How to construct a bump function where one plateau is not at zero?












0














Let $f : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a linear function with $f(x_0)=0$, $f(epsilon)=1$, where $varepsilon >0$ fulfills $x_0-varepsilon > varepsilon>0$. I am trying to construct a smooth function $psi: mathbb{R} to [0,1]$, which fullfills $psi(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon - r_0 \ f(x), text{ for } varepsilon +r_0 le x le x_0-varepsilon -r_1 \ 0, text{ for } x ge x_0 -varepsilon + r_1 end{cases}$,



where $r_0, r_1 >0$ are to be chosen in such a way that the open neighbourhoods $(varepsilon - r_0, varepsilon + r_0)$ and $(x_0 - varepsilon - r_1, x_0-varepsilon +r_1)$ are non-empty and disjoint.



I am now looking for a way to construct two bump functions, which will make my function smooth (by which I mean $C^{infty}$) in those intervals. I know that I can construct a bump function by using the function
$ f(x)=begin{cases}e^{-frac{1}{x}}&text{for $x ge 0$}\ 0&text{for $x le 0$.}end{cases}$
and then taking $g(x)=frac{f(x)}{f(x) + f(1-x)}=begin{cases}1&text{for $x ge 1$} \ 0 &text{for $x le 0$ } end{cases}$.



I know how to change the shape by shifting etc. In particular I am familiar with the construction in Loring W. Tu's book.



But I have two problems:




  1. This bump function takes values from $0$ to $1$, but the function that I want should take values between $1$ and $f(epsilon+r_0)$ respectively $f(x_0-varepsilon-r_1)$ and $0$. I don't really know how to do this.


  2. I am concerned with smoothness. I have an idea of what these bump functions would look like, for instance, in the intervall $(varepsilon - r_0, varepsilon + r_0)$ it should look like the constant function $1$ near the left boundary and the constant function $f(varepsilon+r_0)$ near the right one. How can the transition from the bump function to my linear function $f$ be smooth?







real-analysis functional-analysis differential-equations analysis







share|cite|improve this question





























    0














    Let $f : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a linear function with $f(x_0)=0$, $f(epsilon)=1$, where $varepsilon >0$ fulfills $x_0-varepsilon > varepsilon>0$. I am trying to construct a smooth function $psi: mathbb{R} to [0,1]$, which fullfills $psi(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon - r_0 \ f(x), text{ for } varepsilon +r_0 le x le x_0-varepsilon -r_1 \ 0, text{ for } x ge x_0 -varepsilon + r_1 end{cases}$,



    where $r_0, r_1 >0$ are to be chosen in such a way that the open neighbourhoods $(varepsilon - r_0, varepsilon + r_0)$ and $(x_0 - varepsilon - r_1, x_0-varepsilon +r_1)$ are non-empty and disjoint.



    I am now looking for a way to construct two bump functions, which will make my function smooth (by which I mean $C^{infty}$) in those intervals. I know that I can construct a bump function by using the function
    $ f(x)=begin{cases}e^{-frac{1}{x}}&text{for $x ge 0$}\ 0&text{for $x le 0$.}end{cases}$
    and then taking $g(x)=frac{f(x)}{f(x) + f(1-x)}=begin{cases}1&text{for $x ge 1$} \ 0 &text{for $x le 0$ } end{cases}$.



    I know how to change the shape by shifting etc. In particular I am familiar with the construction in Loring W. Tu's book.



    But I have two problems:




    1. This bump function takes values from $0$ to $1$, but the function that I want should take values between $1$ and $f(epsilon+r_0)$ respectively $f(x_0-varepsilon-r_1)$ and $0$. I don't really know how to do this.


    2. I am concerned with smoothness. I have an idea of what these bump functions would look like, for instance, in the intervall $(varepsilon - r_0, varepsilon + r_0)$ it should look like the constant function $1$ near the left boundary and the constant function $f(varepsilon+r_0)$ near the right one. How can the transition from the bump function to my linear function $f$ be smooth?







    real-analysis functional-analysis differential-equations analysis







    share|cite|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0







      Let $f : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a linear function with $f(x_0)=0$, $f(epsilon)=1$, where $varepsilon >0$ fulfills $x_0-varepsilon > varepsilon>0$. I am trying to construct a smooth function $psi: mathbb{R} to [0,1]$, which fullfills $psi(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon - r_0 \ f(x), text{ for } varepsilon +r_0 le x le x_0-varepsilon -r_1 \ 0, text{ for } x ge x_0 -varepsilon + r_1 end{cases}$,



      where $r_0, r_1 >0$ are to be chosen in such a way that the open neighbourhoods $(varepsilon - r_0, varepsilon + r_0)$ and $(x_0 - varepsilon - r_1, x_0-varepsilon +r_1)$ are non-empty and disjoint.



