A function discontinuous only on Q

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rudinreader
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the continuity and discontinuity of a function defined as a series involving the fractional part of x. Participants explore the behavior of this function at rational and irrational points, examining conditions under which it is continuous or discontinuous, particularly focusing on the implications of its behavior on the rationals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the function f(x) and argues that it is continuous at irrational points, citing uniform convergence and properties of the fractional part function.
  • Another participant claims that f(x) is not continuous at rational points, providing a breakdown of the function into components and analyzing their continuity at specific rational numbers.
  • A participant questions how a function can be discontinuous on a dense subset yet not be discontinuous everywhere, presenting a logical argument to support their inquiry.
  • Another example is introduced, where a different function is noted to be discontinuous everywhere except at a single point, raising further questions about the nature of discontinuities in relation to density.
  • Several participants discuss the behavior of f(x) at specific points, such as 0 and negative values, providing examples to illustrate discontinuity from certain directions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the continuity of the function f at rational points, with some asserting discontinuity while others explore the implications of density and continuity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall continuity of f across all points.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the function's behavior is influenced by the density of rational numbers and the specific properties of the series defining f. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the implications of continuity and the nature of limits at rational points.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying real analysis, particularly in understanding concepts of continuity, uniform convergence, and the behavior of functions defined by series. It may also appeal to individuals exploring the nuances of discontinuity in mathematical functions.

rudinreader
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
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:
Physics news on Phys.org
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:
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:
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 continuous at every irrational number, discontinuous at every rational number (and, of course, the rationals are dense in the reals).
 
rudinreader said:
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.

can you explain this more thoroughly?

this is the first non-trivial problem from chapter 7.
 
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.
 
Galileo said:
How can f not be discontinuous everywhere if it's discontinuous on a dense subset?

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K