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

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a uniformly bounded sequence of Riemann-integrable functions on a closed interval, leading to the consideration of the uniform convergence of their integrals. The original poster seeks to prove the existence of a uniformly convergent subsequence of the integral functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of uniform boundedness and question whether this guarantees uniform convergence. There is a suggestion to consider the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem, which requires both uniform boundedness and equicontinuity.

Discussion Status

Some participants are exploring the conditions necessary for applying the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem, noting that while uniform boundedness has been established, equicontinuity remains to be demonstrated. There is an acknowledgment of the need for a subsequence, indicating a productive direction in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the sequence of functions is not necessarily convergent, which raises questions about the assumptions underlying the application of the theorem.

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

The attempt at a solution
I was thinking, since [tex]\{f_n\}[/tex] is uniformly bounded, there is an M such that [tex]F_n(x) \le M(x - a) \le M(b - a)[/tex] for all n, for all x. Now this automatically means that [tex]\{F_n\}[/tex] converges uniformly right? But then if [tex]\{F_n\}[/tex] 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
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K