1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Uniform convergence of function sequence

  1. Apr 16, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    For [tex]k = 1,2,\ldots[/tex] define [tex]f_k : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}[/tex] by
    [tex]
    \begin{align*}
    f_k(x) = \left\{
    \begin{array}{ll}
    4k^2x & 0 \leq \displaystyle x \leq \frac{1}{2k} \\
    4k(1 - kx) & \displaystyle \frac{1}{2k} < x \leq \frac{1}{k} \\
    0 & \displaystyle \frac{1}{k} < x \leq 1
    \end{array}
    \right.
    \end{align*}
    [/tex]

    1. Show that [tex]\{ f_k \}[/tex] has a pointwise limit, [tex]f[/tex], but that
    [tex]f_k \nrightarrow f[/tex] uniformly.

    2.Does [tex]\displaystyle \int^1_0 f_k(x) dx \to \int^1_0 f(x) dx[/tex]?

    2. Relevant equations



    3. The attempt at a solution

    1. Does [tex]\{ f_k \}[/tex] converges pointwise to [tex]f = 0[/tex] because for every [tex]x[/tex] there
    is always a [tex]k[/tex] such that [tex]\displaystyle \frac{1}{k} < x[/tex]? But taking limit of each interval results in the following function
    [tex]
    \begin{align*}
    \lim_{k \to \infty} f_k(x) = \left\{
    \begin{array}{ll}
    0 & 0 \\
    \infty & \displaystyle 0 < x \leq \frac{1}{2k} \\
    \infty & \displaystyle \frac{1}{2k} < x < \frac{1}{k} \\
    0 & \displaystyle \frac{1}{k} \\
    0 & \displaystyle \frac{1}{k} < x \leq 1
    \end{array}
    \right.
    \end{align*}
    [/tex]

    Which one is the correct limit function? What is the reason for the sequence to be not uniformly convergent? Is it because the limit function [tex]f[/tex] broken into intervals is not continuous? But what if the limit function is [tex]f(x) = 0[/tex]?

    2. Is this because limit and integrals cannot be exchanged due to sequence not uniformly convergent? What else do I need to prove?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 16, 2010 #2
    I find it easier to think about these questions by picking arbitrary [itex] x_0 [/itex] in the interval and seeing what happens. If you pick zero,[itex] f_k (0) = 0 [/itex] and this is trivial. If [itex] x_0 [/itex] is non-zero, indeed you can find large enough k such that [itex] \frac{1}{k} < x_0 [/itex], and for that k and larger,[itex] f_k (x_0) = 0 [/itex]. This is for arbitrary [itex] x_0 [/itex], so you can see how the limit function is just f = 0.

    The main problem for you seems to be determining the uniform convergence. I would work straight from the definition:[itex] \forall \epsilon > 0, [/itex] there exists a K such that k > K implies [itex]|f(x) - f_k(x)| < \epsilon [/itex] [itex] \forall x \in \left[ 0,1 \right] [/itex]. In your case, [itex] f(x) = 0 [/itex] for all x.

    I think it's easiest to work from a contradiction. Suppose you had such an epsilon, and such a K. What would happen near zero?

    As for the second part, I think it would be very informative to actually evaluate the integral

    [tex]
    \displaystyle \int^1_0 f_k(x) dx
    [/tex]
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook