MHB Lipschitz Condition and Uniform Continuity

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding why the function in Example 5.4.6 (b) from Bartle and Sherbert does not satisfy the Lipschitz condition. It highlights that for values of x less than 1, the function √x exceeds x, necessitating an increasingly large constant K to satisfy the Lipschitz condition. As x approaches 0, K becomes unbounded, confirming that the function cannot be Lipschitz continuous on the interval I. Participants agree that the reasoning presented is valid and aligns with the definitions provided in the text. This illustrates a key aspect of Lipschitz continuity and uniform continuity in real analysis.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) by Robert G Bartle and Donald R Sherbert ...

I am focused on Chapter 5: Continuous Functions ...

I need help in fully understanding an aspect of Example 5.4.6 (b) ...Example 5.4.6 (b) ... ... reads as follows:
View attachment 7285In the above text from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

"... ... However, there is no number $$K \gt 0$$ such that $$\lvert g(x) \lvert \le K \lvert x \lvert $$ for all $$x \in I$$. ... ... "Can someone please explain why the above quoted statement holds true ...

Peter*** EDIT 1 ***Just noticed that for $$x$$ less than $$1$$ we have $$\sqrt{x}$$ is larger than $$x$$ ... ...

e.g. $$\sqrt{0.0004}$$ is $$0.02$$ ... ... and then we require $$K$$ such that ...

$$\lvert 0.02 \lvert \le K \lvert 0.0004 \lvert$$

... so a large $$K$$ is required ... ... and the required number will get larger and larger without bound as $$x$$ gets smaller ...
Is the above the correct explanation for $$f$$ not being Lipschitz on $$I$$ ... ... ?Peter
*** EDIT 2 ***It may be helpful for readers of the above post to have access to B&S's definition of the Lipschitz function/condition ... ... so I am providing the following text from Bartle and Sherbert ...
View attachment 7286
Note that in the above example B&S take $$u $$ as the point $$u = 0$$ ... ... Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Your reasoning in Edit 1 is correct. Symbolically you could note that for $x\in (0,2]$, $x^{-1/2}\leq K$, verifying your claim that $K$ grows without bound as $x\rightarrow 0^{+}$.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K