Recalling how nowhere continuous functions such as the Dirichlet function can sometimes be modified on a $\lambda$-null set of points (in this instance, a countable set) to become everywhere continuous, I was wondering whether a Weierstrass nowhere differentiable function can be modified on a $\lambda$-null set of points to become piecewise (or even everywhere) differentiable. If not, is there an example of such a nowhere differentiable function that remains nowhere differentiable irrespective of modifications on $\lambda$-null sets? And such nowhere continuous functions?

($\lambda$ denotes Lebesgue measure)


You can't fix a continuous nowhere differentiable function by redefining it on a set of measure zero.

Claim. Suppose $f$ is continuous and $f'(a)$ does not exist. If $f=g$ almost everywhere, then $g'(a)$ does not exist.

Proof. Suppose $g'(a)$ exists. Then $g(a)=f(a)$; otherwise $g$ would not be even continuous at $a$. Subtracting a linear function from both $f,g$ we can make $g'(a)=0$. Since it's not true that $f'(a)=0$, there is $c>0$ such that the set $$U = \{x: |f(x)-f(a)|> c|x-a|\}$$ has $a$ as its limit point. Since $f$ is continuous, $U$ is open. Therefore, the intersection of $U$ with $(a-r,a+r)$ has positive measure for every $r$. Let $$ V=\{x : |g(x)-g(a)|> c|x-a|\}$$ Since $$\lambda(V\cap (a-r,a+r)) = \lambda(U\cap (a-r,a+r)) >0$$ the intersection $V\cap (a-r,a+r)$ is nonempty. It follows that $a$ is a limit point of $V$, which contradicts $g'(a)=0$. $\Box$

And such nowhere continuous functions?

Yes, there are nowhere continuous functions that remain nowhere continuous, no matter how they are redefined on a null set. The characteristic function of this set is an example.

  • $\begingroup$ Very nice proof. One minor point: You only assume $f$ to be continuous at $a$, but use continuity in at least a neighbourhood of $a$ to conclude that $U$ is open (openness of $U\cap V$ for some neighbourhood $V$ of $a$ would suffice). $\endgroup$
    – PhoemueX
    Jun 9 '14 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ @PhoemueX Thanks for the correction. The continuity only at $a$ indeed wouldn't be enough. To keep things simple, in the revised version I assumed $f$ to be continuous everywhere. This is enough to answer the question, and it should be clear to the reader that the matters of continuity and differentiability are local. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Jun 9 '14 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ Does the fact $a$ is a limit point of $U$ also depend on the continuity of $f$? $\endgroup$
    – Sai
    Jun 9 '14 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Sai No, that one does not. The openness of $U$ does. And the openness is used to show that if $a$ will remain a limit point even if we remove a null set from $U$. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Jun 9 '14 at 22:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sai I edited the answer to clarify. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Jun 9 '14 at 23:52

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.