Conversation started Dec 13, 2011 at 10:31.
Dec 13, 2011 10:31
@Matt That it looks wrong...
@Srivatsan Tell me.
@Matt What you are showing is pointwise convergence of $f_n$ to zero.
Pointwise convergence: For any $x$, the sequence of real numbers $f_n(x)$ converges to some real number, call it $f(x)$.
@BenjaminLim Nope, I don't really care for it.
@Srivatsan Yes. Let me fix it. Or were you writing an answer?
@Matt I.e., for any $x$, for any $\varepsilon$, there exists $N$ such that the world is nice after that point. The point here is that the $N$ depends on $x$.
Dec 13, 2011 10:35
@Srivatsan Yes.
@Matt Uniform convergence: Now, the $N$ cannot depend on $x$. I.e., for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $N$ such that: for all $x$, blah...
Well, you should go ahead and fix the answer.
Uniform convergence is best understood as convergence under the uniform (or sup) norm of a sequence of functions to a function.
@Srivatsan Well, since the guy didn't say anything when I was hoping he'd do so, I'm the first juror.
So, @Matt, what do you think: is the sequence uniformly convergent, or no?
Morning, JM.
Er, it's morning for me. Evening, JM. =)
@JM Thanks. 2 more votes needed.
@Srivatsan Now that you ask this I'm getting unsure. I thought it should because |cos x| < 1 for sin x non-zero so for large n the thing gets small.
@Srivatsan Yep. Good morning to you. :)
Dec 13, 2011 10:43
@Matt Yep, you should be, for a good reason.
Let's look at what your post says. Ignore the first bit, it's not critical. In the second case, you argue that $\cos x$ being less than $1$, $(\cos x)^n \to 0$. True, but this is a pointwise statement.
We are interested in how large $n$ should be so that $f_n(x) < \varepsilon$, yes?
Yes.
But at the same time, we also want the same $n$ to work for all points. Therein lies the catch.
Let's take a simpler example: $f(x) = x^n$ does not converge to $0$ uniformly. Can you explain why?
On [0, 1)?
Oh yes, on $[0,1]$ say.
It's 1 at 1.
I'm thinking about what happens at 0 in the other example.
Dec 13, 2011 10:51
Well, $f(x)$ could be $$\begin{cases} 1, &x=1, \\ 0, &\text{otherwise}. \end{cases}$$
I mean, it's quite clear that $f_n(x) = x^n$ does converge to this $f(x)$ pointwise. On the other hand, it doesn't converge uniformly. Why?
I think it can't converge uniformly if the limit function isn't continuous.
@Matt Um, you're right -- in a sense. The issue is not that we cannot speak of uniform convergence when the limit function isn't continuous.
The more precise way of saying what you said is this: Theorem: if $f_n(x)$ is continuous over $[0,1]$ and $f_n(x)$ converges to $f(x)$ uniformly, then $f(x)$ is continuous.
Yes. In the example of the question the limit function is 0, though.
That is a correct explanation, but it's too clever for my purpose here.
@Matt True. But the theorem's converse is not necessarily true, so you cannot apply it in the reverse to conclude that the $f_n(x)$ in that post has to converge uniformly.
@Srivatsan I know, that's why I'm saying.
Dec 13, 2011 10:58
In fact, this is like a counter-example to show that the limit function could be continuous, and yet the convergence is not uniform.
Anyway, give me a minute to think.
@Srivatsan Yes exactly.
Ok. I hope I am not being too verbose -- I tend to be... =)
@Matt Do you want a minute, or no? Ping me when you're ready to go.
Yes : ) Or two.
Yes, you have just insulted my intelligence 8-).
@JonasTeuwen Um, that would be quite hard, wouldn't it? :P
[sorry, couldn't resist]
Dec 13, 2011 11:03
@Srivatsan Let me try again: for a fixed $\varepsilon$ you can find $x$ and $y$ such that $|f(x) - f(y)| > \varepsilon$. Namely, for $x = 1$ and any other point $y$ in $[0,1]$. Because as $n$ gets large, $y^n$ gets arbitrarily small?
@Matt I'm sorry, I don't follow your comment. First, what are you trying to prove or explain?
@Srivatsan You asked me why $f_n$ didn't converge uniformly to $f$.
@Matt I thought we already gave an answer to that. =)
@Srivatsan You said you were looking for a different answer.
@Srivatsan Here.
Oh yes, but I have in mind another explanation which I want to tell you.
Dec 13, 2011 11:07
I'm trying to guess your explanation, that's what my comment is about.
Hm, it sounds something like it, but we will not know unless both of us make ourselves precise.
Let me try again.
@Srivatsan :).
@Srivatsan I can't think of how to make it more precise but I'll try to rephrase it: Fix $\varepsilon > 0$ and pick $x=1$ and any $y \in [0,1)$. Then $|f(x) - f(y)| = |1 - y^n|$. The limit of this is $1$ so no matter what $N$ you pick, this is never smaller than $\varepsilon$ so $f_n$ doesn't converge uniformly.
@Matt Um, close enough.
Dec 13, 2011 11:16
T_T
But let me give my take, and let's come back to see.
Yes, please. : )
Ok. Imagine that I fix some $n$, and consider $x = 1 - \frac1n$. What does $f(x)$ look like?
It's 0?
$f(x_n) = (1-\frac1n)^n$, right?
Dec 13, 2011 11:20
No, but $f_n(x)$ is.
@Matt Do you know how this sequence $(1-\frac1n)^n$ behaves as $n \to \infty$?
[I am switching to the $x_n$ notation.]
@Srivatsan It tends to zero.
:) HINT: For a fixed $\lambda$, what does the sequence $(1 + \frac{\lambda}{n})^n$ converge to?
@Matt Alternatively, let's look at the multiplicative inverse of the sequence: $$ \left( \frac{n}{n-1} \right)^n = \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n-1} \right)^n .$$ What does that converge to?
If anything is not clear, I will explain more clearly.
No, it's quite clear. I just find computing this thing elusive. Give me some time.
Sure, take your time.
Dec 13, 2011 11:30
Oh. Actually, $1 - \frac1n$ tends to $1$ as $n$ goes to $\infty$. So $(1 - \frac1n)^n$ also has to tend to $1$.
Same for $1 - \frac{\lambda}{n}$ and $1 + \frac{\lambda}{n}$.
@Matt =) Let's review our situation here.
@Matt Have you seen the limit $\lim_{n \to \infty} (1 + \frac1n)^n$?
@Matt: I see that you redacted your answer. There are two different answers to that question. I like them both (if I do say so myself :-)
@Matt No.
@robjohn Planning to read and up vote later.
@Srivatsan No. Then I have not. I was going to write that it has to tend to $1$, too.
We are kind-of getting off-track from the original question, but it's good. I hope you do not mind.
@Srivatsan The earth always fails to swallow me when it should. So $|1 - y^n|$ from above tends to $e^-y$.
@Srivatsan Not at all. This is so good : ) I'll be eternally grateful to you : )
Dec 13, 2011 11:40
One second. I am replying to the comment thread in the other question.
I should know this really...
@Matt $e$ is involved, yes, but that expression is not quite correct.
Let's go back. $(1 - \frac1n)^n$ converges to $e^{-1}$. In fact, $(1 + \frac{\lambda}{n})^n$ converges to $e^\lambda$.
But we don't have $|1 - y^n|^n$ so how is $e$ involved?
We don't have that. We have
$$
f_n(x_n) = \left( 1 - \frac1n \right)^n \to \frac1e.
$$
 
Conversation ended Dec 13, 2011 at 11:47.