Analysis question about continuity and vanishing functions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the continuity of a real-valued function defined on a compact subset of the plane, specifically the square {0 <= x <= 1, 0 <= y <= 1}, which vanishes on the bottom side {y=0, 0 <= x <= 1}. The user incorrectly concludes that if the function does not vanish on the left side {x=0, 0 < y <= 1}, it must vanish on the entire boundary. The error lies in assuming that the function's non-vanishing implies it exceeds a certain positive threshold everywhere along that boundary. The clarification provided indicates that a function being non-zero does not guarantee a uniform lower bound unless defined on a compact set.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of continuous functions in real analysis
  • Familiarity with compact sets in R²
  • Knowledge of the epsilon-delta definition of continuity
  • Concept of boundary conditions in mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of continuous functions on compact sets
  • Explore the implications of the epsilon-delta definition of continuity
  • Learn about boundary behavior of functions in real analysis
  • Investigate examples of functions that are continuous but do not vanish uniformly on intervals
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in the properties of continuous functions and their behavior on compact subsets.

diligence
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
I can't seem to wrap my head around this concept, I'm hoping you can help me out. Suppose you have a continuous function defined on some compact subset of the plane, say {0 <= x <= 1, 0 <= y <= 1}. I guess the function could be either real or complex valued, but let's just say it's real so we don't have to worry about any funky complex business going on. Also, suppose the function vanishes on the bottom side of the square, {y=0, 0 <= x <= 1}

What is wrong with my following proof that the function must therefore vanish on the entire boundary:

Suppose it does not vanish on {x=0, 0 < y <=1 }. Then there exists an e > 0 such that |f(x,y)| > e for (x,y) in {x=0, 0<y<=1}. Now consider e/2. Continuity implies that as (x,y) approaches the origin along the y axis, there must exist a d>0 such that |(x,y) - (0,0)| < d implies |f(x,y) - f(0,0)| = |f(x,y)| < e/2. But we know that f is bigger than e on this portion of the y-axis, hence this can't be possible. Therefore, f is either not continuous or f also vanishes on the y-axis between 0 and 1. We can then use the same logic to say f vanishes on the entire boundary of the square.

This doesn't feel correct at all, but I can't figure out what's wrong with my proof. Is it because I assumed since f does not vanish that it must be bigger than some e > 0 ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The proposition you're trying to prove is false. But you still made some logical mistakes in your proof:

If you want to show by contradiction that f must vanish entirely on D = \{(x,y): x = 0, y \in [0,1] \} then what you suppose is that there exist a point (x_0, y_0) \in D and an \epsilon &gt; 0 such that |f(x_0, y_0)| &gt; \epsilon. What you assumed was that f(x,y) &gt; \epsilon for every (x,y) in D.
 
Ah yes that makes sense, thanks. Apparently i need to be more careful.

There's still something I'm a bit unclear about though. If one says that a function is never zero, does that imply there exists an ε > 0 such that |f| > ε everywhere?
 
Only if it is defined on a compact (in Rn, closed and bounded) set. If not, then f(x)= 1/x is continuous and never 0 on (0, 1) but there is no \epsilon&gt; 0 such that f(x)&gt; \epsilon for all x in (0, 1).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K