Proving that a differentiable function f, with f' bounded, is uniformly continuous
$begingroup$
Let $f: R rightarrow R$ be a differentiable function. Prove that if $f'$ is bounded, then $f$ is uniformly continuous
My attempt:
Since $f$ is differentiable, we have $f'(x) = lim_{x to x_0}frac{f(x) - f(x_0)}{x-x_0}$.
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $epsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<epsilon$.
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|}*|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<epsilon$
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$. Since $f'$ is bounded, there is some $M$ such that $-M leq f' leq M$. So we have $delta f'(x)leqdelta M<epsilon$. Take $delta = frac{epsilon}{M}$. Therefore, $f$ is uniformly continuous.
Is my logic here correct? I am not sure if I can do the limit step.
real-analysis proof-verification uniform-continuity
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f: R rightarrow R$ be a differentiable function. Prove that if $f'$ is bounded, then $f$ is uniformly continuous
My attempt:
Since $f$ is differentiable, we have $f'(x) = lim_{x to x_0}frac{f(x) - f(x_0)}{x-x_0}$.
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $epsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<epsilon$.
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|}*|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<epsilon$
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$. Since $f'$ is bounded, there is some $M$ such that $-M leq f' leq M$. So we have $delta f'(x)leqdelta M<epsilon$. Take $delta = frac{epsilon}{M}$. Therefore, $f$ is uniformly continuous.
Is my logic here correct? I am not sure if I can do the limit step.
real-analysis proof-verification uniform-continuity
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I find your “proof” hard to follow and check. You should rewrite it while defining precisely all your variables and checking dependencies.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Dec 12 '18 at 22:45
2
$begingroup$
Yes. Use Lagrange's Mean Value theorem. $|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|f'(c)(x-x_0)|leq M|x-x_0|$ where $cin(x,x_0)$ and $Minmathbb{R}:::|f'(x)|leq M:forall :xinmathbb{R}$. Infact it is $M$-Lipschitz.
$endgroup$
– Yadati Kiran
Dec 12 '18 at 22:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f: R rightarrow R$ be a differentiable function. Prove that if $f'$ is bounded, then $f$ is uniformly continuous
My attempt:
Since $f$ is differentiable, we have $f'(x) = lim_{x to x_0}frac{f(x) - f(x_0)}{x-x_0}$.
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $epsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<epsilon$.
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|}*|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<epsilon$
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$. Since $f'$ is bounded, there is some $M$ such that $-M leq f' leq M$. So we have $delta f'(x)leqdelta M<epsilon$. Take $delta = frac{epsilon}{M}$. Therefore, $f$ is uniformly continuous.
Is my logic here correct? I am not sure if I can do the limit step.
real-analysis proof-verification uniform-continuity
$endgroup$
Let $f: R rightarrow R$ be a differentiable function. Prove that if $f'$ is bounded, then $f$ is uniformly continuous
My attempt:
Since $f$ is differentiable, we have $f'(x) = lim_{x to x_0}frac{f(x) - f(x_0)}{x-x_0}$.
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $epsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<epsilon$.
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|}*|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<epsilon$
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$. Since $f'$ is bounded, there is some $M$ such that $-M leq f' leq M$. So we have $delta f'(x)leqdelta M<epsilon$. Take $delta = frac{epsilon}{M}$. Therefore, $f$ is uniformly continuous.
Is my logic here correct? I am not sure if I can do the limit step.
real-analysis proof-verification uniform-continuity
real-analysis proof-verification uniform-continuity
edited Dec 12 '18 at 22:49
Theo Bendit
20.2k12353
20.2k12353
asked Dec 12 '18 at 22:41
hkj447hkj447
636
636
$begingroup$
I find your “proof” hard to follow and check. You should rewrite it while defining precisely all your variables and checking dependencies.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Dec 12 '18 at 22:45
2
$begingroup$
Yes. Use Lagrange's Mean Value theorem. $|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|f'(c)(x-x_0)|leq M|x-x_0|$ where $cin(x,x_0)$ and $Minmathbb{R}:::|f'(x)|leq M:forall :xinmathbb{R}$. Infact it is $M$-Lipschitz.
$endgroup$
– Yadati Kiran
Dec 12 '18 at 22:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I find your “proof” hard to follow and check. You should rewrite it while defining precisely all your variables and checking dependencies.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Dec 12 '18 at 22:45
2
$begingroup$
Yes. Use Lagrange's Mean Value theorem. $|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|f'(c)(x-x_0)|leq M|x-x_0|$ where $cin(x,x_0)$ and $Minmathbb{R}:::|f'(x)|leq M:forall :xinmathbb{R}$. Infact it is $M$-Lipschitz.
$endgroup$
– Yadati Kiran
Dec 12 '18 at 22:48
$begingroup$
I find your “proof” hard to follow and check. You should rewrite it while defining precisely all your variables and checking dependencies.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Dec 12 '18 at 22:45
$begingroup$
I find your “proof” hard to follow and check. You should rewrite it while defining precisely all your variables and checking dependencies.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Dec 12 '18 at 22:45
2
2
$begingroup$
Yes. Use Lagrange's Mean Value theorem. $|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|f'(c)(x-x_0)|leq M|x-x_0|$ where $cin(x,x_0)$ and $Minmathbb{R}:::|f'(x)|leq M:forall :xinmathbb{R}$. Infact it is $M$-Lipschitz.
$endgroup$
– Yadati Kiran
Dec 12 '18 at 22:48
$begingroup$
Yes. Use Lagrange's Mean Value theorem. $|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|f'(c)(x-x_0)|leq M|x-x_0|$ where $cin(x,x_0)$ and $Minmathbb{R}:::|f'(x)|leq M:forall :xinmathbb{R}$. Infact it is $M$-Lipschitz.
$endgroup$
– Yadati Kiran
Dec 12 '18 at 22:48
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The $delta$ you end up choosing is good; this $delta$ will work. The problem is your justification why it works. It almost works with a bit of unpacking, but it needs to be rewritten in a way that is clear flows logically from the assumption that $|x - x_0| < delta = varepsilon/M$ to the conclusion that $|f(x) - f(x_0)| < varepsilon$.
You write
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<varepsilon$.
This is true, but it's a confusing step to put in your proof. The way I interepeted this when I first read it is that you are choosing a value for the variable $delta$. You don't know what it is, but you know one exists that satisfies the above property (given the fixed $varepsilon > 0$ and $x_0 in mathbb{R}$). The rest of your proof would then (somehow) have to justify why this $delta$ does not depend on $x_0$ at all, or perhaps define another $delta'$, based on $delta$, that didn't depend on $x_0$. Since you end up simply defining a totally different $delta$, not relating to this $delta$, the step is confusing, and probably should be dropped.
Next, you write
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|} times |f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$
This is another reason why the previous step is confusing; you are now using $delta$ in inequalities. Without first defining $delta$, this is a bit confusing. You haven't talked about what you're assuming here. For example, it appears that you're assuming $|x - x_0| < delta$. If you have a $delta$ defined (such as from the previous paragraph), this is a very reasonable assumption to make, but it should be made explicit before writing this step.
It's also not clear why $deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$. Without a clear definition of $delta$, I don't know why this would be true.
You also write
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$.
This is a small point: if you have $g(x) < N$ for all $x$, then $lim_{x to a} g(x) le N$. You cannot conclude strict inequality!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3037327%2fproving-that-a-differentiable-function-f-with-f-bounded-is-uniformly-continuo%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
$begingroup$
The $delta$ you end up choosing is good; this $delta$ will work. The problem is your justification why it works. It almost works with a bit of unpacking, but it needs to be rewritten in a way that is clear flows logically from the assumption that $|x - x_0| < delta = varepsilon/M$ to the conclusion that $|f(x) - f(x_0)| < varepsilon$.
You write
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<varepsilon$.
This is true, but it's a confusing step to put in your proof. The way I interepeted this when I first read it is that you are choosing a value for the variable $delta$. You don't know what it is, but you know one exists that satisfies the above property (given the fixed $varepsilon > 0$ and $x_0 in mathbb{R}$). The rest of your proof would then (somehow) have to justify why this $delta$ does not depend on $x_0$ at all, or perhaps define another $delta'$, based on $delta$, that didn't depend on $x_0$. Since you end up simply defining a totally different $delta$, not relating to this $delta$, the step is confusing, and probably should be dropped.
Next, you write
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|} times |f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$
This is another reason why the previous step is confusing; you are now using $delta$ in inequalities. Without first defining $delta$, this is a bit confusing. You haven't talked about what you're assuming here. For example, it appears that you're assuming $|x - x_0| < delta$. If you have a $delta$ defined (such as from the previous paragraph), this is a very reasonable assumption to make, but it should be made explicit before writing this step.
It's also not clear why $deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$. Without a clear definition of $delta$, I don't know why this would be true.
You also write
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$.
This is a small point: if you have $g(x) < N$ for all $x$, then $lim_{x to a} g(x) le N$. You cannot conclude strict inequality!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $delta$ you end up choosing is good; this $delta$ will work. The problem is your justification why it works. It almost works with a bit of unpacking, but it needs to be rewritten in a way that is clear flows logically from the assumption that $|x - x_0| < delta = varepsilon/M$ to the conclusion that $|f(x) - f(x_0)| < varepsilon$.
You write
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<varepsilon$.
This is true, but it's a confusing step to put in your proof. The way I interepeted this when I first read it is that you are choosing a value for the variable $delta$. You don't know what it is, but you know one exists that satisfies the above property (given the fixed $varepsilon > 0$ and $x_0 in mathbb{R}$). The rest of your proof would then (somehow) have to justify why this $delta$ does not depend on $x_0$ at all, or perhaps define another $delta'$, based on $delta$, that didn't depend on $x_0$. Since you end up simply defining a totally different $delta$, not relating to this $delta$, the step is confusing, and probably should be dropped.
