Oscillation of a closed subinterval

  • Thread starter Thread starter chaotixmonjuish
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Closed Oscillation
chaotixmonjuish
Messages
284
Reaction score
0
Given \epsilon > 0, suppose \omega_f(x) < \epsilon for each x \in [a,b]. Then show there is \delta > 0 such that for every closed interval I \in [a,b] with l(I)< \delta we have \omega_f(I) < \epsilon.

My first approach to this was trying to think of it as an anaglous to the definition of continuity. However, it would appear, at least to me, that we are talking about a "uniformly" oscillating interval. I'm just not sure how to prove this. My first idea was simply, since I know that things are \epsilon spaced, I could always pick intervals small enough. I'm not sure how to do this rigorously.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The first thing you will need to do is define "\omega_f(x)" and "\omega_f(I)". They are, of course, the "oscillation" of f at x and on interval I, but what are the precise definitions?
 
The definitions of oscillation of a set and point respectively:

\omega_f(A)=\sup\limits_{x,y\in A}f(x)-f(y)|

\omega_f(x)=\inf\{\omega_f(x)=\inf\{\omega_f(x-\epsilon, x+\epsilon)\cap A) : \epsilon > 0\}
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top