Show that the following function is continuous on $[0,1].$












2












$begingroup$


Define
$$omega_f(delta) =sup {|f(x)-f(y)|: (x,y)in [0,1]^{2}text{ and } |x-y|leq delta}$$
where $fin mathcal{C}([0,1])$ and $deltageq 0.$ I have proven that for all $delta_1,delta_2geq 0$ we have that:
$$omega_f(delta_1)leq omega_{f}(delta_1+delta_2)leq omega_f(delta_1)+omega_f(delta_2).$$
I now want to show that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous for all $deltain [0,1].$ I have argued for continuity at $0$ using contradiction and the fact that $omega_f$ is monotonic. Furthermore, for $rin (0,1]$ and $hgeq 0$ we have that
$$omega_f(r) leq omega_f(r+h)leq omega_f(r)+omega_f (h).$$
If we send $hto 0$ we get that $omega_f(r+h)to omega_f(r)$ and so $omega_f$ is right continuous. However, I am not sure how to show $omega_f$ is left-continuous. I tried the following:
$$omega_f(h)leq omega_{f}(h+(r-h))leq omega_f(h)+omega_f(r-h)$$
$$implies omega_{f}(r)-omega_f(h)leq omega_f(r-h)$$
and similarily since,
$$omega_f(r-h)leq omega_{f}((r-h)+h)leq omega_f(r-h)+omega_f(h)$$
$$implies omega_{f}(r-h)leq omega_f(r).$$
Thus we have that
$$omega_f(r)-omega_f(h)leq omega_f(r-h)leq omega_f(r).$$
Sending $hto 0$ should give left continuity by squeeze theorem.



Is this reasoning correct?






real-analysis functional-analysis continuity







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Define
    $$omega_f(delta) =sup {|f(x)-f(y)|: (x,y)in [0,1]^{2}text{ and } |x-y|leq delta}$$
    where $fin mathcal{C}([0,1])$ and $deltageq 0.$ I have proven that for all $delta_1,delta_2geq 0$ we have that:
    $$omega_f(delta_1)leq omega_{f}(delta_1+delta_2)leq omega_f(delta_1)+omega_f(delta_2).$$
    I now want to show that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous for all $deltain [0,1].$ I have argued for continuity at $0$ using contradiction and the fact that $omega_f$ is monotonic. Furthermore, for $rin (0,1]$ and $hgeq 0$ we have that
    $$omega_f(r) leq omega_f(r+h)leq omega_f(r)+omega_f (h).$$
    If we send $hto 0$ we get that $omega_f(r+h)to omega_f(r)$ and so $omega_f$ is right continuous. However, I am not sure how to show $omega_f$ is left-continuous. I tried the following:
    $$omega_f(h)leq omega_{f}(h+(r-h))leq omega_f(h)+omega_f(r-h)$$
    $$implies omega_{f}(r)-omega_f(h)leq omega_f(r-h)$$
    and similarily since,
    $$omega_f(r-h)leq omega_{f}((r-h)+h)leq omega_f(r-h)+omega_f(h)$$
    $$implies omega_{f}(r-h)leq omega_f(r).$$
    Thus we have that
    $$omega_f(r)-omega_f(h)leq omega_f(r-h)leq omega_f(r).$$
    Sending $hto 0$ should give left continuity by squeeze theorem.



    Is this reasoning correct?






    real-analysis functional-analysis continuity







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Define
      $$omega_f(delta) =sup {|f(x)-f(y)|: (x,y)in [0,1]^{2}text{ and } |x-y|leq delta}$$
      where $fin mathcal{C}([0,1])$ and $deltageq 0.$ I have proven that for all $delta_1,delta_2geq 0$ we have that:
      $$omega_f(delta_1)leq omega_{f}(delta_1+delta_2)leq omega_f(delta_1)+omega_f(delta_2).$$
      I now want to show that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous for all $deltain [0,1].$ I have argued for continuity at $0$ using contradiction and the fact that $omega_f$ is monotonic. Furthermore, for $rin (0,1]$ and $hgeq 0$ we have that
      $$omega_f(r) leq omega_f(r+h)leq omega_f(r)+omega_f (h).$$
      If we send $hto 0$ we get that $omega_f(r+h)to omega_f(r)$ and so $omega_f$ is right continuous. However, I am not sure how to show $omega_f$ is left-continuous. I tried the following:
      $$omega_f(h)leq omega_{f}(h+(r-h))leq omega_f(h)+omega_f(r-h)$$
      $$implies omega_{f}(r)-omega_f(h)leq omega_f(r-h)$$
      and similarily since,
      $$omega_f(r-h)leq omega_{f}((r-h)+h)leq omega_f(r-h)+omega_f(h)$$
      $$implies omega_{f}(r-h)leq omega_f(r).$$
      Thus we have that
      $$omega_f(r)-omega_f(h)leq omega_f(r-h)leq omega_f(r).$$
      Sending $hto 0$ should give left continuity by squeeze theorem.



