# Continuous & Periodic

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
• Jun 25th 2009, 12:49 PM
NonCommAlg
Continuous & Periodic
Let $\displaystyle f: \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be continuous and $\displaystyle f(x)=f(x+1)=f(x+\sqrt{2}),$ for all $\displaystyle x \in \mathbb{R}.$ Prove that $\displaystyle f$ is constant.

Source: Berkely Preliminary Exam
• Jun 25th 2009, 06:01 PM
pankaj
$\displaystyle f(x)=f(x+1)$

Also,$\displaystyle f(x)=f(x+\sqrt{2})$

If T is periodic with period $\displaystyle 1$ and also periodic with period $\displaystyle \sqrt{2}$ then $\displaystyle \sqrt{2}$ must be an integral multiple of $\displaystyle 1$ which is impossible.

This means that $\displaystyle f(x)$ is periodic but its period is undefined.

The situation is similar to
$\displaystyle f(x)=c$
where $\displaystyle c$ is constant.Here $\displaystyle f(x)$ is periodic but its period is not defined.

Thus $\displaystyle f(x)$ may be a constant function.

But my solution lacks rigour.
• Jun 25th 2009, 06:21 PM
Sampras
Quote:

Originally Posted by NonCommAlg
Let $\displaystyle f: \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be continuous and $\displaystyle f(x)=f(x+1)=f(x+\sqrt{2}),$ for all $\displaystyle x \in \mathbb{R}.$ Prove that $\displaystyle f$ is constant. Is there a real analogue of Liouville's Theorem? Because $\displaystyle \mathbb{R} \subseteq \mathbb{C}$.

Source: Berkely Preliminary Exam

We can say that $\displaystyle f$ is bounded and uniformly continuous. Maybe we can say that $\displaystyle f$ is a doubly periodic function (e.g. $\displaystyle f(z) = f(z+u) = f(z+v)$). And somehow use Liouville's theorem to show that it is constant? The imaginary parts would be $\displaystyle 0$.

Or going from the first idea...if $\displaystyle f$ is bounded, then $\displaystyle |f(x)| \leq M$ for some $\displaystyle M>0$ and for all $\displaystyle x \in \mathbb{R}$. So suppose for contradiction that $\displaystyle f$ was not constant. Then it is monotonic increasing or decreasing. But this contradicts the fact that $\displaystyle f$ is bounded. Hence $\displaystyle f$ is constant.
• Jun 27th 2009, 05:17 PM
pankaj
I think I have it.

$\displaystyle f(x)=f(x+1)$

$\displaystyle x+1=x+nT$,where $\displaystyle T$ is the fundamental period or the smallest period and $\displaystyle n$ is any positive integer.

$\displaystyle T=\frac{1}{n}$

Similarly,$\displaystyle f(x)=f(x+\sqrt 2)$ results in

$\displaystyle x+\sqrt 2=x+mT$,where $\displaystyle m$ is a positive integer and $\displaystyle T$ is the fundamental period.

$\displaystyle T=\frac{\sqrt 2}{m}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}=\frac{\sqrt 2}{m}$

$\displaystyle m=\sqrt 2 n$

which is impossible since m and n are integers.Therefore $\displaystyle T$ is undefined.But since the function repeats itself it can only be constant
• Jun 28th 2009, 04:51 AM
NonCommAlg
Quote:

Originally Posted by pankaj
I think I have it.

$\displaystyle f(x)=f(x+1)$

$\displaystyle x+1=x+nT$,where $\displaystyle T$ is the fundamental period or the smallest period and $\displaystyle n$ is any positive integer.

$\displaystyle T=\frac{1}{n}$

that's not always true. for example consider the function $\displaystyle f(x)=\begin{cases} 1 & x \in \mathbb{Q} \\ 0 & x \notin \mathbb{Q} \end{cases}.$ here we have $\displaystyle f(x+r)=f(x), \ \forall x \in \mathbb{R}, \ \forall r \in \mathbb{Q}.$ of course, $\displaystyle f$ is not continuous!

my point is that i don't see how "continuity" of $\displaystyle f$ was used in your solution!
• Jun 29th 2009, 07:58 PM
Bruno J.
Consider the set $\displaystyle S=\{a+b\sqrt{2}\: : \: a,b \in \mathbb{Z}\}$. This set is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$, and $\displaystyle f$ must be equal to $\displaystyle f(0)$ everywhere in $\displaystyle S$. Since $\displaystyle f$ is continuous and $\displaystyle S$ is dense, $\displaystyle f(x)=f(0)$ for all real $\displaystyle x$ and $\displaystyle f$ is constant.