      I am now looking for a way to construct two bump functions, which will make my function smooth (by which I mean $C^{infty}$) in those intervals. I know that I can construct a bump function by using the function
      $ f(x)=begin{cases}e^{-frac{1}{x}}&text{for $x ge 0$}\ 0&text{for $x le 0$.}end{cases}$
      and then taking $g(x)=frac{f(x)}{f(x) + f(1-x)}=begin{cases}1&text{for $x ge 1$} \ 0 &text{for $x le 0$ } end{cases}$.



      I know how to change the shape by shifting etc. In particular I am familiar with the construction in Loring W. Tu's book.



      But I have two problems:




      1. This bump function takes values from $0$ to $1$, but the function that I want should take values between $1$ and $f(epsilon+r_0)$ respectively $f(x_0-varepsilon-r_1)$ and $0$. I don't really know how to do this.


      2. I am concerned with smoothness. I have an idea of what these bump functions would look like, for instance, in the intervall $(varepsilon - r_0, varepsilon + r_0)$ it should look like the constant function $1$ near the left boundary and the constant function $f(varepsilon+r_0)$ near the right one. How can the transition from the bump function to my linear function $f$ be smooth?







      real-analysis functional-analysis differential-equations analysis







      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $f : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ be a linear function with $f(x_0)=0$, $f(epsilon)=1$, where $varepsilon >0$ fulfills $x_0-varepsilon > varepsilon>0$. I am trying to construct a smooth function $psi: mathbb{R} to [0,1]$, which fullfills $psi(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon - r_0 \ f(x), text{ for } varepsilon +r_0 le x le x_0-varepsilon -r_1 \ 0, text{ for } x ge x_0 -varepsilon + r_1 end{cases}$,



      where $r_0, r_1 >0$ are to be chosen in such a way that the open neighbourhoods $(varepsilon - r_0, varepsilon + r_0)$ and $(x_0 - varepsilon - r_1, x_0-varepsilon +r_1)$ are non-empty and disjoint.



      I am now looking for a way to construct two bump functions, which will make my function smooth (by which I mean $C^{infty}$) in those intervals. I know that I can construct a bump function by using the function
      $ f(x)=begin{cases}e^{-frac{1}{x}}&text{for $x ge 0$}\ 0&text{for $x le 0$.}end{cases}$
      and then taking $g(x)=frac{f(x)}{f(x) + f(1-x)}=begin{cases}1&text{for $x ge 1$} \ 0 &text{for $x le 0$ } end{cases}$.



      I know how to change the shape by shifting etc. In particular I am familiar with the construction in Loring W. Tu's book.



      But I have two problems:




      1. This bump function takes values from $0$ to $1$, but the function that I want should take values between $1$ and $f(epsilon+r_0)$ respectively $f(x_0-varepsilon-r_1)$ and $0$. I don't really know how to do this.


      2. I am concerned with smoothness. I have an idea of what these bump functions would look like, for instance, in the intervall $(varepsilon - r_0, varepsilon + r_0)$ it should look like the constant function $1$ near the left boundary and the constant function $f(varepsilon+r_0)$ near the right one. How can the transition from the bump function to my linear function $f$ be smooth?







      real-analysis functional-analysis differential-equations analysis




      real-analysis functional-analysis differential-equations analysis






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 22 '18 at 16:50







      rhodelta

















      asked Nov 22 '18 at 16:43









      rhodeltarhodelta

      206




      206






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          You should construct a bump function $h_{a,b,varepsilon}$ with $mathrm{supp} , h = [a-varepsilon,b+varepsilon]$ and $h(x) =1$ on $[a,b]$, see e.g. here. You can also construct such functions by using $g$: Define $$h(x) = gleft(frac{x-(a-varepsilon)}{varepsilon}right) cdot g left(frac{(b+varepsilon)-x}{varepsilon} right).$$
          Now you can easily construct your function by taking bump-functions which are supported on disjoint neighbourhoods.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I see that if I take for instance $h(x)=1-g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})$, that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \0, text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. But, what I want is instead that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. If I just shift my function, this will also change the value where $h$ was 1. How can I change my $h$ in such a way, that this condition is fulfilled?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:18












          • Okay, I think I could take instead $1-(f(varepsilon+r_0)+1) g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})=begin{cases} 1, text{ if } x le varepsilon-r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ if } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. Will this glue smoothly?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:38










          • You can take a function, say $h_1$, with $h_1(x) =1$ for $x le varepsilon-r_0$ and $h_1(x)=0$ for $x ge varepsilon-r_0/2$. (Just modifiy your function $g$ by rescaling!) Now take $h_2$ as in my answer with $a= varepsilon+r_0$ and $b=x_0-varepsilon -r_1$ and $widetilde{epsilon} = min {r_0,r_1}$. Then $h_2$ is supported on $[varepsilon,x_0-varepsilon]$ and is constant one on $[varepsilon+r_0,x_0-varepsilon-r_1]$. Define $psi = h_1 + h_2 f$. (This choice works!)
            – p4sch
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:46












          • Thank you so much, this really helped me a lot.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 21:58










          • I don't know if this is easy to see, but I have been wondering if it is possible to not have to restrict to $varepsilon=min{r_0, r_1}$. I feel like this is very restrictive, for instance if I want my function to be 1 in 0, then I wouldn't be able to use this construction.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 29 '18 at 19:02











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009334%2fhow-to-construct-a-bump-function-where-one-plateau-is-not-at-zero%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          You should construct a bump function $h_{a,b,varepsilon}$ with $mathrm{supp} , h = [a-varepsilon,b+varepsilon]$ and $h(x) =1$ on $[a,b]$, see e.g. here. You can also construct such functions by using $g$: Define $$h(x) = gleft(frac{x-(a-varepsilon)}{varepsilon}right) cdot g left(frac{(b+varepsilon)-x}{varepsilon} right).$$
          Now you can easily construct your function by taking bump-functions which are supported on disjoint neighbourhoods.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I see that if I take for instance $h(x)=1-g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})$, that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \0, text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. But, what I want is instead that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. If I just shift my function, this will also change the value where $h$ was 1. How can I change my $h$ in such a way, that this condition is fulfilled?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:18












          • Okay, I think I could take instead $1-(f(varepsilon+r_0)+1) g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})=begin{cases} 1, text{ if } x le varepsilon-r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ if } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. Will this glue smoothly?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:38










          • You can take a function, say $h_1$, with $h_1(x) =1$ for $x le varepsilon-r_0$ and $h_1(x)=0$ for $x ge varepsilon-r_0/2$. (Just modifiy your function $g$ by rescaling!) Now take $h_2$ as in my answer with $a= varepsilon+r_0$ and $b=x_0-varepsilon -r_1$ and $widetilde{epsilon} = min {r_0,r_1}$. Then $h_2$ is supported on $[varepsilon,x_0-varepsilon]$ and is constant one on $[varepsilon+r_0,x_0-varepsilon-r_1]$. Define $psi = h_1 + h_2 f$. (This choice works!)
            – p4sch
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:46












          • Thank you so much, this really helped me a lot.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 21:58










          • I don't know if this is easy to see, but I have been wondering if it is possible to not have to restrict to $varepsilon=min{r_0, r_1}$. I feel like this is very restrictive, for instance if I want my function to be 1 in 0, then I wouldn't be able to use this construction.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 29 '18 at 19:02
















          1














          You should construct a bump function $h_{a,b,varepsilon}$ with $mathrm{supp} , h = [a-varepsilon,b+varepsilon]$ and $h(x) =1$ on $[a,b]$, see e.g. here. You can also construct such functions by using $g$: Define $$h(x) = gleft(frac{x-(a-varepsilon)}{varepsilon}right) cdot g left(frac{(b+varepsilon)-x}{varepsilon} right).$$
          Now you can easily construct your function by taking bump-functions which are supported on disjoint neighbourhoods.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I see that if I take for instance $h(x)=1-g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})$, that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \0, text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. But, what I want is instead that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. If I just shift my function, this will also change the value where $h$ was 1. How can I change my $h$ in such a way, that this condition is fulfilled?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:18












          • Okay, I think I could take instead $1-(f(varepsilon+r_0)+1) g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})=begin{cases} 1, text{ if } x le varepsilon-r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ if } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. Will this glue smoothly?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:38










