1

Let $f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function defined on (all of) the real axis. Assume that $$f(x) \rightarrow a, \quad \text{for } x \rightarrow -\infty$$ $$f(x) \rightarrow b, \quad \text{for } x \rightarrow \infty$$ for some real numbers $a,b$. Show/explain that for every $\epsilon >0$ there exists a $M >0$ such that $$\left | f(x)-f(y) \right |<\varepsilon$$ given $x,y \geq M$. Furthermore, show that $g$ is uniformly continuous.

Attempt (or rather thoughts)

I am fairly sure that I have gotten the solution down for the first part of the question as it can be solved directly form the definition of a limit at infinity.

Now, I have absolutely no idea on how to show that the function is uniformly continuous as I am not confident at all in the approach of these sort of problems. I would have to use my the fact given above that I have shown but, again, no idea how to approach such a problem as I seem to be missing a general approach and lack of properties. I really need some explanation as to what is going on.

2 Answers2

0

$$ \forall\varepsilon>0 \, \exists \delta>0\, \forall x,y \, \Big( |x-y|<\delta \longrightarrow |f(x)-f(y)|<\varepsilon\Big). $$ The point is that $\delta$ does not depend on $x$ and $y.$

Given $\varepsilon>0,$ there exists $M_1$ such that for $x,y>M_1$ you have $|f(x)-f(y)|<\varepsilon,$ and for the same reason there exists $M_2$ such that for $x,y<M_2$ you have $|f(x)-f(y)|<\varepsilon.$

A theorem asserts that a continuous function on a compact set is uniformly continuous. And $[M_2,M_1]$ is a compact set.

  • Oh this is really all there is to it and just knowing that theorem given in the last sentence is the trick. –  Mar 04 '21 at 19:09
  • But how do i go about finding such $\delta$ –  Mar 04 '21 at 19:42
  • @mathstudent23 : For purposes of the present proof, just cite the theorem, which says that such a value of $\delta$ exists. To find it in a concrete case, with some specified function, you would need to know which function it is. – Michael Hardy Mar 04 '21 at 20:49
  • https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/75491/how-does-the-existence-of-a-limit-imply-that-a-function-is-uniformly-continuous this post they had to consider a $\delta$ for each case and then the $\delta$ would be the minimum wrt to which case is present. –  Mar 04 '21 at 21:09
0

You have to consider different cases. Let's take an example: $f:[-2,2] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x^2$, now consider $f:[-1,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and choose $\epsilon=1$, then if we take $\delta=\frac{1}{2}$ see that whenever $x,y \in [-1,1]$ and $|x-y|<\frac{1}{2}$, $|f(x)-f(y)|<1$. But if you take $x=0.9,y=1.35$, then also $|x-y|=0.45<\frac{1}{2}$ but $|f(x)-f(y)|=1.0125>1$. So one $\delta$ doesn't work for all $|x-y|<\delta$.

For given $\epsilon>0~\exists~M_1,M_2 >0$ such that $|f(x)-a|<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ whenever $x<-M_1$ and $|f(x)-b|<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ whenever $x>M_2$. Let $M=\max\{M_1,M_2\}$. So there will be the following cases:

(i) $x,y<-M$, (ii) $x,y>M$, (iii) $x,y \in [-M,M]$, (iv) $x \in [-M,M],~y<-M$, (v) $x \in [-M,M],~y>M$ and (vi) $x<-M,~y>M$, (where $M>0$ is what we got from the definition of limit at infinity).

(i) Let $x,y<-M(\leq-M_1)$, then $|f(x)-f(y)|=|f(x)-a-f(y)+a|\leq |f(x)-a|+|f(y)-a|<\epsilon$. So no specific role of $\delta $ here.

(ii) is done similarly.

From (iii) for chosen $\epsilon>0$ we get a $\delta_1>0$ such that $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$ whenever $|x-y|<\delta_1$ (using the fact that continuous function on compact set is uniformly continuous).

For (iv) we have to the continuity of $f$ at $-M$, for chosen $\epsilon>0~~~\exists~\delta_2>0$ such that $|f(x)-f(-M)|<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ whenever $|x-(-M)|<\delta_2$. For $|f(x)-f(y)|$ to be small enough $x,y$ can't be too far apart and $x,y$ should belong to $(-M-\frac{\delta_2}{2},-M+\frac{\delta_2}{2})$. Now if we take $|x-y|<\frac{\delta_2}{2}$ then since $|x-(-M)|\leq |x-y|+|y+M|<\frac{\delta_2}{2}+\frac{\delta_2}{2}=\delta_2$ and similarly $|y-(-M)|<\delta_2$ we get $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$ whenever $|x-y|<\frac{\delta_2}{2}$.

For (v) similarly using continuity of $f$ at $M$ we get a $\frac{\delta_3}{2}$.

Note that we have to find a $\delta>0$ for which the definition of uniform continuity is satisfied. So we take $\delta =\frac{1}{2}\min\{\delta_1, \frac{\delta_2}{2}, \frac{\delta_3}{2},2M\}$ (if certain $\delta$ works, then so will anything less than that $\delta$, so multiplying by 0.5 doesn't violate anything! It just helps with the strict inequalities. You may not take it if you wish. Actually we could have also simply taken $\epsilon$ instead of $\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ in the beginning.). Because in the case of (vi) $|x-y|\geq 2M$ and $\delta<2M$ (why strict inequality?!), we don't have to actually consider (vi). All in all now $|x-y|<\delta\Rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$.

absolute0
  • 1,037
  • Thanks a lot. This clears up a bit for me but seeing how to identify this approach 3 weeks into analysis seems really advanced for me. I should probably just pratice even more I would suppose –  Mar 05 '21 at 08:00
  • May I ask why i and ii would have that any works –  Mar 05 '21 at 09:35
  • For (i), given $\epsilon>0,~\exists~M>0$ such that $|f(x)-a|<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ whenever $x<-M$. Now for $x,y<-M$, using triangle inequality you can show that $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$. So no role of $\delta>0$ here. Same for (ii). You can take $M=\max{M_1, M_2}$ if needed for the two limits $x \rightarrow \pm \infty$. – absolute0 Mar 05 '21 at 09:55
  • By triangle inequality do I have to use that it is less than or equal to the 2 terms split up or how would that be done? i.e $|f(x)-f(y)|\geq |f(x)-a|+|f(y)-a|$ –  Mar 05 '21 at 12:05
  • and why is the last $\delta$ equal to the minimum of the half of the deltas and not just the deltas given in the min.? I feel like a lot is missing and a lot is assumed as in not considering 6 and 1,2. –  Mar 05 '21 at 13:32
  • Have edited and detailed the answer to suit you. Any more doubts? List'em all below. – absolute0 Mar 05 '21 at 16:52
  • So vi is done in the start but how can ii and v be done similarly when they are not the same conditions? –  Mar 05 '21 at 18:49
  • And aren't there a sign mistake in (i) solution? –  Mar 05 '21 at 23:24
  • At the start definitions of the limits are written. (vi) is done in the last paragraph. To do (ii), replace $-M,-M_1,a$ by $M,M_2,b$ respectively in (i). and reverse the first two inequalities. For (v), replace $-M, \delta_2$ by $M, \delta_3$ respectively in (iv). Please try to understand what you're doing. I've corrected the sign typo. – absolute0 Mar 06 '21 at 03:38
  • I am pretty certain there is still a mistake in the sign, though? –  Mar 06 '21 at 16:52