To see that $\displaystyle S$ is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$, notice that it is a subgroup of $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$, hence it suffices to prove that it is dense on some interval; we choose the interval $\displaystyle [0,1]$. Consider $\displaystyle J=\{s-\lfloor s\rfloor\: : \: s\in S\}$; this is a subset of $\displaystyle S \cap [0,1]$. Moreover if $\displaystyle s_1-\lfloor s_1\rfloor = s_2-\lfloor s_2\rfloor$ then $\displaystyle s_1=s_2$ because $\displaystyle \sqrt{2}$ is irrational. Hence there are infinitely many points of $\displaystyle S$ in $\displaystyle [0,1]$, hence two of them are arbitrarily close; but then since $\displaystyle S$ is closed under addition, $\displaystyle S$ is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$, Q.E.D.
• Jun 30th 2009, 03:14 AM
NonCommAlg
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno J.

Moreover if $\displaystyle s_1-\lfloor s_1\rfloor = s_2-\lfloor s_2\rfloor$ then $\displaystyle s_1=s_2$

this is not true! counter-examples: $\displaystyle s_1=a_1+b\sqrt{2}, \ s_2=a_2+b\sqrt{2}, \ \ a_1 \neq a_2.$

Quote:

Hence there are infinitely many points of $\displaystyle S$ in $\displaystyle [0,1]$, hence two of them are arbitrarily close
what do you mean by "them"? whatever it means, obviously $\displaystyle S \cap [0,1]=S_1$ having infinitely many points doesn't imply that $\displaystyle S_1$ is dense in $\displaystyle [0,1].$
• Jun 30th 2009, 07:01 AM
pankaj
'S' is dense in R

What does this statement mean
• Jun 30th 2009, 10:12 AM
Moo
Quote:

Originally Posted by pankaj
'S' is dense in R

What does this statement mean

Dense set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Jun 30th 2009, 02:22 PM
Bruno J.
Quote:

Originally Posted by NonCommAlg
this is not true! counter-examples: $\displaystyle s_1=a_1+b\sqrt{2}, \ s_2=a_2+b\sqrt{2}, \ \ a_1 \neq a_2.$

Oops. What I was thinking is that if $\displaystyle s_1=b_1\sqrt{2}, s_2=b_2\sqrt{2}$ and $\displaystyle s_1-s_2 \in \mathbb{Z}$ then $\displaystyle s_1=s_2$; since there are infinitely many choices of $\displaystyle b$, there are infinitely many points in $\displaystyle S_1$.

Quote:

what do you mean by "them"? whatever it means, obviously $\displaystyle S \cap [0,1]=S_1$ having infinitely many points doesn't imply that $\displaystyle S_1$ is dense in $\displaystyle [0,1].$
The fact that $\displaystyle S_1$ contains infinitely many points does indeed imply that $\displaystyle S$ is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$ : it implies that $\displaystyle S_1$ (and hence $\displaystyle S$) has an accumulation point, and any additive subgroup of $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$ having an accumulation point is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$.
• Jul 1st 2009, 03:43 PM
Jose27
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno J.
Oops. What I was thinking is that if $\displaystyle s_1=b_1\sqrt{2}, s_2=b_2\sqrt{2}$ and $\displaystyle s_1-s_2 \in \mathbb{Z}$ then $\displaystyle s_1=s_2$; since there are infinitely many choices of $\displaystyle b$, there are infinitely many points in $\displaystyle S_1$.

The fact that $\displaystyle S_1$ contains infinitely many points does indeed imply that $\displaystyle S$ is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$ : it implies that $\displaystyle S_1$ (and hence $\displaystyle S$) has an accumulation point, and any additive subgroup of $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$ having an accumulation point is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$.