          • You can take a function, say $h_1$, with $h_1(x) =1$ for $x le varepsilon-r_0$ and $h_1(x)=0$ for $x ge varepsilon-r_0/2$. (Just modifiy your function $g$ by rescaling!) Now take $h_2$ as in my answer with $a= varepsilon+r_0$ and $b=x_0-varepsilon -r_1$ and $widetilde{epsilon} = min {r_0,r_1}$. Then $h_2$ is supported on $[varepsilon,x_0-varepsilon]$ and is constant one on $[varepsilon+r_0,x_0-varepsilon-r_1]$. Define $psi = h_1 + h_2 f$. (This choice works!)
            – p4sch
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:46












          • Thank you so much, this really helped me a lot.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 21:58










          • I don't know if this is easy to see, but I have been wondering if it is possible to not have to restrict to $varepsilon=min{r_0, r_1}$. I feel like this is very restrictive, for instance if I want my function to be 1 in 0, then I wouldn't be able to use this construction.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 29 '18 at 19:02














          1












          1








          1






          You should construct a bump function $h_{a,b,varepsilon}$ with $mathrm{supp} , h = [a-varepsilon,b+varepsilon]$ and $h(x) =1$ on $[a,b]$, see e.g. here. You can also construct such functions by using $g$: Define $$h(x) = gleft(frac{x-(a-varepsilon)}{varepsilon}right) cdot g left(frac{(b+varepsilon)-x}{varepsilon} right).$$
          Now you can easily construct your function by taking bump-functions which are supported on disjoint neighbourhoods.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          You should construct a bump function $h_{a,b,varepsilon}$ with $mathrm{supp} , h = [a-varepsilon,b+varepsilon]$ and $h(x) =1$ on $[a,b]$, see e.g. here. You can also construct such functions by using $g$: Define $$h(x) = gleft(frac{x-(a-varepsilon)}{varepsilon}right) cdot g left(frac{(b+varepsilon)-x}{varepsilon} right).$$
          Now you can easily construct your function by taking bump-functions which are supported on disjoint neighbourhoods.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 22 '18 at 17:16









          p4schp4sch

          4,770217




          4,770217












          • I see that if I take for instance $h(x)=1-g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})$, that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \0, text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. But, what I want is instead that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. If I just shift my function, this will also change the value where $h$ was 1. How can I change my $h$ in such a way, that this condition is fulfilled?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:18












          • Okay, I think I could take instead $1-(f(varepsilon+r_0)+1) g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})=begin{cases} 1, text{ if } x le varepsilon-r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ if } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. Will this glue smoothly?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:38










          • You can take a function, say $h_1$, with $h_1(x) =1$ for $x le varepsilon-r_0$ and $h_1(x)=0$ for $x ge varepsilon-r_0/2$. (Just modifiy your function $g$ by rescaling!) Now take $h_2$ as in my answer with $a= varepsilon+r_0$ and $b=x_0-varepsilon -r_1$ and $widetilde{epsilon} = min {r_0,r_1}$. Then $h_2$ is supported on $[varepsilon,x_0-varepsilon]$ and is constant one on $[varepsilon+r_0,x_0-varepsilon-r_1]$. Define $psi = h_1 + h_2 f$. (This choice works!)
            – p4sch
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:46












          • Thank you so much, this really helped me a lot.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 21:58










          • I don't know if this is easy to see, but I have been wondering if it is possible to not have to restrict to $varepsilon=min{r_0, r_1}$. I feel like this is very restrictive, for instance if I want my function to be 1 in 0, then I wouldn't be able to use this construction.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 29 '18 at 19:02


















          • I see that if I take for instance $h(x)=1-g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})$, that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \0, text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. But, what I want is instead that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. If I just shift my function, this will also change the value where $h$ was 1. How can I change my $h$ in such a way, that this condition is fulfilled?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:18












          • Okay, I think I could take instead $1-(f(varepsilon+r_0)+1) g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})=begin{cases} 1, text{ if } x le varepsilon-r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ if } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. Will this glue smoothly?
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:38










          • You can take a function, say $h_1$, with $h_1(x) =1$ for $x le varepsilon-r_0$ and $h_1(x)=0$ for $x ge varepsilon-r_0/2$. (Just modifiy your function $g$ by rescaling!) Now take $h_2$ as in my answer with $a= varepsilon+r_0$ and $b=x_0-varepsilon -r_1$ and $widetilde{epsilon} = min {r_0,r_1}$. Then $h_2$ is supported on $[varepsilon,x_0-varepsilon]$ and is constant one on $[varepsilon+r_0,x_0-varepsilon-r_1]$. Define $psi = h_1 + h_2 f$. (This choice works!)
            – p4sch
            Nov 26 '18 at 10:46












