Does the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem Ensure a Converging Subsequence for {F_n}?

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem to prove the existence of a uniformly convergent subsequence for the sequence of functions {F_n}, defined as F_n(x) = ∫_a^x f_n(t) dt, where {f_n} is uniformly bounded and Riemann-integrable on [a,b]. The participants confirm that while {F_n} is uniformly bounded, the theorem requires demonstrating equicontinuity to establish the existence of a converging subsequence. The Arzela-Ascoli Theorem specifically necessitates both uniform boundedness and equicontinuity for the conclusion to hold.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem
  • Knowledge of Riemann integration
  • Familiarity with concepts of uniform boundedness
  • Concept of equicontinuity in function sequences
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem in detail
  • Explore examples of uniformly bounded and equicontinuous function sequences
  • Learn about Riemann integrability and its implications for function sequences
  • Investigate the relationship between uniform convergence and pointwise convergence
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, as well as educators and researchers interested in functional analysis and convergence theorems.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Let \{f_n\} be a uniformly bounded sequence of functions which are Riemann-integrable on [a,b]. Let
F_n(x) = \int_a^x f_n(t) \, dt
Prove that there exists a subsequence of \{F_n\} which converges uniformly on [a,b].

The attempt at a solution
I was thinking, since \{f_n\} is uniformly bounded, there is an M such that F_n(x) \le M(x - a) \le M(b - a) for all n, for all x. Now this automatically means that \{F_n\} converges uniformly right? But then if \{F_n\} converges uniformly, why is the problem requesting for a subsequence? I must have done something wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The f_n aren't given to be convergent. Sure the F_n are bounded, but that certainly doesn't mean they are convergent. Can't you think of a theorem that guarantees the existence of a uniformly convergent subsequence in a family of functions? What are it's premises?
 
You mean the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem right? The Wikipedia article actually states what I'm trying to prove I think:

For example, the theorem's hypotheses are satisfied by a uniformly bounded sequence of differentiable functions with uniformly bounded derivatives.

the hypotheses being that the sequence must be uniformly bounded and equicontinuous. I have already shown that the sequence is uniformly bounded right? So all I need to show is that it is equicontinuous. I think I can handle that.
 
e(ho0n3 said:
You mean the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem right? The Wikipedia article actually states what I'm trying to prove I think:



the hypotheses being that the sequence must be uniformly bounded and equicontinuous. I have already shown that the sequence is uniformly bounded right? So all I need to show is that it is equicontinuous. I think I can handle that.

You've got it.
 

Similar threads

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