Proof that a contractive function has a fixed point

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the proof that a contractive function defined on a closed interval has a fixed point. The original poster is attempting to grasp the implications of the proof, particularly regarding the continuity of the function and the inclusion of the fixed point within the interval.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the reasoning behind the proof's assertion that the limit point lies within the interval, questioning the assumptions made in the proof. They discuss the properties of Cauchy sequences and the implications of compactness in relation to convergence within the interval.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the nature of sequences in compact sets and the convergence of Cauchy sequences. There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions made in the proof, particularly regarding the continuity of the function and the implications of the sequence remaining within the interval.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses confusion about the proof's reliance on certain assumptions and seeks clarification on the justification for concluding that the limit point is contained within the interval. The discussion touches on the definitions and properties of contractive functions and their continuity.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286

Homework Statement


I must understand the proof that if F:[a,b] \to [a,b] and F is contractive then there exist a unique x \in [a,b] such that F(x)=x.

Homework Equations


Definition of a contractive function: F is contractive over [a,b] if and only if there exist \lambda such that 0<\lambda <1 and |F(y)-F(x)| \leq \lambda |y-x| \forall x and y \in [a,b]. That's from my memory.

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm almost done understanding the existence (I already have the uniqueness proof and I understand it).
I'm stuck at understanding the latest part.
Here is the -watered down- proof:
Let x_{n+1}=F(x_n) for n \geq 1.
\exists \lambda \in (0,1) such that |x_n-x_{n+1}|=|F(x_{n+1})-F(x_{n+2})| \leq \lambda |x_{n+1}-x_{n+2}| \leq ... \leq \lambda ^{n-1} |x_1-x_0|.
I can take x_n=x_0+S_n where S_n=\sum _{j=1}^{\infty } (x_j-x_{j-1}).
If \{ S_n \} converges, then so do \{ x_n \}.
But \{ S_n \} does converge, since it's lesser than |x_1-x_0|\sum _{j=0} \lambda ^{j-1} which is convergent.
Thus \lim _{n \to \infty} x_n=x.
Now I must show that x=F(x).
x=\lim _{n \to \infty} x_n=\lim _{n \to \infty} F(x_{n-1})=F(\lim _{n \to \infty} x_{n-1}) =F(x). Thus x=F(x). Notice here that the proof used the fact that F is continuous without ever demonstrating it. So it seems that if F is contractive over an interval, it is continuous.
Now the proof wants to show that x \in [a,b].
And here comes the part that doesn't make any sense to me.
"Furthermore, since x\in [a,b], it follows that x_n \in [a,b] \forall n, for F([a,b]) is included in [a,b].
Since [a,b] is closed in \mathbb{R}, F is continuous and \lim _{n \to \infty} x_n =x, it follows that x\in [a,b]."
My problem is:
The first line assumes what it wants to prove and I don't see the point of the comment that follows.
For the second line, I do not understand the implication. Is there any theorem that justifies the implication? It's not at all intuitive to me.
I'd like an explanation on how to end the proof. I mean, how to show that x \in [a,b].
Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first line sets up a sequence for you, the point x_{n+1} and x_{n} are different points. The second line just shows that the distance between tow consecutive point is less than the distance between the first two points, so the points are getting closer together. The important thing to realize is that as the real line is complete, cauchy sequences converge.

Does that help at all?
 
hunt_mat said:
The first line sets up a sequence for you, the point x_{n+1} and x_{n} are different points. The second line just shows that the distance between tow consecutive point is less than the distance between the first two points, so the points are getting closer together. The important thing to realize is that as the real line is complete, cauchy sequences converge.

Does that help at all?

Thanks for your help. Yeah I understood this part and I understand what you mean. A Cauchy sequence does converge in R.
My problem resides in that at the end of the proof we want to show that x \in [a,b]. And the proof states
Furthermore, since x \in[a,b], it follows that x_n \in[a,b] \forall n, for F([a,b]) is included in [a,b].
Since [a,b] is closed in \mathbb{R}, F is continuous and \lim _{n \to \infty } x_n=x, it follows that x \in [a,b].
I still don't understand this part. It assumes what it wants to prove as true and at the end it states that it's true. Eh?
 
Okay, as [a,b] is a compact set, then any sequence in [a,b] will converge to a point in [a,b].
 
hunt_mat said:
Okay, as [a,b] is a compact set, then any sequence in [a,b] will converge to a point in [a,b].

Thanks a lot! Now I know how and understand to end the proof.
The sequence \{ x_n \} is inside [a,b] because x_{n+1}=F(x_n) and the image of F is [a,b].
Since I've already proven that \{ x_n \} converges, it does it in [a,b].

By the way, did you mean "Okay, as [a,b] is a compact set, then any converging sequence in [a,b] will converge to a point in [a,b]."? But I get what you mean.
 
Yes, like that.
 
hunt_mat said:
Yes, like that.

Thanks, problem solved. I now fully understand the proof. :biggrin:
 
Responses like that are the reason why I come out and help.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K