          • Thank you so much, this really helped me a lot.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 26 '18 at 21:58










          • I don't know if this is easy to see, but I have been wondering if it is possible to not have to restrict to $varepsilon=min{r_0, r_1}$. I feel like this is very restrictive, for instance if I want my function to be 1 in 0, then I wouldn't be able to use this construction.
            – rhodelta
            Nov 29 '18 at 19:02
















          I see that if I take for instance $h(x)=1-g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})$, that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \0, text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. But, what I want is instead that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. If I just shift my function, this will also change the value where $h$ was 1. How can I change my $h$ in such a way, that this condition is fulfilled?
          – rhodelta
          Nov 26 '18 at 10:18






          I see that if I take for instance $h(x)=1-g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})$, that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \0, text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. But, what I want is instead that $h(x)=begin{cases} 1, text{ for } x le varepsilon -r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ for } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. If I just shift my function, this will also change the value where $h$ was 1. How can I change my $h$ in such a way, that this condition is fulfilled?
          – rhodelta
          Nov 26 '18 at 10:18














          Okay, I think I could take instead $1-(f(varepsilon+r_0)+1) g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})=begin{cases} 1, text{ if } x le varepsilon-r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ if } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. Will this glue smoothly?
          – rhodelta
          Nov 26 '18 at 10:38




          Okay, I think I could take instead $1-(f(varepsilon+r_0)+1) g(frac{x-(varepsilon-r_0)}{2r_0})=begin{cases} 1, text{ if } x le varepsilon-r_0, \ f(varepsilon+r_0), text{ if } x ge varepsilon+r_0 end{cases}$. Will this glue smoothly?
          – rhodelta
          Nov 26 '18 at 10:38












          You can take a function, say $h_1$, with $h_1(x) =1$ for $x le varepsilon-r_0$ and $h_1(x)=0$ for $x ge varepsilon-r_0/2$. (Just modifiy your function $g$ by rescaling!) Now take $h_2$ as in my answer with $a= varepsilon+r_0$ and $b=x_0-varepsilon -r_1$ and $widetilde{epsilon} = min {r_0,r_1}$. Then $h_2$ is supported on $[varepsilon,x_0-varepsilon]$ and is constant one on $[varepsilon+r_0,x_0-varepsilon-r_1]$. Define $psi = h_1 + h_2 f$. (This choice works!)
          – p4sch
          Nov 26 '18 at 10:46






          You can take a function, say $h_1$, with $h_1(x) =1$ for $x le varepsilon-r_0$ and $h_1(x)=0$ for $x ge varepsilon-r_0/2$. (Just modifiy your function $g$ by rescaling!) Now take $h_2$ as in my answer with $a= varepsilon+r_0$ and $b=x_0-varepsilon -r_1$ and $widetilde{epsilon} = min {r_0,r_1}$. Then $h_2$ is supported on $[varepsilon,x_0-varepsilon]$ and is constant one on $[varepsilon+r_0,x_0-varepsilon-r_1]$. Define $psi = h_1 + h_2 f$. (This choice works!)
          – p4sch
          Nov 26 '18 at 10:46














          Thank you so much, this really helped me a lot.
          – rhodelta
          Nov 26 '18 at 21:58




          Thank you so much, this really helped me a lot.
          – rhodelta
          Nov 26 '18 at 21:58












          I don't know if this is easy to see, but I have been wondering if it is possible to not have to restrict to $varepsilon=min{r_0, r_1}$. I feel like this is very restrictive, for instance if I want my function to be 1 in 0, then I wouldn't be able to use this construction.
          – rhodelta
          Nov 29 '18 at 19:02




          I don't know if this is easy to see, but I have been wondering if it is possible to not have to restrict to $varepsilon=min{r_0, r_1}$. I feel like this is very restrictive, for instance if I want my function to be 1 in 0, then I wouldn't be able to use this construction.
          – rhodelta
          Nov 29 '18 at 19:02


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009334%2fhow-to-construct-a-bump-function-where-one-plateau-is-not-at-zero%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

          Image
          3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
          Read more

          Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

          Image
          up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
          Read more

          Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

          Image
          0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
          Read more