Uniform convergence of a sequence of functions

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the uniform convergence of the sequence of functions n[f(x + 1/n) - f(x)] to f'(x) on ℝ, given that f is twice differentiable with a bounded second derivative. The initial attempt involved using the definition of differentiation and the criteria for uniform convergence, but it was pointed out that the definition of differentiation was incorrectly stated. Additionally, the importance of utilizing the bounded second derivative to establish uniform convergence was emphasized. The participant acknowledged the oversight regarding the definition and clarified that they intended to imply h = 1/n, which approaches zero as n approaches infinity. The conversation highlights the necessity of careful limit handling to ensure the validity of the convergence claim.
AllRelative
Messages
42
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



This is a translation so sorry in advance if there are funky words in here[/B]
f: ℝ→ℝ a function 2 time differentiable on ℝ. The second derivative f'' is bounded on ℝ.
Show that the sequence on functions $$ n[f(x + 1/n) - f(x)] $$ converges uniformly on f'(x) on ℝ.

Homework Equations


In my attempt I used the definition of differentiation:
$$\lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h} $$

and I used a criteria for uniform convergence of sequences of functions:

fn fonverges to f uniformely on A
if and on if
for all ε > 0, ∃ N ∈ ℕ, for which
$$\lim_{x\to\infty} sup|fn - f(x)| \leqslant \varepsilon$$
for all n≥ N, for all x ∈ A

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I arrived to an answer but I fear I got sidetracked somewhere because I did not use the bounded second derivative.

I rewrote
$$ n[f(x + 1/n) - f(x)] = \frac{[f(x + 1/n) - f(x)]}{1/n} $$

Now this looks awefully like the derivative of fn for all x which is:
$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{[f(x + 1/n) - f(x)]}{1/n}$$

And now I applied the definition of the uniform convergence which is:
$$\lim_{n\to\infty} sup| \frac{[f(x + 1/n) - f(x)]}{1/n} - f'(x)| \leqslant \varepsilon $$

And therefore, I proved the uniform convergence to f'(x) on ℝ.

(I am missing a few for all ε belonging to...and stuff, I just wanted to write it quickly)
Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
1) Your definition of differentiation is wrong. It should have h -> 0.
2) You have not used the bound on f''. I think you need that to prove uniform convergence.
 
FactChecker said:
1) Your definition of differentiation is wrong. It should have h -> 0.
2) You have not used the bound on f''. I think you need that to prove uniform convergence.

Thanks for the reply.
You're right my definition is not good when I wrote down the definitions at the start. But in the problem I think it is.
I did not write it but here I implied that h = (1/n)
So n -> ∞ ⇒ h -> 0 because
 
We need to be somewhat careful about whether or not f' is well defined. We have to be certain that the limit exists before we claim that it is equal to anything. The existence of some limits is trivial, while others are a little more questionable. Suppose, for example,
$$f''=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}$$
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K