Analysis question about continuity and vanishing functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of continuous functions defined on a compact subset of the plane, specifically addressing the implications of a function vanishing on part of its boundary. Participants explore the validity of a proof attempting to show that if a function vanishes on one side of a square, it must vanish on the entire boundary.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof attempting to show that a continuous function vanishing on the bottom side of a square must vanish on the entire boundary, questioning the validity of their reasoning.
  • Another participant argues that the initial proposition is false and points out logical mistakes in the proof, specifically regarding the assumptions made about the function's values on the boundary.
  • A later reply seeks clarification on the implications of a function being "never zero" and whether this guarantees the existence of a positive lower bound across its domain.
  • Another participant provides a counterexample, indicating that a function can be continuous and never zero on an interval without having a positive lower bound.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the initial proof's validity and the implications of a function being non-zero. There is no consensus on the correctness of the original argument or the conditions under which a function can be considered to have a positive lower bound.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of compactness in relation to continuity and the behavior of functions, as well as the need for careful assumptions in mathematical proofs. The counterexample provided illustrates limitations in the generalization of properties of continuous functions.

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
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K