Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - Uniform Continuity Proof 2

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    114

    Uniform Continuity Proof 2

    Let f be a function on (a,b). Suppose that f is uniformly continuous on (a,c] and [c,b) for some c such that a<c<b. Then, Prove that f is uniformly continuous on (a,b) by using the epsilon - delta definition.

    My first problem is that I don't get if i need to have epsilon1 and epsilon2 or delta1 or delta2 for each uniformly continuous function or if i can call them both by the same variable. I'm assuming you need to combine both definitions somehow to get it over the bigger interval.

    Thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by tbyou87 View Post
    Let f be a function on (a,b). Suppose that f is uniformly continuous on (a,c] and [c,b) for some c such that a<c<b. Then, Prove that f is uniformly continuous on (a,b) by using the epsilon - delta definition.

    My first problem is that I don't get if i need to have epsilon1 and epsilon2 or delta1 or delta2 for each uniformly continuous function or if i can call them both by the same variable. I'm assuming you need to combine both definitions somehow to get it over the bigger interval.

    Thanks
    Theorem: A function is uniformly continous on (a,b) if and only if it can be enlarged to a continous function on [a,b].

    Now let f_1 be the uniformly continous function on (a,c] and f_2 be the uniformly continous function on [c,b). We want to show that f which is the peices of f_1,f_2 combined together is uniformly continous on (a,b). Now by theorem we can enlarge f_1 to g_1 to the closed interval [a,c] and we can enlarge f_2 to a continous function g_2 on [c,b]. Then define g as the function obtained from combining g_1,g_2 on the full interval [a,b]. Using the theorem the continous functions on closed finite intervals are uniformly continous it means g is uniformly continous on [a,b] which means it is certainly uniformly continous on a smaller interval (a,b) which is f.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,649
    Thanks
    1597
    Awards
    1
    While that proof works, I wonder how many basic analysis course prove an enlargement theorem.

    The classic proof of this theorem simply requires three cases.
    The only one of which that cases any concern is x < c < y.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    While that proof works, I wonder how many basic analysis course prove an enlargement theorem.
    My analysis class omitted that theorem. But I learned it from the book anyway. It is easy, I do not know why omit it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,649
    Thanks
    1597
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    My analysis class omitted that theorem. But I learned it from the book anyway. It is easy, I do not know why omit it.
    I think that can explain why some techniques are omitted.
    Often, what appears to be an overly tedious proof actually teaches an important proof technique.
    I really think that this is such an example.

    Sometimes known theorems stand in the way of learning mathematics.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    Sometimes known theorems stand in the way of learning mathematics.
    But you have to agree that is not always the case. Some theorems are so disatrous in proof that it is okay to omit them, i.e. many fundamental theorems are like that. Thus, no harm is done towards the student if such a proof is omitted. But in general most theorems are straightforward and can present an important technique which the student might learn from.

    My approach to analysis have been like I described about. I try to first learn how to do computational analytical stuff first. Then once I mastered that I go into the theory.

    But that is only in analysis. In algebraic theories I do not feel that this is the best approach.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Series Uniform Continuity proof
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 1st 2010, 08:39 AM
  2. Uniform Continuity Proof
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 1st 2010, 06:46 PM
  3. uniform continuity proof
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 27th 2009, 04:36 PM
  4. Uniform Continuity Proof
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 18th 2007, 04:23 PM
  5. Uniform Continuity Proof
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 15th 2007, 02:42 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum