Continuous Functions in Real Analysis

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of continuous functions defined on the real numbers, specifically examining whether two continuous functions that agree on all rational inputs must also agree on all real inputs.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of continuity and the density of rational numbers in the reals. They discuss the need for a sequence of rational numbers converging to an irrational number and question whether this property has been proven in their studies.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the concept of density of rationals and its relevance to the problem. There is an ongoing exploration of the necessary conditions for applying continuity to the functions in question, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that they have not yet proven certain foundational properties related to sequences of rational numbers and their limits, which may impact their ability to fully address the original question.

magnoliamkt
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let f, g be continuous from R to R (the reals), and suppose that f(r) = g(r) for all rational numbers r. Is it true that f(x) = g(x) for all x \in R?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Basically, this seems trivial, but is probably tricky after all. I know that for f(x) to equal g(x) would mean that f(q) = g(q) where q is irrational as well as f(r) = g(r) as stated. I cannot think of example functions that are uniformly continuous on the Real line where this would fail, but yet, I also cannot think of a way to empirically prove that this is always true. Any help or a good starting point beyond this would be greatly appreciated. Note - this question follows the section of my text on "Combinations of Continuous Functions" but since this doesn't actually seem to combine f and g, beyond possibly the fact that f(x) = g(x) \Rightarrow f(x) - g(x) = a continuous function h(x) as f, g continuous, I don't know of any other useful info in the text through this section.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not that tricky. Use that if x is irrational then there is a sequence of rationals r_n such that limit r_n=x as n->infinity. Have you proved that?
 
I could see how it might be useful, but no we haven't proved it yet, so I don't know if I could validly use it.
 
Last edited:
magnoliamkt said:
I could see how it might be useful, but no we haven't proved it yet, so I don't know if I could validly use it.

It's easy enough to prove. For any integer n consider all of the rationals k/n where k is any integer. Pick r_n to be a rational k/n which is closest to x. How big can |x-r_n| be? The name for this sort of property is saying that the rationals are dense in the reals.
 
Dick said:
It's not that tricky. Use that if x is irrational then there is a sequence of rationals r_n such that limit r_n=x as n->infinity. Have you proved that?

I'm a little confused. What d'ya mean?
 
Dick said:
It's easy enough to prove. For any integer n consider all of the rationals k/n where k is any integer. Pick r_n to be a rational k/n which is closest to x. How big can |x-r_n| be? The name for this sort of property is saying that the rationals are dense in the reals.

Let me make sure I'm following you: Choosing a sequence r_n of rational numbers k/n close to an irrational number x \Rightarrow \left|x-r_n \right|< \epsilon (epsilon) maybe? And then... lim \ r_n = x. So we have that because lim of both f(r) and g(r) equal to an irrational number x (or q in my original post), implying that f(q)=g(q)?
 
magnoliamkt said:
Let me make sure I'm following you: Choosing a sequence r_n of rational numbers k/n close to an irrational number x \Rightarrow \left|x-r_n \right|< \epsilon (epsilon) maybe? And then... lim \ r_n = x. So we have that because lim of both f(r) and g(r) equal to an irrational number x (or q in my original post), implying that f(q)=g(q)?

That's a little confusing. The point is that if you can find rationals r_n->q (the irrational), then limit f(r_n)=f(q) and limit g(r_n)=g(q), since f and g are continuous. What's r in your post?
 
r was a rational number (as per the original question statement). I think I do understand this now though - sorry for the confusing post (I'm new to using this forum and the math language). Thanks for your help! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K