Pointwise vs. Uniform Convergence.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence properties of the series fn(x) = x/(1+n*x^2), specifically examining why it is pointwise convergent but not uniformly convergent. Participants reference definitions and theorems related to convergence types, as well as the implications of these definitions in the context of the given series.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of pointwise and uniform convergence, questioning the conditions under which each applies. There is an attempt to analyze the behavior of the series as n approaches infinity and to identify the supremum of the difference between fn(x) and its limit function f(x).

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications on the definitions of convergence types and have shared examples to illustrate the differences. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of these definitions for the series in question, with no explicit consensus reached on the uniform convergence aspect.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of the domain in determining uniform convergence, with assumptions made about the domain being [0, infinity) or the set of real numbers. The discussion also highlights the need for careful consideration of the conditions under which uniform convergence can be established.

rumjum
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I need to understand as to why the following series fn(x) = x/(1+n*x^2) is point wise convergent (as mentioned in the book of Ross) and not [obviously] uniformly convergent.

Homework Equations



The relevant equation used is that lim (n-> infinity) sup|(fn(x) - f(x))|= 0 implies uniform convergent.---- (1)

The Attempt at a Solution



It is obvious lim (n-> infinity) fn(x) = f(x) = 0 for x not equal to zero. And when x=0, fn(0) = 0 and hence as n-> infinity, fn(0) = f(0) =0.

As mentioned in Ross and ( I can see) that fn(x) is pointwise convergent. But, it looks like for all x, the function fn(x) converges to f(x)=0. So, I am unclear as to why it is not uniform convergent? Please clarify.

The book further uses the theorem (1) to prove uniform converfence, which I can understand.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
But, it looks like for all x, the function fn(x) converges to f(x)=0

which is the definition of pointwise convergence. Note that a good way to find

sup|fn(x)-f(x)| is to take the derivate of the difference and look for local maxima (since in this case the difference tends to zero as x goes to zero and infinity). Although to start, the question should have a domain in which the uniform convergence of the function is to be determined, I'm just assuming from context it's something like [0,infinity).

So \frac {d}{dx}(f_n(x)-f(x)) = \frac {d}{dx}f_n(x) = \frac {d}{dx} \frac {x}{1+n*x^2} = \frac {1+n*x^2 - x(2nx)}{(1+n*x^2)^2} = 0 \rightarrow 1-nx^2=0 \rightarrow x= +/- \frac{1}{ \sqrt{n}}

Obviously this is a maximum, as the function is zero at 0 and infinity and clearly positive on (0,infininty), so we can just plug it into find sup|fn[/sub(x)|

1/sqrt(n)/(1+n/n) = 1/(2sqrt(n)) => 0

So in fact it is uniformly convergent
 
Well, I understood the part of finding the sup using derivatives. And yes you are right that the domain is set of Real number (R). But, now I am a bit more confused about the difference between pointwise and uniform convergence. I am under the impression (and correct me if am wrong) that the difference between pointwise and uniform is simply that for pointwise , there is an n >N such that for some x fn(x) -> f(x).
But, for uniform convergence, there is an n > N such that for all x fn(x) -> f(x).
So, if in the above example, for all x, the lim (fn(x) ->0)) then is it not a uniform convergence?

Thanks for your response.
 
Pointwise convergence is, for any x in the domain, for all epsilon>0, there exists N where N depends on x such that n>N implies |fn(x)-f(x)|<epsilon

Uniform convergence is, for any epsilon>0, there exists N such that for the same N, no matter which x you pick n>N implies |fn(x)-f(x)|<epsilon.
One example of a sequence that doesn't converge uniformly is xn on [0,1]. You can see this as, if x<1, xn converges pointwise to zero, i.e. for a given point, it converges to zero. If x=1, xn converges to 1 obviously. But for a given epsilon, say 1/4, for any N I can find a point (1/2)1/N so if x is that, xN = 1/2

Another example of a sequence that doesn't converge uniformly is arctan(nx) on all of R. Clearly, it converges for a given x to 0 if x=0, or pi/2 if x>0, and -pi/2 if x<0. This is the pointwise convergence, i.e. you pick a point and see where it converges. But arctan(nx) does not converge uniformly to that function, as picking epsilon=1, for any N if x=1/(10000N) then arctan(Nx) = arctan(1/10000) which is less than pi/2-1.

The best way to visualize this is to see that uniform convergence essentially implies that for large n, fn(x) is very very very very veeeery close to f(x) as a graph everywhere, whereas pointwise convergence simply says that tracking the value of a single point over time will give the right value
 
I re-read your statement on pointwise convergence of the previous post and referred to the textbook. I understood what you were saying about pointwise convergence. Thanks for further clarifying the same and for your example. Appreciate it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K