Is there a function $\,f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\,$ which has a limit at every $x\in\mathbb R$ and is everywhere discontinuous?
-
1It's a question from a graduate exam. – Curious Droid Oct 18 '14 at 21:45
-
Yeah this looks like a standard general exam question. – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Oct 19 '14 at 03:05
-
2Related: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/164946/characterization-of-real-functions-which-have-limit-at-each-point – Martin Sleziak Oct 21 '14 at 13:18
1 Answers
Answer. No.
Instead, the following is true: If a function $f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ has a limit for every $x\in\mathbb R$, then $f$ is discontinuous in a set of points which is at most countable.
More specifically, we have the following facts:
Fact A. If $g(x)=\lim_{y\to x}f(y)$, then $g$ is continuous everywhere.
Fact B. The set $A=\{x: f(x)\ne g(x)\}$ is countable.
Fact C. The function $\,f\,$ is continuous at $\,x=x_0\,$ if and only if $\,f(x_0)=g(x_0)$, and hence $f$ is discontinuous in at most countably many points.
For Fact A, let $x\in\mathbb R$ and $\varepsilon>0$, then there exists a $\delta>0$, such that $$ 0<\lvert y-x\rvert<\delta\quad\Longrightarrow\quad g(x)-\varepsilon<f(y)<g(x)+\varepsilon, $$ but the above inequality implies that for every $z$, with $|z-x|<\delta$, $$ g(x)-\varepsilon \le g(z)=\lim_{y\to z}f(y) \le g(x)+\varepsilon, $$ and hence $g$ is continuous.
For Fact B, define for $\varepsilon>0$ the set $$A_\varepsilon=\{x: \lvert\,f(x)- g(x)\rvert>\varepsilon\}.$$ This set cannot have a limit point, for otherwise, $f$ would not have a limit there. Thus $A_\varepsilon$ is at most countable. Next observe that $$ A=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}A_{1/n}, $$ and hence $A$, the set of discontinuities of $f$, is at most countable.
Fact C is straight-forward.
- 83,933
-
1
-
5One wonders what happens if one has a model of set theory such that "a countable union of a countable sets is countable" is false. – Baby Dragon Oct 18 '14 at 21:58
-
-
2Actually, the proof of this requires the Axiom of Choice, and hence your question is indeed plausible. – Yiorgos S. Smyrlis Oct 18 '14 at 22:03
-
1It doesn't require AC in full; much weaker forms of choice, which you can't do much analysis without, will do. – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Oct 19 '14 at 03:04
-
1Since those sets are discrete subsets of a second-countable space, they can be given canonical enumerations. $:$ (Take a countable basis, and enumerate each set according to the first basic subset whose intersection with the discrete set in exactly the given element.) $:$ Thus the Axiom of Choice is not needed for the OP. $;;;;$ – Oct 19 '14 at 06:13
-
1Actually, what Ricky Demer says is correct. For each of the sets $A_{1/n}$ we can obtain an injection $f_n: A_{1/n}\to\mathbb Z$, without the Axiom of Choice. – Yiorgos S. Smyrlis Oct 19 '14 at 07:01