Convergence of Uniformly Convergent Functions: Proof for Infinity Case

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thebetapirate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the convergence of integrals of uniformly convergent functions, specifically focusing on the case where the functions are infinitely differentiable. Participants explore the implications of different classes of continuous functions and their differentiability, raising questions about the relationships between these classes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on proving the convergence of integrals for uniformly convergent functions in the context of infinitely differentiable functions.
  • Another participant questions the relevance of proving the case for first-differentiable continuous functions, suggesting that if functions are in \(C_{\infty}\), they are also in \(C_{1}\).
  • A different viewpoint suggests that the problem is simpler when considering the single-differentiable continuous case, proposing a revised statement of the problem.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between different classes of continuous functions, with one participant asserting that \(C_{0} \subset C_{1}\) and so forth, leading to a contradiction in the previous claims about differentiability.
  • One participant provides an example of a function that is continuous but not differentiable everywhere, challenging the assumption that all continuous functions belong to the first-differentiable class.
  • A later reply acknowledges confusion and retracts an earlier statement, indicating a lack of clarity in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of differentiability classes and their relationships. There is no consensus on the correctness of the claims regarding the proof for the infinitely differentiable case versus the first-differentiable case.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various classes of continuous functions and their properties, but the discussion reveals some unresolved assumptions about the implications of these classes on the proof in question.

thebetapirate
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I ran into this proof in one of my textbooks and was wondering if anybody could lead me in the right logical direction. I can prove the first-differentiable continuous case but the infinity case throws me off. Please help if you can!

Thanks!

Suppose [tex]\left\{f}\right\}\subset C_{\infty}\left(\left[a,b\right]\right)[/tex] such that [tex]\left{f\right}_{n}[/tex] converges uniformly to some [tex]\left{f\right}\in C_{\infty}\left(\left[a,b\right]\right)[/tex]. Prove that:

[tex]\int^a_b\left{f\right}_{n}\left(x\right)dx \rightarrow \int^a_b\left{f\right}\left(x\right)dx[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean "I can prove the first-differentiable continuous case"? If f and fn are [itex]C_\infty[/itex] they are certainly C1 so any proof for "first differentiable" works here.
 
The problem statement is much simpler with the single-differentiable continuous case. It should read like this:

Suppose [tex]\left\{f_{n}}\right\}\subset C\left(\left[a,b\right]\right)[/tex] such that [tex]\left{f\right}_{n}[/tex] converges uniformly to some [tex]\left{f\right}\in C\left(\left[a,b\right]\right)[/tex]. Prove that:

[tex]\int^a_b\left{f\right}_{n}\left(x\right)dx\rightarrow\int^a_b\left{f\right}\left(x\right)dx[/tex]

~Thanks!
 
C^(inf) is a subset of C^(1). So if you've proven it for C^(1), you've proven it for C^(n) for n>=1.
 
Isn't it the other way around?...
 
No, think of f(x) = |x|. It is obviously continuous so it is an element of C^(0), but it isn't differentiable everywhere so it's not an element of C^(1).
 
Your illustration [tex]f\left(x\right)=\left|x\right|\in C_{0}\notin C_{1}[/tex] implies [tex]C_{0}\subset C_{1}[/tex], which is exactly what I'm trying to say...

If [tex]C_{0}[/tex] were in [tex]C_{1}[/tex], then [tex]\left|x\right|\in C_{1}[/tex], but that can't be true. In the previous post before the last one you state [tex]C_{\infty}\subset C_{1}[/tex], but this contradicts what you last posted.

In general, if any function [tex]f\left(x\right)\in C_{n}\left(\left[a,b\right]\right)[/tex], then [tex]f\left(x\right)\in C_{k}\left(\left[a,b\right]\right), \forall k\in\left[0,n\right]\in\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow C_{0}\subset C_{1}\subset C_{2}\subset... \subset C_{\infty}[/tex]. Therefore if a a function [tex]f\left(x\right)\in C_{\infty}\left(\left[a,b\right]\right)[/tex], then it is also a member of the set [tex]C_{0}\left(\left[a,b\right]\right)[/tex].

So how does proving it for [tex]C_{1}[/tex] prove it for the [tex]C_{\infty}[/tex] case if [tex]C_{1}\subset C_{\infty}[/tex]?
 
Ok, yeah, please ignore what I wrote...I'm not thinking so clearly. Heh. Thanks Vid...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K