1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A function discontinuous only on Q

  1. Nov 24, 2007 #1
    Let [tex]f(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(nx)}{n^2}[/tex], where (x) denotes the fractional part of x. [tex]|\frac{(nx)}{n^2}| \leq \frac{1}{n^2}[/tex], so [tex]\sum \frac{(nx)}{n^2}[/tex] converges uniformly to f on all of R. (x) is discontinuous precisely at the integers, so [tex]s_k(x) = (x) + \frac{(2x)}{2^2} + ... + \frac{(kx)}{k^2}[/tex] is discontinuous precisely when [tex]x = \frac{p}{m}[/tex], where m = 1,...,k, and p is any integer. It follows that if [tex]x_0[/tex] is irrational, then [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow x_0}s_n(x) = s_n(x_0)[/tex] for all n. So by theorem 7_11 in Rudin, [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow x_0}f(x) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}s_n(x_0) = f(x_0)[/tex], which shows f is continuous at every irrational point.

    Another thing to add is that it is clear f(x+1) = f(x) for all x. It is also clear by uniform convergence that f is Riemann integrable on any bounded interval, since each s_n is as such. That's pretty much most of Problem 10 in Chapter 7, but not all.

    Is the limit function discontinuous on Q (the rationals)? Or equivalently, by the f(x+1)=f(x) property, is f discontinuous at all the rationals in [0,1]? I don't see off hand the direct reason WHY the limit function is discontinuous, despite the fact that every rational number q is a discontinuity point of s_n, for all n >= some N. (In particular, the problem asks to show the discontinuous points are a countable dense subset, which would be implied if that subset is Q...) I.e., just because g_n(x) = 1/n, x rational, g(x) = 0, x irrational, is discontinuous everywhere, doesn't imply it's uniform limit function g(x)=0 is discontinuous anywhere.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 24, 2007 #2
    The Solution

    It's not hard to see that f(x) is not continuous at 0. For instance, f(0) = 0. And if 0 < e < 1/2, then f(-e) > 1/2.

    Now suppose a rational number p/q is given, where p and q have no common factors, and we wish to show f is not continuous at p/q. By absolute convergence, we can write [tex]f(x) = f_1(x) + f_2(x) = \sum_{n \neq kq}^{\infty}\frac{(nx)}{n^2} + \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty}\frac{(qkx)}{q^2 k^2}[/tex]. By the argument given above for continuity at irrational numbers, we have [tex]f_1[/tex] is continuous at p/q (note that the fact that p and q have no common factors is required for [tex]f_1[/tex] to be continuous there). But [tex]f_2(p/q) = 0[/tex], and for 0 < e < 1/2, we have [tex]f_2(p/q - e/q) \geq \frac{(p-e)}{q^2} = \frac{1-e}{q^2} > \frac{1}{2q^2}[/tex]. Since q is fixed, it follows that [tex]f_2[/tex] is discontinuous at p/q from the left. Hence [tex]f = f_1 + f_2[/tex] is discontinuous at p/q from the left.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2007
  4. Nov 25, 2007 #3

    Galileo

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    How can f not be discontinuous everywhere if it's discontinuous on a dense subset?

    Suppose the set A of points where f is discontinuous is dense in R.
    Then for each a in A there exists an [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex], such that for all [itex]\delta>0[/itex] there's an x such that [itex]0<|x-a|<\delta[/itex] and [itex]|f(x)-f(a)|\geq \epsilon[/itex].

    So take any point b in R and suppose f is continuous in b. Then there exists for any [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex] a [itex]\delta>0[/itex] such that [itex]|x-b|<\delta \Rightarrow |f(x)-f(b)|<\epsilon[/itex].
    But [itex](b-\delta,b+\delta)[/itex] contains a point a in A no matter how small delta, so there's an interval centered on a which is contained in [itex](b-\delta,b+\delta)[/itex] and contains a point x such that [itex]|f(x)-f(a)|\geq \epsilon[/itex].

    I don't imagine Rudin is wrong. I just want to know the error in my reasoning.

    EDIT: Ok. Found the error. Ofcourse |f(x)-f(a)| is too big, but |f(x)-f(b)| shouldn't be.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2007
  5. Nov 25, 2007 #4

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The function f(x)= 0 if x is irrational, f(x)= 1/n if x is rational, x= m/n reduced to lowest terms. It's easy to show that that [itex]\lim_{x\rightarrow a} f(x)= 0[/itex] for any a and so is continous at every irrational number, discontinuous at every rational number (and, of course, the rationals are dense in the reals).
     
  6. Nov 26, 2007 #5
    can you explain this more thoroughly?

    this is the first non-trivial problem from chapter 7.
     
  7. Nov 26, 2007 #6
    If 0 < e < 1/2, then (-e) = 1 - e > 1 - 1/2 = 1/2, then
    [tex]f(-e)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(n\cdot -e)}{n^2} = (-e) + ... \geq (-e) > 1/2[/tex].

    But [tex]f(0)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(n \cdot 0)}{n^2} = 0[/tex],
    so |f(-e)-f(0)| = |f(-e)| >= 1/2. -1/2 < -e < 0 was arbitrary, hence f is discontinuous from the left.
     
  8. Nov 26, 2007 #7
    Just wanted to add.. Another example to keep in mind is [tex]f(x) = exp(\frac{-1}{x^2})[/tex], x irrational, [tex]f(x) = 0[/tex], x rational. This function is discontinuous everywhere except 0. It's infinitely differentiable at 0.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?