Pointwise vs Uniform Convergence

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the distinction between Pointwise and Uniform Convergence in topology. It highlights that in uniform convergence, the integer N can solely depend on ε (epsilon), while in pointwise convergence, N may depend on both ε and x. A specific example is provided with the sequence of functions f_n(x), which converges pointwise to f(x) = 0 on ℝ but does not converge uniformly. This illustrates the critical difference in how convergence is defined and understood in these two contexts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic topology concepts
  • Familiarity with sequences of functions
  • Knowledge of convergence types in mathematical analysis
  • Ability to work with limits and supremum in calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the formal definitions of Pointwise and Uniform Convergence
  • Explore examples of sequences of functions that demonstrate both types of convergence
  • Learn about the implications of convergence types in functional analysis
  • Investigate the role of ε (epsilon) in convergence proofs
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and researchers interested in topology and analysis, particularly those seeking to deepen their understanding of convergence concepts.

Patzid
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi!

Hope this is the right forum, I'm not quite sure myself.
Anyway, this problem has been bugging me for what seems way too long for such an apparently simple problem.
It's about the difference between Pointwise and Uniform Convergence (Topology).

By reading different articles online I've gotten a somewhat good understanding of the basic principles,
but I do not manage to make it 100% intuitive (which I feel I need to do, in order to "move on").

One way to formulate my problem is this; according to Wikipedia (and others):
"In the case of uniform convergence, N can only depend on ε, while in the case of pointwise convergence N may depend on ε and x."
And my question then would be; but why can't one just look at the domain and define N by some extremum obtained?

I know my question is somewhat poorly formulated and the fact that I don't manage to formulate it properly is testimony to my incomplete understanding of the subject.
Still, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given e (for epsilon) you can try to take the sup over all the N(e,x) over all x. But this could be, and in general will be, infinity, unless it is uniform convergence.
 
Patzid said:
And my question then would be; but why can't one just look at the domain and define N by some extremum obtained?

Because this extremum might not go to 0!

Take the sequence of functions [itex]\left\{f_n\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}[/itex] given by

[tex]f_n\left(x\right) = \left\{<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 & \mbox{if } 0 < x < 1/n \\<br /> 0 & \mbox{otherwise}<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right .[/tex]

This function converges pointwise to the function [itex]f\left(x\right) = 0[/itex] on [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex], but not uniformly. Can you see why?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K