36
$\begingroup$

$f_n$ converges pointwise to $f$ on $E$ if $\forall x \in E$ and $\forall \varepsilon > 0$, $\exists N \in \mathbb N$, such that $\forall n \geq N$ we have $\left|f_n(x) − f(x)\right| < \varepsilon$.

$f_n$ converges uniformly to $f$ on $E$ if $\forall \varepsilon > 0$, $\exists N \in \mathbb{N}$ so that $\forall n \geq N$ we have $\left|f_n(x) − f(x)\right| < \varepsilon$ which holds for all $x \in E$.

I know the difference in definition, pointwise convergence tells us that for each point and each epsilon, we can find an $N$ (which depends from $x$ and $\varepsilon$)so that ... and the uniform convergence tells us that for each $\varepsilon$ we can find a number $N$ (which depends only from $\varepsilon$) s.t. ... .

But it seems again to me a bit fuzzy. Can somebody explain the difference more 'deeper' or more 'philosophically'? Or may be illustrate it visually?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You've got the definitions wrong. One should define uniform convergence, but both claim to describe pointwise convergence. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Feb 17 '14 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ The second one is uniform continuity, ive just forgot to change the name (because i copied and modified from the pointwise version). Thanks anyway. $\endgroup$ – Emin Feb 17 '14 at 20:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The same question is here. $\endgroup$ – frabala Feb 17 '14 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I haven't seen that! $\endgroup$ – Emin Feb 17 '14 at 20:55
52
$\begingroup$

Look at this as a game between two people (practically, this can't happen but let our imagination flow). Each game actually is a "translation" of the corresponding definition.

You want to prove pointwise convergence. Lets make a game for it.

  • Step 1. You chose some $x$ from the domain.
  • Step 2. The opponent chooses some $\epsilon >0$.
  • Step 3. You try to find an $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such, that $\forall n\geq N$, $|f_n(x)-f(x)|<\epsilon$.

Additional Rules: Steps 2 and 3 must repeat until your opponent is convinced that for the particular $x$ you picked up, whatever $\epsilon$ he tells you, you'll be able to find such an $N$. You will be able to select another $x$ from the domain, only after you have convinced your opponent. The games is over when you have done this for all $x$ in the domain.

As you may have already noticed, there is a precise correspondence between the definition and the game. Step 1 corresponds to binding the variable $x$. When $x$ takes a value, this value becomes fixed, so that we can range over $\epsilon$, which corresponds to Step 2. After a value is chosen for $\epsilon$, this value remains fixed. In Step 3 you find the proper $N$ within the context of already chosen values for $x$ and $\epsilon$. This is why in pointwise convergence $N$ depends on both $x$ and $\epsilon$.

Now, you want to prove uniform convergence. The game here changes.

  • Step 1. Your opponent chooses an $\epsilon > 0$.
  • Step 2. You try to find an $N$ such that $\forall n\geq N$, $|f_n(x)-f(x)|<\epsilon, \forall x$.

The difference here is that you don't check each $x$ separately. On the contrary, your opponent gives you an $\epsilon$ and the $N$ you have to find refers to all $x$ in the domain, not just one you picked up. It is like considering the range of $x$ all at once. The game ends when your opponent is convinced that you'll find such an $N$, whatever $\epsilon$ he tells you.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Let's look at an example. Consider the sequence of functions $$ f_n(x) = \begin{cases} |x|-n &\text{if }x \in (-\infty,-n)\cup(n,\infty)\\ 0 &\text{if }x \in [-n,n]. \end{cases} $$

Graph these functions. Without thinking about the definitions you have of different types of convergence, do you think that $f_n$ converges to some other function? If you said "yes", then what's its limit? $f(x) = 0$? But for each $M \geq 0$ notice that, for each $n$, I can find an $x \in\mathbb{R}$ for which $|f_n(x) - f(x)| > M$. (Do you see an $x$ which works? Try $x = 2M + n$.) Doesn't that seem a bit weird, if $\{f_n\}$ converges to $f$? Indeed, this means that I can define a sequence $\{x_n\}$ of real numbers such that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x) > M$ for all $n$, and therefore $\lim_{n\to\infty}f_n(x_n) \neq f(x)$ (if this limit exists at all). (Worse still, you can choose $x_n$ in such a way that $\lim_{n\to\infty}f(x_n) = \infty$. I'll leave this up to you.)

Notice that $f_n \to f$ pointwise. (Prove this.)

If we can agree that this is undesirable behavior to have for convergent sequences of functions, then you already know one of many reasons why we need a stronger definition of convergence $f_n \to f$: pointwise convergence is too weak a property to be useful when discussing many properties of function sequences.

This is where uniform convergence comes into the picture. Can you see that $\{f_n\}$ does not converge to $f$ uniformly? (Try proving this from the definition.) Intuitively, uniform convergence encodes the idea that the entire function $f_n$ converges to $f$ at the same time (or same rate), not just that $f_n(x)$ moves towards $f(x)$ eventually at each point $x$. It's a global property of the functions $f_n$ and $f$ (i.e., a statement about $f_n$ involving the behavior of $f_n$ on its entire domain at once), not a local property like piecewise convergence (i.e., a property about $f_n$ that is equivalent to statements that individually only take into account small portions of the domain of $f_n$ (in this case, individuals points)). Indeed, a good exercise for you would be to show that if $f_n, f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{C}$ for each $n$, then $f_n \to f$ uniformly if and only if $\|f_n - f\|_\infty \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, where $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ is the sup-norm defined for $g:D\to \mathbb{C}$ by

$$ \|g\|_\infty = \sup_{x \in D}|g(x)| $$

For $\{f_n\}$ and $f$ as in the above example, you can, in fact, show that $\|f_n - f\|_\infty = \infty$ for all $n$ (see the parenthetical about $\lim_{n\to\infty}f(x_n)$ above), which gives you a second way to prove that $f_n$ does not converge uniformly to $f$.

Hopefully this clarifies the concepts some. I'd highly recommend trying different examples (both from a textbook and ones you construct on your own). Conveniently, good exercises aren't to terrible to come up with on your own for this concept; whenever you know $f_n \to f$ pointwise, you can always ask whether or not $f_n \to f$ uniformly, as well.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

I understand why you find it fuzzy. I'll try to clarify it the way I see it:

I like to approach definitions by asking: Why were they thought of?

In this scenario, we have 2 very similar definitions that it's hard to visualize the difference between them.

I like to think of Uniform Convergence as the one that came first since it's the more intuitive of the two. In simple term, all it means is that $f_n(x)$ converges to $f(x)$ by only increasing $n$.

A simple example where it's easy to intuitively see the Uniform Converges is $f_n(x)=\sqrt{x^2+\frac{1}{n}}\to \sqrt{x^2}$.

Why do we need Point wise convergence? Because sometimes this definitions breaks down and doesn't work:

For example: Let $D=(0,1)$ and $f_n(x)=x^n$. At first, it seems like $f_n(x)$ Uniformly Converges to $0$. But upon a closer inspection we notice that if $x(n)=\frac{1}{\sqrt[n]{3}} \underset{n\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}1$ then $f_n(x)$ doesn't converge to $0$. In other words, we have to limit ourselves to $x$s such that an $N$ exists where for $n>N$ it converges (in other words, $N$ is also a function of $x$).

Notice how the Uniform Convergence broke down on the edge case of $x(n)\to 1$. This is the common theme for Pointwise convergence problems and is why (in my opinion) we have this definition.

To sum up: Uniform convergence is the intuitive definition. Pointwise Convergence was defined to handle the special cases where Uniform Convergence doesn't work.

$\endgroup$

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.