $0$ on some open interval from which the result follows easily. [ Details: let $0<\delta <b-a$ and $\delta < \frac a n$. Then, for any $x <\delta $ the interval $(\frac a x,\frac b x)$ has length exceeding $1$, so it contains an interger $k$. Hence $kx \in (a,b)$. Also, $k >\frac a x > \frac a {\delta} > n$ so $|f(x)|=|f(\frac {kx} k)| <\epsilon$].

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Shouldn’t it be $\bigcup_n\{x,\,\forall k\geq n,\, |f(x/k)| \leq \epsilon\}$? $\endgroup$ – Mindlack Jan 8 '19 at 0:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Mindlack You are right. That was a silly mistake I made. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Jan 8 '19 at 5:01

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.