B Finite linear combination of continuous functions is continuous?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether a finite linear combination of Lipschitz continuous functions, specifically the expression aG(t) + bH(t), remains Lipschitz continuous. Participants highlight a misunderstanding regarding the definition of Lipschitz continuity, noting that the incorrect definition permits unbounded growth, contrary to the intended limitation of function speed. The correct approach involves using the triangle inequality to derive a suitable constant K3 for the linear combination. Clarifications are made about the implications of the wrong definition, particularly in cases where the functions yield the same output for different inputs. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of accurate definitions in mathematical proofs.
docnet
Messages
796
Reaction score
488
TL;DR Summary
This isn't a homework problem but a general question that I had.
Is the linear combination of Lipschitz continuous functions also continuous?
##G## and ##H## are real valued Lipschitz continuous functions. There exists a ##K_1,K_2\geq 0## such that for all ##s,t##,
$$(s-t)^2\leq K_1^2 (G(s)-G(t))^2$$
and
$$(s-t)^2\leq K_2^2 (H(s)-H(t))^2.$$
Is ##aG(t)+bH(t)## where ##a,b## are real constants also Lipschitz continuous?
I tried showing this is true and am having difficulty.
$$\begin{align*}
(s-t)^2&\leq K_3^2 (aG(t)+bH(t) -(aG(s)+bH(s)))^2\\
&= K_3^2(aG(t)-aG(s))+(bH(t)-bH(s)))^2\\
&= K_3^2 (a(G(t)-G(s))+b(H(t)-H(s)))^2\\
&=K_3^2(a^2(G(t)-G(s))^2+b^2(H(t)-H(s))^2 +ab(G(t)-G(s))(H(t)-H(s))
\end{align*}$$
I considered choosing ##K=\max\left(\frac{K_1}{a},\frac{K_2}{b} \right)## but realized it wouldn't work. A Little help would go a long way. Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Oh yikes... it turns out the definition of Lipschitz continuous is wrong in my notes. I also think that the easiest way to find ##K_3## is using the triangle inequality after doing some work using the correct definition.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
docnet said:
Oh yikes... it turns out the definition of Lipschitz continuous is wrong in my notes. I also think that the easiest way to find ##K_3## is using the triangle inequality after doing some work using the correct definition.
Yes. Good catch. The definition you have in post #1 allows the function, G, to grow with unlimited speed. The correct definition of "Lipschitz continuous" is intended to do the opposite and limit the speed.
 
FactChecker said:
Yes. Good catch. The definition you have in post #1 allows the function, G, to grow with unlimited speed. The correct definition of "Lipschitz continuous" is intended to do the opposite and limit the speed.
Noted! Thank you.

The wrong definition is also false, because for ##s##, ##t## and ##G## such that ##|s-t|>0## and ##G(s)=G(t)##, there does not exist a ##K\geq 0## such that ## |s-t|\leq K| G(s)-G(t)| = 0##.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top