Disproving Uniform Convergence of f_n(x) on [0,1]

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of uniform convergence of the sequence of functions defined by f_n(x) = x^n on the interval [0,1]. The original poster seeks to demonstrate that while the sequence converges pointwise for all x in [0,1], it does not converge uniformly.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of uniform convergence and discuss the implications of the limit function's continuity. Questions arise regarding specific values of x, particularly at the endpoints of the interval, and the behavior of the sequence as n approaches infinity.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the nature of uniform convergence and its relationship to the limit function. There is an ongoing exploration of counterexamples and specific cases, such as the behavior of the sequence at x=0 and x=1. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and attempts to clarify the concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the significance of the closed interval [0,1] versus the open interval (0,1) in relation to uniform convergence, indicating that the inclusion of the endpoint x=1 presents a challenge in the analysis.

philosophking
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
I haven't done uniform convergence since last year when I took analysis, and now I have this problem for topology (we're studying metric spaces right now) and I can't remember how to disprove uniform convergence:

f_n: [0,1] -> R , f_n(x)=x^n

Show the sequence f_n(x) converges for all x in [0,1] but that the sequence does not converge uniformily.

I think I have a pretty good concept of uniform convergence, that is, a sequence of functions is uniformily convergent on some domain if the closeness of the function values (in the range) does not depend on the closeness of the values (in thedomain). To disprove uniform convergence, should I show that there exists some epsilon such that |f_n(x) - f_n(y)| >/= epsilon? But I don't know how I would do that.

Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
um... what happens @ x=1?
 
You get the sequence 1,1,1,1,... which converges? I guess I don't know where you're going with that.
 
If the sequence converges uniformly, the limit function is continuous. What's the limit function in this case?
 
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "limit function". Although I think I now know where Fourier was going.

The definition of uniform convergence does not depend on x. That means I can take any two x in the domain and their images must necessarily converge to less than epsilon. But say in this example I take x=0 and y=1. Then I can find a counterexample epsilon (.5) such that 1^n - 0^n is not less than or equal to 1/2 as n approaches infinity. I think I can now say that hence, the sequence is not uniform convergence.

EDIT: Also, just as a side-question, if the domain were (0,1) instead of [0,1], this would imply that f_n is uniformly convergent on the domain, right?
 
yes, that's right :)
 
oh yeah, & the "limit function" would be f(x) where:

f(x) = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} f_{n}(x)
 
The open interval at 1 creates a problem, even though it does not include 1. Every N you choose will only create uniform convergence for a certain closed interval [0,b] where b<1. Once you get to the right of this b the distance to zero will be greater than epsilon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K