Nowhere Continuous Function Dirichlet Proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Dirichlet function, defined as 1 for rational numbers and 0 for irrational numbers, is proven to be continuous nowhere. The discussion clarifies that the infimum of the upper sums (U(f,P)) does not equal the supremum of the lower sums (L(f,P)), which is a critical aspect in understanding the function's discontinuity. It emphasizes that continuity requires the equality of these bounds, which the Dirichlet function fails to satisfy. The confusion regarding the proof's focus on Riemann integrability rather than continuity is also addressed.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Dirichlet function and its definition.
  • Familiarity with concepts of infimum and supremum in real analysis.
  • Knowledge of Riemann integrability and its criteria.
  • Basic principles of continuity in mathematical functions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Dirichlet function in detail.
  • Learn about the concepts of infimum and supremum in the context of real analysis.
  • Research Riemann integrability and its relationship with continuity.
  • Explore examples of continuous and discontinuous functions for comparative analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, mathematicians studying function properties, and educators teaching concepts of continuity and integrability in calculus.

cmajor47
Messages
53
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that the Dirichlet function is continuous nowhere.


Homework Equations


Dirichlet function = 1 when x is rational, and 0 when x is irrational.


The Attempt at a Solution


I was looking at this proof on http://math.feld.cvut.cz/mt/txtd/1/txe4da1c.htm
At the very end when the creator shows that inf f(x) [tex]\neq[/tex] sup f(x)
how does this tell you that the function is never continuous?
Do the greatest lower bound and least upper bound of a function have to be equal at some point for a function to be continuous?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cmajor47 said:
At the very end when the creator shows that inf f(x) [tex]\neq[/tex] sup f(x)
That's not what he showed.

He showed the infimum (over all P) of U(f,P) was not the supremum (over all P) of L(f,P).

And he wasn't proving anything about continuity anyways; that article is about Riemann integrability.
 
Oh, wow, don't know how I missed that. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K