Pointwise v. uniform convergence

In summary, for each positive integer n, the function f_n(x) = x^n / (1 + x^n) is defined on the interval [0,1]. The sequence \{f_n\} converges pointwise on [0,1] to a limit function f, where f(x) = 0 for x < 1 and f(x) = 1/2 for x = 1. However, the sequence does not converge uniformly as the limit function f is discontinuous. The limit function f is also equal to the integral of the sequence \{f_n\} from 0 to 1. This follows from the fact that the sequence can be split into two parts, [0,
  • #1
jjou
64
0
(Problem 64 from practice math subject GRE exam:) For each positive integer n, let [tex]f_n[/tex] be the function defined on the interval [0,1] by [tex]f_n(x)=\frac{x^n}{1+x^n}[/tex]. Which of the following statements are true?
I. The sequence [tex]\{f_n\}[/tex] converges pointwise on [0,1] to a limit function f.
II. The sequence [tex]\{f_n\}[/tex] converges uniformly on [0,1] to a limit function f.
III. [tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_0^1f_n(x)dx=\int_0^1\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_n(x)dx[/tex]

I believe the sequence does converge pointwise since [tex]f_n(x)\rightarrow0[/tex] when for [tex]x\in\[0,1)[/tex] and [tex]f_n(1)=\frac{1}{2}[/tex] for all n. So the sequence converges to the function f(x)=0 for x < 1 and f(x)=1/2 for x=1.

I'm not too familiar with uniform convergence - looked it up online. Is it enough to say that the sequence does not converge uniformly because the limit function f is discontinuous?

I don't know how to prove the last one ... it seems quite obvious to me (that you could interchange order of the limit and the integral). In what situations would this not be allowed and how can I check if, in this specific case, I can?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
f_n->f uniformly if for every epsilon there is an N such that n>N -> |f_n-f|<epsilon. Since you know f_n(1)=1/2 and f_n(x)->0 for x<1 it should be pretty clear you are in trouble if epsilon<1/2. In this specific case, you know the integral of the limit is zero, right? To show the integral of f_n goes to zero split the integral up into the range [0,1-epsilon] and [1-epsilon,1]. Can you show the integral over the first part can be made arbitrarily small because f_n gets small? And for the second because epsilon can be made small and f_n is bounded?
 
  • #3
Dick said:
f_n->f uniformly if for every epsilon there is an N such that n>N -> |f_n-f|<epsilon.

Is this inequality supposed to hold for every x (in the set on which [tex]f_n[/tex] converges uniformly)?

Dick said:
In this specific case, you know the integral of the limit is zero, right

Yup.

Dick said:
To show the integral of f_n goes to zero split the integral up into the range [0,1-epsilon] and [1-epsilon,1]. Can you show the integral over the first part can be made arbitrarily small because f_n gets small? And for the second because epsilon can be made small and f_n is bounded?

[tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_0^1\frac{x^n}{1+x^n}dx=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_0^{1-\epsilon}\frac{x^n}{1+x^n}dx+\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{1-\epsilon}^1\frac{x^n}{1+x^n}dx[/tex]

Then we use the fact that [tex]\frac{x^n}{1+x^n}\leq x^n[/tex] for any x in [0,1). So then the inequality would still hold for the integrals on [0, 1 -[tex]\epsilon[/tex]]. Now, it seems somewhat intuitive that the integral of [tex]\frac{1}{x^n}[/tex] goes to 0, but I get stuck trying to prove it:

I picked a [tex]\delta>0[/tex] and then I need to find a [tex]N\in\mathbb{N}[/tex] such that the integral is less than delta for any n > N. ...Which means:

[tex]\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{n+1}}{n+1}<\delta[/tex]

I'm not sure how to work with that expression.

(For the second integral, I know that f_n(x)<1 for any n and x (thus it is bounded). Then for any choice of positive delta, I can take epsilon to be half of delta. Then we have [tex]\int_{1-\epsilon}^1\frac{x^n}{1+x^n}dx\leq\int_{1-\epsilon}^11dx=\epsilon=\frac{\delta}{2}<\delta[/tex].)

Thanks!
 
  • #4
Aha, I changed my mind.

[tex]\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{n+1}}{n+1}<(1-\epsilon)^{n+1}<(1-\epsilon)^n<\delta[/tex]

Which holds iff [tex]n>\frac{\ln{\delta}}{\ln{(1-\epsilon)}}[/tex].

Yes?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Make the second integral small just by picking a small enough epsilon. Since 1-epsilon<1, you can make (1-epsilon)^(n+1)/(n+1) as small as you want by picking n large enough.
 
  • #6
jjou said:
Aha, I changed my mind.

[tex]\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{n+1}}{n+1}<(1-\epsilon)^{n+1}<(1-\epsilon)^n<\delta[/tex]
EDIT: I don't know why the tex graphic won't load... :(
(1-eps)^(n+1)
--------------- < (1-eps)^(n+1) < (1-eps)^n < delta
(n+1)

Which holds iff [tex]n>\frac{\delta}{\ln{(1-\epsilon)}}[/tex].

Yes?

Not really. But I think you have the right general idea.
 
  • #7
Ah, I dropped a "ln" in the numerator in that last inequality - have since changed it. Is it right now?

[tex]n>\frac{\ln{\delta}}{\ln{(1-\epsilon)}}[/tex]

Or is something else off?
 
  • #8
If you want to make life a little simpler, the first integral is also bounded by (1-epsilon)^n isn't it? That's the max of the function on [0,1-epsilon].
 
  • #9
jjou said:
Ah, I dropped a "ln" in the numerator in that last inequality - have since changed it. Is it right now?

[tex]n>\frac{\ln{\delta}}{\ln{(1-\epsilon)}}[/tex]

Or is something else off?

That's it.
 
  • #10
Easier method:
Since delta > 0, there exists some natural number N which satisfies 1/N < delta. Then

[tex]\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{n+1}}{n+1}<\frac{(1-\epsilon)^n}{n}<\frac{1}{n}<\frac{1}{N}<\delta[/tex]

Thanks so much! :)
 
  • #11
Uh, wait. You increased the numerator on the second step. Try (1-e)^(n+1)/(n+1)<1/(n+1). You can make any number of horrid approximations and it still works. You're welcome.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the difference between pointwise and uniform convergence?

Pointwise convergence is when a sequence of functions converges to a limit function at every individual point in the domain. Uniform convergence is when the sequence of functions converges to the limit function uniformly across the entire domain.

2. How is pointwise convergence different from uniform convergence in terms of continuity?

Pointwise convergence does not necessarily preserve continuity, meaning the limit function may not be continuous at every point even if the individual functions in the sequence are. Uniform convergence, on the other hand, does preserve continuity.

3. What is the significance of uniform convergence in real analysis?

Uniform convergence is important in real analysis because it allows for the interchange of limit operations and integrals or derivatives. This allows for the use of powerful theorems such as the Weierstrass M-test and the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma.

4. Can a sequence of non-uniformly convergent functions still converge pointwise?

Yes, a sequence of non-uniformly convergent functions can still converge pointwise. Pointwise convergence only requires that the limit function is approached at every individual point, whereas uniform convergence requires that the functions approach the limit function uniformly across the entire domain.

5. How can I determine if a sequence of functions converges uniformly or pointwise?

To determine if a sequence of functions converges uniformly, you can use the Cauchy criterion or the Weierstrass M-test. To determine pointwise convergence, you can evaluate the limit function at individual points and see if it is approached by the sequence of functions.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
311
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
667
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
26
Views
898
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
259
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
189
Back
Top