2
$\begingroup$

I wrote down my proof, however it may not be formal. Can you please suggest improvements?

Let ${g_n}(x) = \begin{cases} 0, & \text{if x in [-n,n]} \\ f(x), & \text{if otherwise} \end{cases}$

  • Show that ${g_n}(x)$ converges pointwise to the $g(x) = 0$.
  • Show that ${g_n}(x)$ converges uniformly to $g(x)$ if and only if $\lim_{x\to \infty} f(x) = 0$.

Attempt: Pointwise convergence is easy to show. When you fix a number x, then no matter what that x is, as n goes to $\infty$, the interval actually become the real line, then x is included in.

For the second part of the question, assume that ${g_n}(x)$ converges uniformly to $g(x)$. Then $\lvert {g_n}(x)\rvert \lt \epsilon$, as ${n} \rightarrow \infty$. Since it is a piecewise function, assume that $x \in [-n,n]$. Then, the interval forms the real line as ${n}\rightarrow \infty$, so for any ${x} \in \mathbb R$, function takes zero value, which is less than epsilon.

Assume that ${x} \rightarrow \infty$, simultaneously with n (I am not sure if you can assume that, if you cannot, then fix x > n+$\epsilon$). Then function ${g}$ becomes ${f(x)}$, $\lvert {f}(x)\rvert \lt \epsilon$ must be hold since g is uniformly convergent to the 0. Then it forces ${f(x)} = 0,{x} \rightarrow \infty$. Reverse is simple.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ This question is about making sure that you understand definitions. For the first part: write down the definition for $g_n(x)$ to converge pointwise to the zero function. Then verify this definition. (No additional work is necessary there). The second part is also largely about a definition, but requires a bit more in the other direction. Writing down the definition will show $\implies$. I think it is conceptually simpler to prove $\impliedby$ by contrapositive: assume the limit doesn't tend to zero (or doesn't exist), and then show that convergence can't be uniform. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 21:52
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I will also add that I don't think it's didactically useful for you to get an answer from someone else for this sort of question. This is a definitions-fundamental question. I suggest that you try to flesh out a more complete attempt at a solution and then either ask about some doubt you have in it or ask for verification. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ @davidlowryduda I solved it, can you look at it and approve? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 2, 2023 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ @SouravGhosh So? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 10, 2023 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ @SouravGhosh What you did was disturbing. I have a right to delete a question before anyone puts an effort on it. I thought that you already put some effort, therefore I undeleted it. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 10, 2023 at 14:53

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

The first part of your answer, on pointwise convergence, has the right idea. That is, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}$, we we have that $g_n(x) = 0$ for all $n \geq \lvert x \rvert$. (And of course for any $x \in \mathbb{R}$, there is an integer $N > \lvert x \rvert$). Thus $g_n(x) \to 0$ pointwise.

The second part of your answer is a bit confused. For the second part, there are two things to prove.

  1. If $g_n \to g$ uniformly, then $\lim_{\lvert x \rvert \to \infty} f(x) = 0$.
  2. If $\lim_{\lvert x \rvert \to \infty} f(x) = 0$, then $g_n \to g$ uniformly.

I note that I've slightly changed the condition on the limit of $f$. The original formulation, where $\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x)$, is actually false. That is, $\lim_{x \to \infty} f(x) = 0$ is not enough to force $g_n \to g$ uniformly. (Explicit counterexample: let $f$ be identically $1$ for $x < 0$ and identically $0$ for $x \geq 0$).

For the second part of the question, assume that ${g_n}(x)$ converges uniformly to $g(x)$. Then $\lvert {g_n}(x)\rvert \lt \epsilon$, as ${n} \rightarrow \infty$. Since it is a piecewise function, assume that $x \in [-n,n]$. Then, the interval forms the real line as ${n}\rightarrow \infty$, so for any ${x} \in \mathbb R$, function takes zero value, which is less than epsilon.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. I notice that $f$ isn't mentioned anywhere here. It's also unclear what you consider for $x \not \in [-n, n]$.

Assume that ${x} \rightarrow \infty$, simultaneously with n (I am not sure if you can assume that, if you cannot, then fix x > n+$\epsilon$). Then function ${g}$ becomes ${f(x)}$, $\lvert {f}(x)\rvert \lt \epsilon$ must be hold since g is uniformly convergent to the 0. Then it forces ${f(x)} = 0,{x} \rightarrow \infty$. Reverse is simple.

You can't assume $x \to \infty$ simultaneously with $n$. The reason is that uniform convergence concerns all $x$ for sufficiently large $n$.

I'm also not sure what "Reverse is simple" means, or what reverse is being considered.


But this is a good start. I'll write how I might say one of the two directions.

Let's prove that if $g_n \to g$ uniformly, then $\lim_{\lvert x \rvert \to \infty} f(x) = 0$.

To do this, we need to show that for any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists some $x_0$ (possibly depending on $\epsilon$) such that for all $\lvert x \rvert > x_0$, we have that $\lvert f(x) \rvert < \epsilon$.

As $g_n \to g$ uniformly, we know that for there exists an $N$ (possibly depending on $\epsilon$) such that for all $n > N$, we have that $\lvert g_n - g \rvert < \epsilon$. Here, $g$ is the identically $0$ function, to this last inequality is equivalent to $\lvert g_n \rvert < \epsilon$.

(Thus far, I've only written definitions. Now I'll use particular information.).

As $\lvert g_n \rvert < \epsilon$ for all $n > N$, we have for example that $\lvert g_{N + 1}(x) \rvert < \epsilon$. By the definition of $g_n$, this shows that $\lvert f(x) \rvert < \epsilon$ for all $x$ with $\lvert x \rvert \geq N + 1$. As such an $N$ can be found for any $\epsilon > 0$, we see that $f(x) \to 0$ as $\lvert x \rvert \to \infty$.


When first working with new topics, I think that explicitly writing down the relevant definitions and then inserting the relevant details is a good way to work. I leave the converse direction to you. Good luck!

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much for your clean work. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 4, 2023 at 12:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.