How do you know it's uniformly convergent, because you don't know what f is?
Also, how does that show every continuous function on the interval [0,1] is a limit of a sequence of continuous functions? Or is it showing the statement is false?
I don't understand.
Don't I need to start with a continuous function on [0,1] and show it's not the limit of a sequence of continuous functions to prove it false?
Actually you can say even more :Stone?Weierstrass theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (look for the original Wierstrass approximation theorem).
That said, Drexel's argument works fine since and you know is continous.
Read these posts again having in mind that you were wrong, the statement is true.
The proof should come out easily, take f continuous on [0,1],
use what drexel and jose said and prove f is the uniform limit of f_n.
Dont forget that since f's domain is compact then f is bounded there, it will come in handy somewhere.
Good luck!
Oh wait i think I might understand it.
So I'm taking an f continuous on [0,1]
And I have to show that there is A (like...ONE at least) sequence of continuous functions that converges to that uniformly
So taking , sup|f/2^m| = 1/2^m (I'm a little confused about this...because how do I know what f is? Would the supremum be f/2^m instead? )
Either way
then SUM(1/2^m) or SUM(f/2^m)...whichever one it is, will be geometric with r = 1/2, so it converges
So by Wierstrass M-test, fn is uniformly convergent.
So how do I show it converges to f(x)?? because as m -> infinity, the sum goes to f/[1-(1/2)], not f right?
But for continuity...we know f is continuous and 2^m is continuous, so division of two continuous functions is continuous and then the sum of continuous functions is continuous so fn(x) is continuous.
Am I anywhere on the right track? I'm just not sure about the supremum part of the M-test and how to show fn(x) converges to f.
first,
what bruno suggests is "trivially" true (because he proposes a constant sequence) so i think what cp05 needs to prove is that there exists a "non constant" sequence of continuous f_n... bla bla bla
second,
good try cp05, still you need to be sure exactly what and why you are doing the things you are doing :
take f continuous on [0,1].
Define a sequence by
Since f is continuous and f_n is a finite sum of continuous functions then each f_n is continuous on [0,1].
By what i said earlier f is bounded on [0,1] by, lets say, M. So
Now lets see the uniform convergence
Given we need to find an adequate N which does not depend on x, only on .
Take ANY x\in [0,1]
We know that when
so for there is an N for which
if
Using the first equalities we have that for
where we used that f is bounded by M. Take a good look, N does not depend on x, only on M (and on the bound but that is fixed anyway).
If you want to get the supremum way of seing it then think like this:
We just showed that for any there is an such that
if for any
Taking supremum over [0,1] grants you that
if
i hope i didnt make any mistake
Even more generally Muntz's theorem.
Wow thanks so much guys for all the help! I'm terrible at this stuff. Still a little confused but I think I'm getting there.
This might be a stupid question...but why does . It's geometric right? So it should go to 1/1-r = 1/1-(1/2) = 2?
And also, I know I'm supposed to prove this using the Weierstrass M-test, where I have to show SUMsup|fn| converges => fn converges...just not sure how to show it specifically converges to f. If were true, that would make sense because then as n->infinity, the limit would just be f(x)*1....but I don't understand why it's 1