Show ##\{nx^{n}(1-x)\}_{n = 0}^{\infty}## converges uni

  • Thread starter Thread starter Euklidian-Space
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uni
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
34 replies · 7K views
wabbit said:
@Euklidian-Space as you asked for more detail :

To expand this last step, let's assume uniform convergence, and take ## \epsilon=\frac{1}{2e} ## .
From the convergence of ## f_n(x_n) \rightarrow \frac{1}{e}## we know that
(1) ## \exists n_0,\forall n\geq n_0, f_n(x_n)>\frac{1}{2e}##
But uniform convergence ## f_n\rightarrow_u 0 ## tells us that
(2) ## \exists N, \forall n\geq N, \forall x \in [0,1], f(x)<\frac{1}{2e} ##
Now take any ## n\geq\max(n_0,N) ## and set ## x=x_n ## .
By (1) we have ## f_n(x)>\frac{1}{2e} ## , but (2) yields ## f_n(x)<\frac{1}{2e} ## so we have a contradiction.
Wabbit,
i am getting ##f_{n}(x_{n}) = n\left(1-\frac{n}{n+1}\right)^{n+1}##

does that still converge to ##\frac{1}{e}?##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Euklidian-Space said:
Wabbit,
i am getting ##f_{n}(x_{n}) = n\left(1-\frac{n}{n+1}\right)^{n+1}##

does that still converge to ##\frac{1}{e}?##
No it doesn't, but what you're getting is incorrect - check your calculations again, you must have let a mistake slip by somewhere.
 
wabbit said:
Actually, your sequence ## f_n(x)=nx^n(1-x) ## does not converge uniformly on ## [0,1] ##.
It converges pointwise to zero on that interval. However, if you set ## x_n=\frac{n}{n+1} ## which is the value at which ## f_n ## reaches its maximum over ## [0,1] ## , you find that ##f_n(x_n)=(\frac{n}{n+1})^{n+1}=(1-\frac{1}{n+1})^{n+1} \ _{\overrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}}\frac{1}{e}>0 ## and this proves that the convergence is not uniform.
<Snip>.

I don't understand, aren't you saying here that the series converges pointwise to ##0## on ##[0,1]## but ##f_n(x_n) \rightarrow 1/e ##. How is this possible?
 
WWGD said:
I don't understand, aren't you saying here that the series converges pointwise to ##0## on ##[0,1]## but ##f_n(x_n) \rightarrow 1/e ##. How is this possible?
To state it in more general terms, if ## f_n\rightarrow f ## and ## x_n\rightarrow x ## we might expect to conclude that ## f_n(x_n)\rightarrow f(x) ## - and while it is easy to prove that this is a theorem if the convergence is uniform, the conclusion does not hold if it is only pointwise.

That sequence was built I imagine precisely to illustrate how, lacking uniform convergence or another suitable assumption, the diagonal sequence may converge to a limit which is not the pointwise limit. Another very similar one which makes this perhaps clearer is the sequence of piecewise linear functions with ##f_n(0)= f_n(1-\frac{2}{n})=0 ; f_n(1-\frac{1}{n})=1 ; f_n(1)=0 ## and linear interpolation between those points : for any given ## x ## the sequence ## f_n(x) ## is constant and equal to zero except for a finite number of terms, yet by definition ## f_n(x_n)=1 ## for ## x_n=1-\frac{1}{n} ## .
 
Last edited:
One more comment : I suspect that for continuous functions on a compact set, the statement "##\forall (x_n)|x_n\rightarrow x, f_n(x_n)\rightarrow f(x)##" is actually equivalent to uniform convergence "## f_n\rightarrow_u f##".
 
Last edited: