Continuous mapping of compact metric spaces

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the uniform continuity of continuous mappings from compact metric spaces to metric spaces. Participants explore various proofs and approaches to establish this property, including references to established texts and alternative methods.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a detailed proof of uniform continuity for continuous mappings from compact metric spaces, referencing Rudin's book.
  • Another participant suggests looking at the proof available on Wikipedia and a link to PlanetMath.
  • Some participants propose using the topological definition of compactness (finite subcover) rather than sequential compactness (convergent subsequence) to prove uniform continuity, noting that this approach may be more intuitive.
  • It is mentioned that uniform continuity is not defined in general topological spaces, implying that any proof must reference the metric at some point.
  • A participant outlines a proof sketch involving continuity and the use of open covers, leading to a conclusion about uniform continuity, but acknowledges potential gaps in the argument regarding the triangle inequality.
  • Another participant refines the proof by addressing the issue of points possibly lying in different open balls, suggesting a method involving half-radius balls to ensure both points are covered adequately, thus allowing the use of the triangle inequality to establish uniform continuity.
  • Participants express differing preferences for the approach to compactness, with some favoring the directness of the finite subcover method over the convergent subsequence perspective.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best proof method or the most intuitive approach to understanding uniform continuity in this context. Multiple competing views and methods remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some proofs rely on specific definitions and properties of metrics and compactness, which may not be universally applicable in broader topological contexts. The discussion highlights the complexity and nuances involved in establishing uniform continuity.

alyafey22
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
2
Let $f$ be a continuous mapping of a compact metric space $X$ into a metric space $Y$ then $f$ is uniformly continuous on $X$.

I have seen a proof in the Rudin's book but I don't quite get it , can anybody establish another proof but with more details ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We could also prove this using the topological definition of compactness (i.e. that every open cover has a finite subcover) rather than sequential compactness (i.e. that every sequence has a convergent subsequence). To me, this proof is nicer, though I can't guarantee it will be any easier on the intuition.
 
TheBigBadBen said:
We could also prove this using the topological definition of compactness (i.e. that every open cover has a finite subcover) rather than sequential compactness (i.e. that every sequence has a convergent subsequence). To me, this proof is nicer, though I can't guarantee it will be any easier on the intuition.
But uniform continuity is not defined in a general topological space, so any proof will have to refer to the metric at some point.
 
Opalg said:
But uniform continuity is not defined in a general topological space, so any proof will have to refer to the metric at some point.

Right. Here's a sketch of the proof I have in mind:

Given a continuous $f:X\to Y$, we want to show that for any $\epsilon>0$, there is a $\delta>0$ so that $d_Y(f(x),f(y))<\epsilon$ whenever $d_X(x,y)<\delta$

Consider any $\epsilon>0$. By continuity, we may state that for each $x\in X$, there is a $\delta_x$ such that for any $y \in X$, $d_Y(f(x),f(y))<\epsilon/2$ when $d_X(x,y)<\delta_x$. Now, consider the open cover given by
$$\left\{ B_{\delta_x}(x)| x\in X\right\}$$
(where $B_{r}(x)$ the open ball of radius $r$ and center $x$).

By compactness, there exists a finite subcover of the form

\[\left\{ B_{\delta_{x_k}}(x_k)|k\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}\right\}\]

Since there are finitely many $x_k$, there is a minimum $\delta_{x_k}$, which we may call $\delta$. We may now state (via some triangle-inequality magic) that $d_Y(f(x),f(y))<\epsilon$ whenever $d_X(x,y)<\delta$.

Thus, we have shown $f$ to be uniformly continuous
 
Last edited:
TheBigBadBen said:
Right. Here's a sketch of the proof I have in mind:

Given a continuous $f:X\to Y$, we want to show that for any $\epsilon>0$, there is a $\delta>0$ so that $d_Y(f(x),f(y))<\epsilon$ whenever $d_X(x,y)<\delta$

Consider any $\epsilon>0$. By continuity, we may state that for each $x\in X$, there is a $\delta_x$ such that for any $y \in X$, $d_Y(f(x),f(y))<\epsilon/2$ when $d_X(x,y)<\delta_x$. Now, consider the open cover given by
$$\bigcup_{x\in X} B_{\delta_x}(x)$$
(where $B_{r}(x)$ the open ball of radius $r$ and center $x$).

By compactness, there exists a finite subcover of the form
$$\bigcup_{k=1}^n B_{\delta_{x_k}}(x_k)$$
Since there are finitely many $x_k$, there is a minimum $\delta_{x_k}$, which we may call $\delta$. We may now state (via some triangle-inequality magic) that $d_Y(f(x),f(y))<\epsilon$ whenever $d_X(x,y)<\delta$.

Thus, we have shown $f$ to be uniformly continuous
The triangle inequality is a powerful tool, but its magic is a bit more subtle than that. In fact, those open balls $B_{\delta_{x_k}}(x_k)$ cover $X$. So if you are given $x,y\in X$ with $d_X(x,y)<\delta$, it follows that $x$ and $y$ must each lie in one of them, say $x\in B_{\delta_{x_i}}(x_i)$ and $y\in B_{\delta_{x_j}}(x_j)$. But there is no guarantee that $x$ and $y$ belong to the same ball (in other words, you can't assume that $i=j$). You cannot then deduce that $d_Y(f(x),f(y))<\epsilon$.

What you have to do is this. Given $\varepsilon>0$, define $B_{\delta_x}(x)$ as before, for each $x\in X$. Then consider the cover of $X$ consisting of balls of half that radius. The collection $\{B_{\delta_x/2}(x)\}$ has a finite subcover. Let $\delta$ be the minimum of the $\delta_{x_k}$s, as before. Then if $d_X(x,y)<\delta/2$ you can conclude that $x\in B_{\delta_{x_k/2}}(x_k)$ for some $k$. It follows from the triangle inequality that $x$ and $y$ are both in $B_{\delta_{x_k}}(x_k)$, from which you can conclude that $d_Y(f(x),f(y))\leqslant d_Y(f(x),f(x_k)) + d_Y(f(x_k),f(y)) < 2\varepsilon$. That is enough to establish uniform continuity.
 
Opalg said:
The triangle inequality is a powerful tool, but its magic is a bit more subtle than that. In fact, those open balls $B_{\delta_{x_k}}(x_k)$ cover $X$. So if you are given $x,y\in X$ with $d_X(x,y)<\delta$, it follows that $x$ and $y$ must each lie in one of them, say $x\in B_{\delta_{x_i}}(x_i)$ and $y\in B_{\delta_{x_j}}(x_j)$. But there is no guarantee that $x$ and $y$ belong to the same ball (in other words, you can't assume that $i=j$). You cannot then deduce that $d_Y(f(x),f(y))<\epsilon$.

What you have to do is this. Given $\varepsilon>0$, define $B_{\delta_x}(x)$ as before, for each $x\in X$. Then consider the cover of $X$ consisting of balls of half that radius. The collection $\{B_{\delta_x/2}(x)\}$ has a finite subcover. Let $\delta$ be the minimum of the $\delta_{x_k}$s, as before. Then if $d_X(x,y)<\delta/2$ you can conclude that $x\in B_{\delta_{x_k/2}}(x_k)$ for some $k$. It follows from the triangle inequality that $x$ and $y$ are both in $B_{\delta_{x_k}}(x_k)$, from which you can conclude that $d_Y(f(x),f(y))\leqslant d_Y(f(x),f(x_k)) + d_Y(f(x_k),f(y)) < 2\varepsilon$. That is enough to establish uniform continuity.

Ah, I knew something was off about my proof. Thank you for picking that up and wrapping it up neatly, and for imparting some of your own triangle-inequality magic.

At any rate, I prefer to think of compactness in this sense rather than in terms of convergent subsequence, and I think this proof has a certain directness that the others lack. That might just be me though.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K