mahler1 said:
Ok, I see it. I want to prove that if ##d'(f(A),f(B))≠0## but ##d(A,B)=0## then f is not uniformly continuous.
Are you sure you want to prove that? I think it's equivalent to the proposition you are asked to prove, but it's not obviously so.
By hypothesis, ##d(A,B)=0##, which means that ##\forall## ##δ>0##, ##\exists## x, y in A and B respectively : ##d(x,y)<δ##.
This is correct.
But the distance between the two images of the sets A and B is not 0, so ##\exists## ##ε>0## such that ##\forall## ##x \in A## and ##\forall## ##y \in B##, ##d'(f(x),f(y))≥ε##.
This is true.
It follows that f is not uniformly continuous.
You have so far that
"There exists \epsilon > 0 such that for all \delta > 0 there exist x \in A \subset X and y \in B \subset X such that d(x,y) < \delta and d'(f(x),f(y)) \geq \epsilon."
That is indeed the negation of the definition of uniform continuity, so you have shown that if d(A,B) = 0 and d'(f(A),f(B)) > 0 then f is not uniformly continuous.
But it's an excessively convoluted and not at all obvious proof of the result you were asked to prove.
There is an easier way. These exercises usually solve themselves if you just write down the formal definitions of the concepts involved and string them together in the right order. The trick is to find the right order.
First let's think about what we want to prove. From the definition of d'(f(A),f(B)) we see that want to prove that the greatest lower bound of \{d'(f(x),f(y)) : x \in A, y \in B\} is zero.
Now zero is trivially a lower bound, because metrics are by definition non-negative. So all we really need to show is that there is no greater lower bound. In other words, we must show that for all \epsilon > 0 there exist x \in A and y \in B such that d'(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon, so that \epsilon is not a lower bound.
That statement includes the formula "d'(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon", which suggests that the definition of uniform continuity is a good place to start.