3

Let $f_n:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$ be a sequence of functions:

  • $\forall n\in \mathbb{N}: f_n$ is a derivation function
  • $\forall n\in \mathbb{N},x\in [0,1]: \left| f_n'(x)\right|\le 3 $
  • $\exists f:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R} \ \forall x\in [0,1]:\lim_{n \to \infty} f_n(x) =f(x)$

Is $f_n \xrightarrow[]{u}f$?


EDIT:

We know that:

  1. $\forall n:f_n$ is continuous.
  2. $\forall \varepsilon: \exists \delta :\forall x,y\in [0,1]:|x-y|<\delta \implies |f_n(x)-f_n(y)|<\varepsilon $
  3. $\forall x,y \in [0,1]: \exists c=c_{x,y}\in(x,y): \frac{f_n(x)-f_n(y)}{x-y}=f'(c) \implies |f_n(x)-f_n(y)|<3|x-y|$
  4. $\forall x\in [0,1]\forall \varepsilon: \exists N :\forall n>N : |f_n(x)-f(x)|<\varepsilon $

First of all, I feel overwhelmed with all these given information. I'm not sure what to use and why. I'd appreciate if someone could solve it and most importantly explain their draft.

When I look on this, I know I need to find $N$ s.t $\forall n>N \ \forall x\in [0,1]: |f_n(x)-f(x)|<\varepsilon $. From $(4)$ I know I can get such $N$ for all $x$. Who says it's the same $N$? So I better use the delta somehow, maybe divide $[0,1]$ to subintervals of length $\delta$. Then I'm not sure where I need to use $(3)$.

Thanks in advance for any help!!!

Lior
  • 623

2 Answers2

3

You can prove it by contradiction. The idea is that if $(f_n)$ doesn't converge uniformly toward $f$, then there is a sequence $(x_n)$ of $[0,1]$ such that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| \geqslant \varepsilon$ for all $n$ (up to extraction), for some $\varepsilon > 0$. Then, still up to extraction, we can assume that $(x_n)$ converges toward some $x_\infty \in [0,1]$ and finally, we can use the fact that each $f_n$ is $3$-Lipschitzian to control $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)|$ in function of $|f_n(x_\infty) - f(x_\infty)|$ (which converge toward $0$ by simple convergence of $(f_n)$ toward $f$) and reach a contradiction.

Let us begin by showing that $f$ is continuous. Indeed, for all $(x,y) \in [0,1]^2$, $|f_n(x) - f_n(y)| \leqslant 3|x - y|$ so when $n \rightarrow +\infty$, the simple convergence of $f_n$ toward $f$ implies $|f(x) - f(y)| \leqslant 3|x - y|$. $f$ is $3$-Lipschitzian hence continuous.

Then, $f_n \rightarrow f$ uniformly means that $\sup_{[0,1]}|f_n - f| \rightarrow 0$. If it is not the case, then, up to extraction, you can find an $\varepsilon > 0$ such that for all $n$, $\sup_{[0,1]}|f_n - f| \geqslant \varepsilon$. Now, consider $x_n$ such that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| = \sup_{[0,1]}|f_n - f| \geqslant \varepsilon$ (such an $x_n$ exists because $[0,1]$ is compact and both $f_n$ and $f$ are continuous).

Up to an other extraction, we may assume that $(x_n)$ converges (because $[0,1]$ is compact) toward some $x_\infty \in [0,1]$. And we have, \begin{align*} |f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| & \leqslant |f_n(x_n) - f_n(x_\infty)| + |f_n(x_\infty) - f(x_\infty)| + |f(x_\infty) - f(x_n)|\\ & \leqslant 3|x_n - x_\infty| + |f_n(x_\infty) - f(x_\infty)| + 3|x_\infty - x_n|\\ & = 6|x_n - x_\infty| + |f_n(x_\infty) - f(x_\infty)|\\ & \rightarrow 0. \end{align*} It contradicts $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| \geqslant \varepsilon$.

Cactus
  • 6,123
  • 3
    Just as a remark: This is basically the proof of Arzelà-Ascoli. – Klaus Jul 18 '23 at 09:06
  • But how did you know to prove it instead of disproving it? (at first) – Lior Jul 18 '23 at 09:09
  • I think you need to take $x_{n_k}$ and not $x_n$, because $x_n$ may not converge to $x_\infty$ necessary. – Lior Jul 18 '23 at 09:15
  • You claimed "Now, consider $x_n$ such that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| = \sup_{[0,1]}|f_n - f| \geqslant \varepsilon$ (such an $x_n$ exists because $[0,1]$ is compact and both $f_n$ and $f$ are continuous)." $(1)$ Why does it matter to you that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| = \sup_{[0,1]}|f_n - f| \geqslant \varepsilon$ , isn't only enough to say $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| \geqslant \varepsilon$ ? $(2)$ Regarding the same quote, why are you mentioning "both $f_n$ and $f$ are continuous" ? – Lior Jul 18 '23 at 09:22
  • @Klaus Thanks for mentioning that! – Lior Jul 18 '23 at 09:25
  • @Klaus, yes indeed. Lior, this is what I mean by "up to an extraction", I keep calling it $x_n$ by abuse of notation. It doesn't matter that $x_n$ is where the $\sup$ is reached, what matters is that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| \geqslant \varepsilon$, saying the $\sup$ is reached is a way to be sure to have this inequality. I want $f_n - f$ to be continuous to be sure that the $\sup$ exists and is reached, but once more, it is not necessary (just a way to do it among others). Notice however, that the continuity of $f$ is necessary in the end of the proof. – Cactus Jul 18 '23 at 09:46
  • @Cactus Great. Thank you. I forgot to prove $f$ is continuous and it helps A LOT (and I mean I have to show $f$ is continuous to finish the proof and also to make sure there is a chance $f_n \xrightarrow[]{u}$) . Yet, Idon't understand why $x_n$ is where the sup is reached. It's not necessary, no? Anyway, I learnt a lot from your detailed answer. Thank you very much! – Lior Jul 18 '23 at 10:49
  • This is the definition of $x_n$. When $n$ is fixed, I choose some $x_n$ such that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| = \sup|f_n - f|$. An other method (that works even on a non compact set, or with non continuous functions) is to use the definition of $\sup$ to prove that for each $n$, there exists an $x_n$ such that $|f_n(x_n) - f(x_n)| \geqslant \sup|f_n - f| - \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \geqslant \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$, and the rest of the proof is the same. – Cactus Jul 18 '23 at 11:00
2

An application of Mean value Theorem shows that $(f_n)$ is equi-continuous. It is also bounded at $0$, for example. By Arzela Acoli Thoerm this implies that every subsequence of $(f_n)$ has a further subsequence converging uniformly. But all subsequential limits are the same because $f_n$ converges pointwise to $f$. This implies that the whole sequence $(f_n)$ converges uniformly to $f$.

The answer by Sangchul Lee here shows that pointwise boundeness and uniform boundeness are equivalent for equi-continuous families: Arzela-Ascoli Theorem: Is only pointwise boundedness required?

geetha290krm
  • 36,632
  • Shouldn't we show that $(f_n)$ is uniformly bounded to apply the theorem? – Reza Rajaei Jul 18 '23 at 09:20
  • 1
    @RezaRajaei Equi-continuity and bounded at one point implies uniform boundeness. – geetha290krm Jul 18 '23 at 09:22
  • I guess $(3)$ gives you $\forall \varepsilon >0 \exists \delta >0 : \forall n,x,y: |x-y| <\delta \implies |f_n(x)-f_n(y)|<\varepsilon$. How do you show $\exists M: \forall x,n: |f_n (x)|<M$? – Lior Jul 18 '23 at 14:26
  • You have to divide $[0,1]$ into subintervals of length less than $\delta$ and use the fact that $(f_n(x))$ is bounded at the end points of the subintervals. @Lior – geetha290krm Jul 18 '23 at 23:12