Function continuous in exactly the irrational points

Click For Summary
A function defined as f(x) = 1/n for rational x in (0,1) and f(x) = 0 for irrational x is proposed as continuous at irrational points. The discussion highlights the need to demonstrate that f is not continuous at rational points, emphasizing that for any rational point, the limit does not converge to the function's value. It is noted that between any two numbers, there exists an irrational, reinforcing the argument that the function cannot maintain continuity at rationals. The conversation also suggests refining the function to ensure that values at rational points decrease as n increases. The final consensus is that the proposed function meets the criteria for continuity at irrationals while failing at rationals.
math8
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Give an example of a function f:(0,1)-->Reals which is continuous at exactly the irrational points in (0,1).

I think the function f such that f(x)=1/n if x is rational in (0,1) (x=m/n for some n not 0) and f(x)= 0 if x is irrational in (0,1) should work.
I get the reason why f is continuous at the irrationals, but what would be a convincing argument to show that f is not continuous at the rationals?

I mean, there should be an e>0 s.t. for every d>0, we have |x-xo|<d but |f(x)-f(xo)|> or eq. to e. (for every rational xo).
 
Physics news on Phys.org


no, the function that you have is only continuous at 0. Just think of lim(x->.5) f(x). That limit isn't well defined. What you might want to do is to exploit the countable nature of the rationals. Make it so that f(x) at rationals become increasingly small as the counting goes up.
 


Maybe I'm mistaken but I think f(x)=1/n if x is rational in (0,1) (x=m/n for some n not 0) is such that f(x) at rationals becomes increasingly small as the counting goes up.
 


math8 said:
Maybe I'm mistaken but I think f(x)=1/n if x is rational in (0,1) (x=m/n for some n not 0) is such that f(x) at rationals becomes increasingly small as the counting goes up.

That's it. Be sure and specify m/n is in lowest terms to make sure f(x) is well defined. Now can you show f(x)->0 as x->a for an irrational number a?
 


for an irrational a, f(a)= 0

Now, for every e>0 , there exists N>0 s.t.n> or eq.N d implies |f(x)|< e. (because f(x) is either 1/n or 0)
 


math8 said:
for an irrational a, f(a)= 0

Now, for every e>0 , there exists N>0 s.t.n> or eq.N d implies |f(x)|< e. (because f(x) is either 1/n or 0)

That's not very clear. Ok, e>0. Pick N>1/e. Tell me how to find a neighborhood of a where f(a)<=1/N<e. Hint: consider all of the numbers k/n where n<=N.
 


math8 said:
Maybe I'm mistaken but I think f(x)=1/n if x is rational in (0,1) (x=m/n for some n not 0) is such that f(x) at rationals becomes increasingly small as the counting goes up.

Ah, yes you are certainly right. I didn't know what I was thinking. Your solution seems good. To show how it's not continuous at rationals, you just need that between every two numbers there is an irrational number. Since any interval is uncountable and the rationals are countable.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K