To prove a series of function is bounded

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if each function \(f_n\) is bounded and \(f_n \to f\) uniformly on a set \(S\), then the sequence \(\{f_n\}\) is uniformly bounded on \(S\). The proof utilizes the properties of uniform convergence and the boundedness of individual functions, establishing that the maximum bound \(M\) of the sequence can be derived from the bounds of the first \(n\) functions and the limit function. The final conclusion is that the sequence is uniformly bounded by defining \(k = \max(M_1, M_2, \ldots, M_{N_0}, 2 + M_{N_0})\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of uniform convergence in analysis
  • Knowledge of bounded functions and their properties
  • Familiarity with the triangle inequality in mathematical proofs
  • Basic concepts of limits and sequences in real analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definition and properties of uniform convergence in detail
  • Explore the implications of the triangle inequality in function analysis
  • Learn about bounded functions and their significance in real analysis
  • Investigate examples of uniformly bounded sequences and their convergence behavior
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of function sequences and uniform convergence.

ssh
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Q. If each individual function is bounded and if \(f_n\longrightarrow f \) uniformly on S, then prove that {fn} is uniformly bounded on S.
Proof : Since each fn is bounded implies \(f_n \leq M_n\)
\(\Longrightarrow f_1\leq M_1, f_2 \leq M_2​,\) and so on
If M = max {M1, M2,...Mn } then each term is certainly less than M

Please let me know is this approach right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ssh said:
Q. If each individual function is bounded and if \(f_n\longrightarrow f \) uniformly on S, then prove that {fn} is uniformly bounded on S.
Proof : Since each fn is bounded implies \(f_n \leq M_n\)
\(\Longrightarrow f_1\leq M_1, f_2 \leq M_2​,\) and so on
If M = max {M1, M2,...Mn } then each term is certainly less than M

Please let me know is this approach right?
When you write M = max {M1, M2,...Mn }, do you mean that M is the max of the bounds of all the functions $f_1, f_2, f_3, \ldots$, or is it just the max of the bounds of the first n functions?

In the first case, if M is the max of the infinite set $\{M_1,M_2,M_3,\ldots\}$, how do you know that it is finite?

In the second case, if M is the max of the finite set $\{M_1,M_2,M_3,\ldots, M_n\}$ (stopping at $n$), you have only proved something about the first $n$ functions, not the whole sequence.

To give a valid proof of this result, you will need to make use of the fact that the sequence of functions converges uniformly to a limit function.
 
I found this answer in a books, but its very confusing, can some one explain this to me clearly.

Ans Since \(f_n \longrightarrow f\) there exists N such that

\( \arrowvert f_n(x) - f(x) \arrowvert < \epsilon\) for all n>N and for all x
Mn = 1, 2, ... be non - negative real numbers such that \(\arrowvert f_n(x)\arrowvert \leq M_n, x\in S\), n=1,2,...
Now \( \arrowvert f(x)\arrowvert - \arrowvert f_n(x)\arrowvert \leq \arrowvert f_n(x) - f(x) \arrowvert < 1 x \in S, n<N \)
\(\Longrightarrow \arrowvert f(x) \arrowvert < 1 + \arrowvert f_N0(x) \leq 1 + M_N0 , x \in S\)
this means that f is bounded. it allows follows from the above that for n>N0
\(\arrowvert f_n(x) \arrowvert <1 + \arrowvert f(x) \arrowvert \leq 2 + M_N0\)
let k = max(M1,M2, MN0, 2+MN0)
then \(\arrowvert f_n(x) \arrowvert \leq k, x\in S, n = 1,2,...\)
implies fn is uniformly bounded.

Thanx
 
ssh said:
I found this answer in a books, but its very confusing, can some one explain this to me clearly.
It is a correct proof. You just have to unpick it carefully and it all makes perfect sense:
ssh said:
Since \(f_n \longrightarrow f\) there exists N such that

\( \arrowvert f_n(x) - f(x) \arrowvert < \epsilon\) for all n>N and for all x

More accurately, since \(f_n \longrightarrow f\) uniformly, given $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $N$ such that

\( | f_n(x) - f(x)| < \varepsilon\) for all $n> N$ and for all $x$. In particular, if you take $\varepsilon=1$, then there exists $N$ such that

\(\color{red}{ | f_n(x) - f(x)| < 1}\) for all $\color{red}{n> N}$ and for all $\color{red}x$. Choose some $N_0>N$. Then $\color{blue}{| f_{N_0}(x) - f(x)| < 1 }$ for all $x$.

ssh said:
Mn = 1, 2, ... be non - negative real numbers such that \(\arrowvert f_n(x)\arrowvert \leq M_n, x\in S\), n=1,2,...
Now \( \arrowvert f(x)\arrowvert - \arrowvert f_n(x)\arrowvert \leq \arrowvert f_n(x) - f(x) \arrowvert < 1 x \in S, n<N \)
\(\Longrightarrow \arrowvert f(x) \arrowvert < 1 + \arrowvert f_N0(x) \leq 1 + M_N0 , x \in S\)
this means that f is bounded.
We are told that each $f_n$ is bounded, say $|f_n(x)|\leqslant M_n$ for all $x$. In particular, $\color{blue}{|f_{N_0}(x)|\leqslant M_{N_0}}$ for all $x$. Putting the two blue inequalities together and using the triangle inequality, you see that $|f(x)| = |f_{N_0}(x) + (f(x) - f_{N_0}(x))| \leqslant |f_{N_0}(x)| + |f(x) - f_{N_0}(x)| \leqslant M_{N_0}+1.$

Thus $f$ is bounded, with $M_{N_0}+1$ as a bound.

ssh said:
it allows follows from the above that for n>N0
\(\arrowvert f_n(x) \arrowvert <1 + \arrowvert f(x) \arrowvert \leq 2 + M_N0\)
From the red inequality above, and using the triangle inequality again, you know that $|f_n(x)| = |f(x) + (f_n(x) - f(x))| \leqslant |f(x)| + |f_n(x) - f(x)| \leqslant (M_{N_0}+1) + 1 = M_{N_0}+2$ for all $n>N_0$ and for all $x$.

Thus all the functions from $f_{N_0+1}$ onwards are uniformly bounded, with a bound $M_{N_0}+2$. That just leaves a finite number of functions at the start of the sequence. But each of them is individually bounded, and since there is only a finite number of them, we can just take the maximum of all these bounds to get a bound for the entire sequence:
ssh said:
let $k = \max(M_1,M_2,\ldots, M_{N_0}, 2+M_{N_0})$,
then $|f_n(x)| \leqslant k,\ x\in S,\ n = 1,2,...$
implies $\{f_n\}$ is uniformly bounded.
 
Last edited:
Thanx now its clear
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K