Is Phi Upper Semicontinuous in Rudin's Analysis Problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benorin
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Walter Rudin's "Real and Complex Variables," specifically focusing on the upper semicontinuity of a function defined in terms of oscillation of a complex function over neighborhoods. The original poster seeks to prove that the function φ is upper semicontinuous and that continuity of f at a point x is equivalent to φ(x) being zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of the definition of upper semicontinuity and explore the relationship between the supremum of oscillations over neighborhoods and the continuity of the function f. Some participants suggest using epsilon-delta arguments to establish the required properties of φ.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their thoughts and approaches. Some have begun to outline their reasoning, while others express frustration with the complexity of the problem. There is no explicit consensus yet, but various interpretations and methods are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of the problem and the potential obscurity of the concepts involved, reflecting on the difficulty of Rudin's text compared to other mathematical literature. There is a mention of imposed homework rules regarding showing work.

benorin
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,442
Reaction score
191
upper semicontinuity problem (Papa Rudin)

By Papa Rudin I do mean Real and Complex Variables by Walter Rudin. This is part of my grad analysis homework...
Let f be an arbitrary complex function on [tex]\mathbb{R}^1[/tex], and define
[tex]\phi(x,\delta)=\sup\{|f(s)-f(t)|:s,t\in(x-\delta,x+\delta)\}[/tex],
[tex]\phi(x)=\inf\{\phi(x,\delta):\delta > 0\}[/tex].
Prove that [tex]\phi[/tex] is upper semicontinuous, that f is continuous at a point x if and only if [tex]\phi(x)=0[/tex].
I can get the rest (I hope) from there.
The working definition of upper semicontinuous (ucs) is: a function f:X-->R^1 is usc if {x:f(x)<a} is an open set for every a in R^1.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
OK, so I read the FAQ: got to show some work...

I don't have much done but:
So [tex]\delta_{1}<\delta_{2}\Rightarrow \phi(x,\delta_{1})\leq\phi(x,\delta_{2})[/tex] since sup-ing over less domain means less possibilities for big values in the co-domain. If knew f was bounded... but no.
 
None of the 21st century math whizzes have stepped up to the plate so far.

My instincts on this are a quarter century rusty but it seems to me that you can do this by doing an epsilon and delta type argument where you set epsilon = (a-phi(x))/2 > 0. That is, first you use epsilon to back out the inf to get an open neighborhood U of x that satisfies phi(U) < phi(x) + epsilon. This gives you the usc requirement. I would guess the remainder to be similar.

Carl
 
because most people do not like to do other peoples hw.

this kind of thing is a perfect il;lustration of why I dislike rudin's book, i.e. a simple idea is made obscure and difficult.this appears much more cleasrly in riemann e.g.

the first notion defined above is an attempt to make precise the notion of "local oscilaltion", i.e. how much does the function jump up and down on a delta neighborhood of x?the second notion is an attempt to make rpecise the concept of infinitesimal oscillation AT x, i.e. how much (at least) does the function jump up and down on EVERY neighborhood of x?a function is continuos if and only if as delta goes to zero, the oscillation of f on a delta neighborhood of x goes to zero.

An upper semi continuous function is one that only "jumps UP" at points, not down. i.e. it behaves like the dimension of the kernel of a family of linear maps, which can jump up at x if the determinant of the map vanishes at x.

so let's see, if a function oscillates by at least K on every nbhd of x, where x is a variable point converging to a, then any nbhd of a will contain a point where f oscillates by at least K, hence f will also oscillate by at elast K on every nbhd of a.

thus if x converges to a, the value of phi at a will be at least as great as the value at poimnts near a.

so the set where phi is at elast K will be closed. i hope that is the right definition of upper semi blah blah blah...

the point is to understand what you are trying to do first intuitively, then write it up rigorously.

good luck.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K