Next, you write
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|} times |f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$
This is another reason why the previous step is confusing; you are now using $delta$ in inequalities. Without first defining $delta$, this is a bit confusing. You haven't talked about what you're assuming here. For example, it appears that you're assuming $|x - x_0| < delta$. If you have a $delta$ defined (such as from the previous paragraph), this is a very reasonable assumption to make, but it should be made explicit before writing this step.
It's also not clear why $deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$. Without a clear definition of $delta$, I don't know why this would be true.
You also write
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$.
This is a small point: if you have $g(x) < N$ for all $x$, then $lim_{x to a} g(x) le N$. You cannot conclude strict inequality!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The $delta$ you end up choosing is good; this $delta$ will work. The problem is your justification why it works. It almost works with a bit of unpacking, but it needs to be rewritten in a way that is clear flows logically from the assumption that $|x - x_0| < delta = varepsilon/M$ to the conclusion that $|f(x) - f(x_0)| < varepsilon$.
You write
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<varepsilon$.
This is true, but it's a confusing step to put in your proof. The way I interepeted this when I first read it is that you are choosing a value for the variable $delta$. You don't know what it is, but you know one exists that satisfies the above property (given the fixed $varepsilon > 0$ and $x_0 in mathbb{R}$). The rest of your proof would then (somehow) have to justify why this $delta$ does not depend on $x_0$ at all, or perhaps define another $delta'$, based on $delta$, that didn't depend on $x_0$. Since you end up simply defining a totally different $delta$, not relating to this $delta$, the step is confusing, and probably should be dropped.
Next, you write
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|} times |f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$
This is another reason why the previous step is confusing; you are now using $delta$ in inequalities. Without first defining $delta$, this is a bit confusing. You haven't talked about what you're assuming here. For example, it appears that you're assuming $|x - x_0| < delta$. If you have a $delta$ defined (such as from the previous paragraph), this is a very reasonable assumption to make, but it should be made explicit before writing this step.
It's also not clear why $deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$. Without a clear definition of $delta$, I don't know why this would be true.
You also write
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$.
This is a small point: if you have $g(x) < N$ for all $x$, then $lim_{x to a} g(x) le N$. You cannot conclude strict inequality!
$endgroup$
The $delta$ you end up choosing is good; this $delta$ will work. The problem is your justification why it works. It almost works with a bit of unpacking, but it needs to be rewritten in a way that is clear flows logically from the assumption that $|x - x_0| < delta = varepsilon/M$ to the conclusion that $|f(x) - f(x_0)| < varepsilon$.
You write
Since $f$ is differentiable, it follows that $f$ is also continuous. Therefore, given $varepsilon > 0$, there is some $delta > 0$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(x_0)|<varepsilon$.
This is true, but it's a confusing step to put in your proof. The way I interepeted this when I first read it is that you are choosing a value for the variable $delta$. You don't know what it is, but you know one exists that satisfies the above property (given the fixed $varepsilon > 0$ and $x_0 in mathbb{R}$). The rest of your proof would then (somehow) have to justify why this $delta$ does not depend on $x_0$ at all, or perhaps define another $delta'$, based on $delta$, that didn't depend on $x_0$. Since you end up simply defining a totally different $delta$, not relating to this $delta$, the step is confusing, and probably should be dropped.
Next, you write
$frac{|x-x_0|}{|x-x_0|} times |f(x)-f(x_0)|=|x-x_0|frac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$
This is another reason why the previous step is confusing; you are now using $delta$ in inequalities. Without first defining $delta$, this is a bit confusing. You haven't talked about what you're assuming here. For example, it appears that you're assuming $|x - x_0| < delta$. If you have a $delta$ defined (such as from the previous paragraph), this is a very reasonable assumption to make, but it should be made explicit before writing this step.
It's also not clear why $deltafrac{|f(x)-f(x_0)|}{|x-x_0|}<varepsilon$. Without a clear definition of $delta$, I don't know why this would be true.
You also write
Now take $lim_{x to x_0}$ of both sides to get: $delta f'(x) < epsilon$.
This is a small point: if you have $g(x) < N$ for all $x$, then $lim_{x to a} g(x) le N$. You cannot conclude strict inequality!
answered Dec 12 '18 at 23:17
Theo BenditTheo Bendit
20.2k12353
20.2k12353
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3037327%2fproving-that-a-differentiable-function-f-with-f-bounded-is-uniformly-continuo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
I find your “proof” hard to follow and check. You should rewrite it while defining precisely all your variables and checking dependencies.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Dec 12 '18 at 22:45
2
$begingroup$
Yes. Use Lagrange's Mean Value theorem. $|f(x)-f(x_0)|=|f'(c)(x-x_0)|leq M|x-x_0|$ where $cin(x,x_0)$ and $Minmathbb{R}:::|f'(x)|leq M:forall :xinmathbb{R}$. Infact it is $M$-Lipschitz.
$endgroup$
– Yadati Kiran
Dec 12 '18 at 22:48