I am reading (as a supplement) the book Basic Real Analysis, by Anthony Knapp. Before I proceed into reading a proof, I want to be sure that the result seems obvious. Yet, I am having trouble seeing through this one. It annoys me too much in order to disregard it:

Theorem. A continuous function $f$ from a closed bounded interval $[a, b]$ into $\mathbb{R}$ is uniformly continuous.

What gives? Why can't we provide the counterexample $f(x)=x^2$ and $[a,b] \subset [1,+\infty)$, for $b < +\infty$ sufficiently large and show that the theorem is incorrect?

Doesn't it seem to be an insufficient statement?

I'm having trouble picturing it, is all.

Hints are fine.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because even if you take $b$ as large as you want, it is still finite, and you still have $|f(x)-f(y)| \leq C|x-y|$ for a big constant $C$. (I'm talking about the function f(x)=x^2$ here) $\endgroup$ – Beni Bogosel Mar 17 '13 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ Heine-Cantor Theorem. $\endgroup$ – Julien Mar 17 '13 at 20:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This theorem illustrates the importance of distinguishing very large and infinite. Your example gives a direct illustration of this, when coupled with the theorem. $\endgroup$ – Kieran Cooney Oct 26 '13 at 18:51

I can provide you with a proof. We use the lemma that $[a,b]$ is compact. The general statement is that if $f:X\to Y$ is continuous and $X$ is a compact metric space, then i$f$ is uniformly continuous. This is usually known as the Heine Cantor theorem, while the fact that $[a,b]$is compact might be found as Borel's Lemma, if memory serves. So

THEOREM (Spivak) Let $f:[a,b]\to \Bbb R$ be continuous. Then it is uniformly continuous.

We first prove the

LEMMA Let $f$ be a continuous function defined on $[a,c]$. If, given $\epsilon >0$, there exists $\delta_1>0$ such that, for each pair $$x,y\in[a,b]\text{ ; } |x-y|<\delta_1 \implies |f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$$ and $\delta_2>0$ such that for each

$$x,y\in[b,c]\text{ ; } |x-y|<\delta_2 \implies |f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$$

Then there exists $\delta $ such that for each

$$x,y\in[a,c]\text{ ; } |x-y|<\delta \implies |f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$$


Since $f$ is continuous at $x=b$, there exists a $\delta_3$ such that for every $x$ with $|b-x|<\delta_3$, we have $|f(b)-f(x)|<\frac{\epsilon}2$.

Thus, whenever $|x-b|<\delta_3$ and $|y-b|<\delta_3$ we will certainly have $$|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$$

We take $\delta=\min\{\delta_1,\delta_2,\delta_3\}$. Then $\delta$ works: indeed, consider any pair $x,y\in[a,c]$. If $x,y\in[a,b]$ or $x,y\in[b,c]$, we're done. If $x<b<y$ or $y<b<x$. In any case, since $|x-y|<\delta$, we must have $|x-b|,|y-b|<\delta$, so that $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$, as claimed.

PROOF1 Fix $\epsilon >0$. Let's agree to call $f$ $\epsilon$-good on an interval $[a,b]$ if for this $\epsilon$ there exists a $\delta$ such that for any $x,y\in[a,b]$, $|x-y|<\delta\implies |f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$. We thus want to prove that $f$ is $\epsilon$-good on $[a,b]$ for any $\epsilon >0$. Let $\epsilon >0$ be given, and consider the set $$A(\epsilon)=\{x\in[a,b]:f \text{ is } \epsilon \text{-good on}: [a,x]\}$$ Then $A\neq \varnothing$ for $a\in A(\epsilon)$, and $A(\epsilon)$ is bounded above by $b$. Thus $\sup A=\alpha $ exists. Suppose that $\alpha <b$. Since $f$ is continuous at $\alpha$ there exists a $\delta'$ such that $|y-\alpha|<\delta'$ implies $|f(y)-f(\alpha)|<\epsilon/2$. Thus, if $|y-\alpha|,|x-\alpha|<\delta'$, we'll have $|f(y)-f(x)|<\epsilon$. Thus $f$ is $\epsilon$-good on $[\alpha-\delta,\alpha+\delta]$. Since $\alpha=\sup A(\epsilon)$, it is clear $f$ is $\epsilon$-good on $[a,\alpha+\delta]$, which is absurd. Thus $\alpha\geq b$, which means $\alpha =b$. It suffices to show that $b$ is also an element of $A(\epsilon)$. But since $f$ is continuous on $b$, there exists a $\delta_0$ such that $|b-y|<\delta_0$ implies $|f(b)-f(y)|<\epsilon/2$. Thus, $f$ is $\epsilon$-good on $[b-\delta_0,b]$. The lemma implies $f$ is $\epsilon$-good on $[a,b]$. Since $\epsilon$ was arbitrary, the result follows. $\blacktriangle$

PROOF2 Let $\epsilon >0$ be given. Assign, to each $x\in [a,b]$ a $\delta_x>0$ such that for each $y\in(x-2\delta_x,x+2\delta_x)$, we have $|f(x)-f(y)|< \epsilon/2$, to obtain a open cover of $[a,b]$, namely the set $\mathcal O$ of intervals $(x-\delta_x,x+\delta_x)$. This is possible since $f$ is continuous at each $x$. Since $[a,b]$ is compact, there is a finite number of $x_i\in [a,b]$ such that $$\bigcup_{i=1}^n (x_i-\delta_{x_i},x_i+\delta_{x_i})\supset [a,b]$$

Choose now $\delta =\min{\delta_{x_i}}$, and let $x,y\in [a,b]$ with $ |y-x|<\delta$. Since $\mathcal O$ is a cover, for some $x_i$ we have that $|x-x_i|<\delta_{x_i}$. Then, we'll have $$|y-x_i|\leq |y-x|+|x-x_i|<\delta+\delta_i\leq 2\delta_i$$ It follows that $$|f(x_i)-f(x)|<\epsilon/2$$ $$|f(y)-f(x)|<\epsilon/2$$

which means by the triangle inequality that $$|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$$

Then for any $x,y\in[a,b]$, $|x-y|<\delta$ will imply $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$; and $f$ is uniformly continuous. $\blacktriangle$

There is yet another way of proving this.

LEMMA (Mendelson) Let $X$ be a metric space such that every infinite subset of $X$ has an accumulation point in $X$. Then for each covering $\mathcal O=\{O_\beta\}_{\beta\in I}$ there exists a positive $\epsilon$ such that each ball $B(x;\epsilon)$ is contained in an element $O_\beta$ of this covering.

PROOF If it wasn't the case, we'd obtain for each $n$ an point $x_n$ and an open ball $B(x_n;1/n)\not\subseteq O_\beta$ for each $\beta \in I$. Let $A=\{x_1,\dots\}$. If $A$ is finite, $x_n=x$ infinitely often for some $x\in X$. Since $\mathcal O$ is a cover, $x\in O_\alpha$ for some $\alpha$. Since the cover is open, there is a $\delta >0$ for which $B(x;\delta)\subseteq O_\alpha$. We can take $n$ such that $1/n<\delta$ and $x_n=x$, in whichcase we get a contradiction $$B\left(x;\frac 1n \right)\subseteq B\left(x;\delta\right)\subseteq O_\alpha$$ If $A$ is infinite, there is an accumulation point $x\in X$. Thus $x\in O_\beta$ for some index, and there are infinitely many points of $A$ in $B(x:\delta /2)\subseteq O_\beta$. We can take $n$ such that $1/n<\delta /2$ and we'd have $B(x_n;1/n)\subseteq B(x;\delta)\subseteq O_\beta$, a contradiction.

After having proven that for metric spaces, the existence of accumulation points for infinite subsets is equivalent to compactness.

PROOF3 Let $f:X\to Y$ be a continuous function from a compactum $X$ to a metric space $Y$. Then $f$ is uniformly continuous.

PROOF Given $\epsilon >0$, for each $x\in X$ there is a $\delta_x>0$ such that if $y\in B(x:\delta_x)$, $f(y)\in B\left(f(x);\epsilon /2\right)$. These balls are an open cover for $X$, thus there exists such a number $\delta_L$ as in the previous lemma (usually called a Lebesgue number). Choose $\delta$ to be positive yet smaller than $\delta_L$. If $z,z'\in X$ and $d(z,z')<\delta$ (so that $z,z'$ are in a ball of radius less than $\delta$), we have $z,z'\in B(x,\delta_x)$ for some $x\in X$. In that case $f(z),f(z')\in B(f(x),\epsilon/2)$ so $d'(f(z),f(z'))<\epsilon$ by the triangle inequality. $\blacktriangle$.

  • $\begingroup$ I think you need to elaborate more on the last step. $\delta_x$ and $\delta_y$ could be smaller than the chosen $\delta$. You need to find the $x_i$ for which $x \in (x_i - \delta_{x_i}, x_i + \delta_{x_i})$, and make sure that $y$ is close enough to $x$ so that it also belongs to this interval. $\endgroup$ – Ayman Hourieh Mar 18 '13 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Ayman I see what you mean. $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Mar 18 '13 at 13:11
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. The elaboration needed for your original proof isn't big. It's something along the lines of my previous comment. But it is necessary; otherwise it's unclear why $\left|f(x) - f(y)\right| < \epsilon$. $\endgroup$ – Ayman Hourieh Mar 18 '13 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ @ayman After some reading I have found something that fixes my proof try. I will try and digest it, and if possible add it tomorrow. $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Mar 26 '13 at 2:29
  • $\begingroup$ The fix I had in mind was similar to proof 1 at proofwiki.org/wiki/Heine-Cantor_Theorem#Proof_1. $\endgroup$ – Ayman Hourieh Mar 26 '13 at 15:43

In this case, intuitively, no matter how large the interval is, as long as it is closed and bounded, the function is still controlled. This is a special case of a more general result: a continuous function on a compact metric space is uniformly continuous, and we know that a subset of Euclidean space is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded.


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.