Problem 1-23 and 1-24 from Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around problems 1-23 and 1-24 from Spivak's "Calculus on Manifolds," focusing on the continuity of vector-valued functions and the behavior of their component functions at accumulation and non-accumulation points.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of continuity at accumulation points versus isolated points, questioning how the definitions apply in each case. Some express confusion about proving continuity at non-accumulation points, while others suggest that continuity may be trivially true in such scenarios.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions of continuity and the nature of isolated points. Some participants have offered insights into the continuity of functions at non-accumulation points, while others are still seeking clarity on the proofs required for the problems presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the definitions of accumulation points and isolated points are central to the discussion, with some emphasizing the need to differentiate between these concepts when considering continuity.

psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
Homework Statement
I'm working two problems in Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds. I'm getting a stuck at an annoying technicality. See the problems in the quoted text below.
Relevant Equations
A function is continuous at an accumulation point ##a## if ##\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=f(a)##.
1-23: If ##f: A \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m## and ##a \in A## [is an accumulation point], show that ##\lim _{x \rightarrow a} f(x)=b## if and only if ##\lim _{x \rightarrow a }f^i(a)=b^i## for ##i=1, \ldots, m##.

Proof: Suppose that ##\lim _{x \rightarrow a }f^i(x)=b^i## for each i. Let ##\epsilon>0##. Choose for each ##i##, a positive ##\delta_i## such that for every ##x \in A\setminus\{a\}## with ##|x-a|<\delta_i##, one has ##\left|f^i(x)-b^i\right|<\epsilon / \sqrt{n}##. Let ##\delta=\min \left(\delta_1, \ldots, \delta_n\right)>0##. Then, if ##x \in A\setminus\{a\}## satisfies ##|x-a|<\delta##, then ##|f(x)-b|<\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon^2 / n}=\epsilon##. So, ##\lim _{x \rightarrow a} f(x)=b##.

Conversely, suppose that ##\lim _{x \rightarrow a} f(x)=b, \epsilon>0##, and ##\delta## is chosen as in the definition of ##\lim _{x \rightarrow a} f(x)=b##. Then, for each ##i##, if ##x## is in ##A\setminus\{a\}## and satisfies ##|x-a|<\delta##, then ##\left|f^i(x)-b^i\right| \leq|f(x)-b|<\epsilon##. So ##\lim _{x \rightarrow a} f^i(x)=b^i##.

1-24: Prove that ##f: A \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m## is continuous at ##a## if and only if each ##f^i## is.

Proof: A function ##f:A\to\mathbb R^m## is continuous at an accumulation point ##a## if ##\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=f(a)##, so in that case this is a simple consequence of the previous exercise.

Now, what troubles me is that I don't know how to prove the statement at the non-accumulation points. After all, ##\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=f(a)## is only the definition of continuity at an accumulation point ##a##. I'm a bit bewildered about this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
psie said:
Now, what troubles me is that I don't know how to prove the statement at the non-accumulation points. After all, ##\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=f(a)## is only the definition of continuity at an accumulation point ##a##. I'm a bit bewildered about this.
If ##a## is not an accumulation point, there is no way for ##x## to approach ##a##. So the point is moot.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
FactChecker said:
If ##a## is not an accumulation point, there is no way for ##x## to approach ##a##. So the point is moot.
Ok, but all function are continuous at non-accumulation points, right? Since for any neighborhood ##V## around ##f(a)##, there is always a neighborhood ##U## around ##a## whose image ##f(U)\subseteq V## (this is one of equivalent definitions of continuity at a point). By negation of accumulation point, ##U## is simply ##\{a\}##.

If this is true, then I feel like the statement in the problem must be provable somehow at the non-accumulation points.
 
Having thought some more about this, I think there's nothing to prove when ##a## is an isolated point, i.e. not an accumulation point. The statement "##f## is continuous at ##a## iff all of its components are continuous at ##a##" is just trivially true. There is nothing to prove really, since the hypothesis and conclusion are always true in either direction, as the function and its components share the same domain and thus are always continuous at ##a##.
 
Use the actual definition of continuity: f is continuous at a iff for every \epsilon &gt; 0 there exists a \delta &gt; 0 such that if \|x - a\| &lt; \delta then \|f(x) - f(a)\| &lt; \epsilon. If a is isolated, we can always take 0 &lt; \delta &lt; \inf \{ \|x - a\| : x \neq a\} so that \|x - a\| &lt; \delta \Rightarrow \|f(x) - f(a)\| = 0 &lt; \epsilon.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker and psie
For one side of 1-24, use the fact that projections##\pi_i##( into the ##x_i ##) are continuous. EDIT: And the composition of continuous functions is continuous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
I believe Spivak refers to accumulation points as points that aren't isolated points. A point ##p## is an isolated point of## S## if there is a neighborhood of ##p## that doesn't intersect ##S##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K