Why is $\displaystyle S_1$ compact in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$?, or why is it closed? That's what you're using right?, that $\displaystyle S_1$ is sequentially compact
• Jul 1st 2009, 05:34 PM
Bruno J.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose27
Why is $\displaystyle S_1$ compact in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$?, or why is it closed? That's what you're using right?, that $\displaystyle S_1$ is sequentially compact

Where do you see that I said $\displaystyle S_1$ is compact or closed? It is neither. I said that $\displaystyle S_1$ is dense in $\displaystyle [0,1]$.

To see this rigorously consider the map

$\displaystyle S\rightarrow [0,1]$
$\displaystyle s\mapsto s-\lfloor s \rfloor$

This map, restricted to the subset of $\displaystyle S$ consisting of elements of the form $\displaystyle b\sqrt{2},\ b \in \mathbb{Z}$, is an injection; moreover when $\displaystyle s \in S$, we have $\displaystyle s-\lfloor s \rfloor \in S$; hence there are infinitely many points of $\displaystyle S$ in the bounded set $\displaystyle [0,1]$. Immediately from the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem we know that $\displaystyle S$ has an accumulation point. It is then an easy matter to show that any additive subgroup of $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$ having an accumulation point is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$. To see this, suppose you have an open interval $\displaystyle I$ of length $\displaystyle L$ in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$. Then by the above there is an element of $\displaystyle S$ with 0<|s|<L; taking all its multiples (which are all elements of $\displaystyle S$) we see that one of them must fall in $\displaystyle I$.
• Jul 1st 2009, 05:53 PM
Jose27
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno J.
Where do you see that I said $\displaystyle S_1$ is compact or closed? It is neither. I said that $\displaystyle S_1$ is dense in $\displaystyle [0,1]$.

To see this rigorously consider the map

$\displaystyle S\rightarrow [0,1]$
$\displaystyle s\mapsto \lfloor s \rfloor$

This map, restricted to the subset of $\displaystyle S$ consisting of elements of the form $\displaystyle b\sqrt{2},\ b \in \mathbb{Z}$, is an injection; moreover when $\displaystyle s \in S$, we have $\displaystyle \lfloor s \rfloor \in S$; hence there are infinitely many points of $\displaystyle S$ in the bounded set $\displaystyle [0,1]$. Immediately from the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem we know that $\displaystyle S$ has an accumulation point. It is then an easy matter to show that any additive subgroup of $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$ having an accumulation point is dense in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$. To see this, suppose you have an open interval $\displaystyle I$ of length $\displaystyle L$ in $\displaystyle \mathbb{R}$. Then by the above there is an element of $\displaystyle S$ with 0<|s|<L; taking all its multiples (which are all elements of $\displaystyle S$) we see that one of them must fall in $\displaystyle I$.

I still don't get it, for example in $\displaystyle I=[0,1]$ there are only two integers $\displaystyle 0,1$ and no elements of the form $\displaystyle b\sqrt{2}$ with $\displaystyle b\neq 0$, the element $\displaystyle \sqrt{2} -1 \in [0,1]$ and is the only one that falls in $\displaystyle I$ from the set $\displaystyle A= \{ \sqrt{2} +a : a \in \mathbb{Z} \}$ and the set $\displaystyle B= \{ b\sqrt{2} -1 : b \in \mathbb{Z} \}$ and $\displaystyle S=A+B$, but how do you conclude that there are infinitely many elements from $\displaystyle S$ in $\displaystyle [0,1]$
• Jul 1st 2009, 06:34 PM
Bruno J.
You should read carefully what I wrote.

$\displaystyle \sqrt{2} = 1.41421...$
$\displaystyle 2\sqrt{2} = 2.82843...$
$\displaystyle 3\sqrt{2} = 4.24264...$
$\displaystyle 4\sqrt{2} = 5.65685...$

and the sequence

$\displaystyle \{0.41421...,\: 0.82843...,\: 0.24264...,\: 0.65685...,\: ...\}$

is a sequence of distinct elements of $\displaystyle S$, all in $\displaystyle [0,1]$.
• Jul 3rd 2009, 07:43 AM
pankaj
I think it is time that solution be revealed
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 12 Last