Theorem: The function $f(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{10^n}\{10^nx\}$ is everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable, where $\{.\} $ represents distance from nearest integer.
This theorem has been taken from chapter $23$ of Spivak's Calculus book.

By Weirstrauss M test, $f$ is uniformly continuous.
In the book, the theorem is proven by showing that the limit $L=\lim_{m\to \infty}\frac{f(a+h_m)-f(a)}{h_m}=\lim_{m\to \infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\{10^n(a+h_m)\}-\{10^na\}}{10^nh_m}$ does not exist when $h_m\to 0$, where $a\in (0,1]$. Let $a=0.a_1a_2\cdots$

Let $h_m=10^{-m}$ if $a_m\ne 4,9$ and $h_m=-10^{-m}$ if $a_m=4,9$.$\tag{1}$
No. of terms in summation in the above limit $L$ is finite as if $n\ge m, 10^nh_m$ is integer and hence numerator of the summations becomes zero. So for $n\lt m$, $\{10^na\}=\text{integer}+0.a_{n+1}a_{n+2}\cdots a_m\cdots $ and $10^n \{a+h_m\}=\text{integer}+0.a_{n+1}a_{n+2}\cdots (a_m\pm1)\cdots$ and this representation into decimals is correct as $h_m=-10^{-m}$ if $m=9$.

Then, Spivak makes a statement that if $0.a_{n+1}a_{n+2}\cdots a_m\cdots \le 0.5$, then we also have $0.a_{n+1}a_{n+2}\cdots (a_m\pm 1)\cdots \le 0.5$ as $h_m=-10^{-m}$ if $a_m=4$.


And I think that this is not true at all because in the special case $m=n+1$, if $a_m=5$ then clearly $0.a_m\le 0.5$ but $0.(a_m\pm 1)\le 0.5$ is not true! and hence condition on $h_m$ should be $h_m=-10^{-m}$ when $a_m=5,9$ and $h_m=10^{-m}$ when $a_m\ne 5,9$. Is my understanding correct?

Another doubt that I have is:

Is the following alternative way correct?
Let's choose $h_m=10^{-m}$ if $a_m\ne 9$ and $h_m=-10^{-m}$ if $a_m=9$. Then it's clear by writing decimal representation that, $\{10^n(a+h_m)\}-\{10^na\}=\pm 10^{n-m}$ and then $L=\lim_{m\to \infty}\frac{f(a+h_m)-f(a)}{h_m}=\lim_{m\to \infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\{10^n(a+h_m)\}-\{10^na\}}{10^nh_m}=\lim_{m\to \infty}\sum_{n=1}^{m-1}\frac{\{10^n(a+h_m)\}-\{10^na\}}{10^nh_m}\lim_{m\to \infty}\sum_{n=1}^{m-1}\pm 1=\lim_{m\to \infty}\pm (m-1)$,
which doesn't exist. Hence proved.
Please help. Thanks.

  • $\begingroup$ @OliverDiaz: Even in the book in your link, it's not made clear why $h_m=-10^{-m}$ when $a_m=4$, which I think should have been $a_m=5$. And why do we have to distinguish cases $\lt 1/2$ , $\gt 1/2$? $\endgroup$ – Koro Sep 16 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ Do you agree that with $h_m=-10^{m}$ for $a_m=4,9$ and $h_m=10^{-m}$ things work? All you need is a particular sequence $h_m\rightarrow0$ for which the sum does not converge. notice that there is a choice to make for the decimal expansion of $x$ when $x$ has a a possible finite decimal expansion. $\endgroup$ – Oliver Diaz Sep 16 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ @OliverDiaz: I disagree with $h_m=-10^{-m}$ when $a_m=4$ as it will create problems for $a_m=5$. $\endgroup$ – Koro Sep 16 at 22:04

This is a comment that is to long for the comment section.

The idea of the construction is to keep preserved fractional parts on the same side of $\frac{1}{2}$, that is if $10^na-[10^na]<\frac{1}{2}$, then $10^n(a+h_m)-[10^na]<\frac12$ and if $10^na-[10^na]\geq\frac{1}{2}$, then $10^n(a+h_m)-[10^na]\geq\frac12$

Try to convince yourself that

  • If $a_m\notin\{4,9\}$, then for all $n=1,\ldots,m-1$, $$\{10^n(a+10^{-m})\}-\{10^na\}=10^{n-m}\,(-1)^{\mathbb{1}_{a_n<5}(a)}$$ For $n\geq m$ $$\{10^n(a+10^{-m})\}=\{0.a_{m+1}a_{m+2}\ldots\}=\{10^na\}$$ so $$\Delta_m:=\frac{1}{10^{-m}}\sum^\infty_{n=1}\frac{\{10^n(a+10^{-m})\}-\{10^na\}}{10^n}\equiv m\mod 2$$

  • If $a_m\in\{4,9\}$, then for all $n=1,\ldots,m-1$, $$\{10^n(a-10^{-m})\}-\{10^na\}=10^{n-m}\,(-1)^{1+\mathbb{1}_{a_n<5}(a)}$$ For $n\geq m$ $$\{10^n(a-10^{-m})\}=\{0.a_{m+1}a_{m+2}\ldots\}=\{10^na\}$$ so $$\Delta_m:=-\frac{1}{10^{-m}}\sum^\infty_{n=1}\frac{\{10^n(a-10^{-m})\}-\{10^na\}}{10^n}\equiv m\mod 2$$

If you were to modify the construction and set $h_m=-10^{-m}$ if $a_m\in\{5,9\}$ and $h_m=10^{-m}$ otherwise then, for $a$ with $a_m=4$ you get

$$ \{10^{m-1}(a+10^{m})\}-\{10^{m-1}a\}=1-10^{-m} -2(0.4a_{m+1}\ldots) $$ and so $$\frac{1}{10^m}\sum^\infty_{n=1}\frac{\{10^n(a+10^{-m})\}-\{10^na\}}{10^n}\notin\mathbb{Z}$$

The genius of the construction is to keep all differential increments $\Delta_m$ as integers that vary on the parity of $m$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ In "that is if $10^na-[10^na]<\frac{1}{2}$, then $10^n(a+h_m)-[10^na]<\frac12$", did you mean $10^n(a+h_m)-[10^n(a+h_m)]<\frac12$? I suppose $[.]$ is greatest integer function. $\endgroup$ – Koro Sep 17 at 5:45
  • $\begingroup$ No, I wrote what I meant. The construction maintains which side of of 1/2 the fractional part is. $\endgroup$ – Oliver Diaz Sep 17 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Koro: In the construction, the only crucial setp is when $a_m=4$ and $n=m-1$. then $\{10^{m-1}(0.a_1\ldots a_{m-1}(4-1)a_{m+1}\ldots\}-\{10^{m-1}(0.a_1\ldots a_{m-1}4a_{m+1}\ldots\}=-0.1$ $\endgroup$ – Oliver Diaz Sep 17 at 14:59

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.