6
$\begingroup$

Working on the following problem from Munkres:

Let $(X, d_{X})$ and $(Y, d_Y)$ be metric spaces; let $Y$ be complete. Let $A \subset X$. Show that if $f:A \to Y$ is uniformly continuous, then $f$ can be uniquely extended t a continuous function $g: \overline{A} \to Y$, and $g$ is uniformly continuous.

If there exists such an extension, it must be unique, and $f(x) = \lim_{n \to \infty}f(x_n)$ for $x_n$ a sequence in $A$ converging to $x \in \overline{A}$. To show this limit exists, let $x_n \to x$, then $f(x_n)$ is Cauchy, since uniformly continuous functions take Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences. Then $f(x_n)$ converges by completeness, and I claim it converges to $f(x)$.

Now, to show $g$ is uniformly continuous, I kind of brute-forced it, and I was wondering if anyone had a more elegant method. (I consider the proof up to now pretty elegant.) What I did was: Suppose for contradiction that $\exists \epsilon >0$ s.t. $\forall \delta >0\,\, \exists x_\delta, y_\delta \in \overline{A}$ s.t. $d(x_\delta, y_\delta)< \delta$ and $d(g(x_\delta), g(y_\delta))> \epsilon$. Let $\delta := \delta_{\epsilon}/2$, where $\delta_\epsilon$ is taken from the uniform continuity of $f$. Now $d(g(\cdot), g(\cdot))$ is continuous...in particular, it is continuous in each variable separately. Therefore we can vary $x_{\delta}$ and $y_{\delta}$ a little bit, to get $x^*,\, y^* \in A$ such that $d(x^*, y^*)<\delta_{\epsilon}$ and $d(f(x^*), f(y^*))>\epsilon$, a contradiction.

Does anyone know a more elegant method to show the uniform continuity?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You can actually give a direct $\varepsilon/3$-argument. You can try again, or give me a while and I'll post something. =) $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff May 30 '14 at 0:52
  • $\begingroup$ For a different take you can check this question $\endgroup$ – Guillaume F. Jul 19 '18 at 5:42
2
$\begingroup$

(Your proof above should explicitly show that $g$ is independent of the sequence used to define it. This is the key point of the proof.)

Let $\epsilon>0$, then you have some $\delta>0$ such that if $d(x,y) < \delta$, then $d(f(x),f(y)) < {1 \over 2}\epsilon$.

Pick $x,y \in \overline{A}$ such that $d(x,y) < \delta$, and let $x_n,y_n$ be sequences in $A$ such that $x_n \to x,y_n \to y$. By construction above, $g(x) = \lim_n f(x_n)$ and similarly for $g(y)$.

For sufficiently large $n$, we have $d(x_n,y_n) < \delta$, and so $d(f(x_n),f(y_n)) < {1 \over 2}\epsilon$.

Taking limits we have $d(g(x),g(y)) \le {1 \over 2}\epsilon < \epsilon$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why do we need to show that $g$ is independent of the sequence used to define it? $\endgroup$ – Al Jebr Oct 31 '17 at 3:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AlJebr: So the limiting value is independent of the particular sequence. $\endgroup$ – copper.hat Oct 31 '17 at 3:24
  • $\begingroup$ If two Cauchy sequences converge to the same value, then this means they are equivalent and so $g$ would be independent of the sequence converging to some point $x$. Is this correct? $\endgroup$ – Al Jebr Oct 31 '17 at 4:40
  • $\begingroup$ The point is that if $x_n \to x$ and $y_n \to x$ we must be sure that $f(x_n)$ and $f(y_n)$ both converge and that they both converge to the same value. $\endgroup$ – copper.hat Oct 31 '17 at 4:47
  • $\begingroup$ @copper.hat Why when we take $\lim d(f(x_n),f(y_n))<\frac{1}{2} \epsilon $ we have $d(g(x),g(y)) \le \frac{1}{2}\epsilon$ and not $d(g(x),g(y))< \frac{1}{2} \epsilon $? $\endgroup$ – idk Nov 19 '17 at 11:50

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.