      Is this reasoning correct?






      real-analysis functional-analysis continuity







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Define
      $$omega_f(delta) =sup {|f(x)-f(y)|: (x,y)in [0,1]^{2}text{ and } |x-y|leq delta}$$
      where $fin mathcal{C}([0,1])$ and $deltageq 0.$ I have proven that for all $delta_1,delta_2geq 0$ we have that:
      $$omega_f(delta_1)leq omega_{f}(delta_1+delta_2)leq omega_f(delta_1)+omega_f(delta_2).$$
      I now want to show that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous for all $deltain [0,1].$ I have argued for continuity at $0$ using contradiction and the fact that $omega_f$ is monotonic. Furthermore, for $rin (0,1]$ and $hgeq 0$ we have that
      $$omega_f(r) leq omega_f(r+h)leq omega_f(r)+omega_f (h).$$
      If we send $hto 0$ we get that $omega_f(r+h)to omega_f(r)$ and so $omega_f$ is right continuous. However, I am not sure how to show $omega_f$ is left-continuous. I tried the following:
      $$omega_f(h)leq omega_{f}(h+(r-h))leq omega_f(h)+omega_f(r-h)$$
      $$implies omega_{f}(r)-omega_f(h)leq omega_f(r-h)$$
      and similarily since,
      $$omega_f(r-h)leq omega_{f}((r-h)+h)leq omega_f(r-h)+omega_f(h)$$
      $$implies omega_{f}(r-h)leq omega_f(r).$$
      Thus we have that
      $$omega_f(r)-omega_f(h)leq omega_f(r-h)leq omega_f(r).$$
      Sending $hto 0$ should give left continuity by squeeze theorem.



      Is this reasoning correct?






      real-analysis functional-analysis continuity




      real-analysis functional-analysis continuity






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 7 at 22:59









      Matematleta

      12.2k21020




      12.2k21020










      asked Jan 7 at 19:35









      model_checkermodel_checker

      4,45521931




      4,45521931






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          Monotonicity alone of $omega_f$ is not enough to yield continuity. You have to use that $f$ is (uniformly) continuous.



          A small (maybe pedantic) point of notation: $omega_f(delta)$ is a real number, so it cannot be continuous. What you meant was that you wanted to prove that $omega_f$ was continuous on $[0,1]$, or, if you really want to write $omega_f(delta)$, write that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous at every $delta in [0,1]$.



          Otherwise, it seems correct to me (however, you that $omega_f(r-h) leq omega_f(r)$ is a straight consequence of its monotonicity).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Yes I used uniform continuity for showing $omega_f$ is continuous at $0.$ Do you suggest that I need it also for $rin (0,1].$
            $endgroup$
            – model_checker
            Jan 7 at 19:58










          • $begingroup$
            Not at all, the « triangle inequality » and squeezing theorem work well enough.
            $endgroup$
            – Mindlack
            Jan 7 at 19:59












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065405%2fshow-that-the-following-function-is-continuous-on-0-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$

          Monotonicity alone of $omega_f$ is not enough to yield continuity. You have to use that $f$ is (uniformly) continuous.



          A small (maybe pedantic) point of notation: $omega_f(delta)$ is a real number, so it cannot be continuous. What you meant was that you wanted to prove that $omega_f$ was continuous on $[0,1]$, or, if you really want to write $omega_f(delta)$, write that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous at every $delta in [0,1]$.



          Otherwise, it seems correct to me (however, you that $omega_f(r-h) leq omega_f(r)$ is a straight consequence of its monotonicity).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Yes I used uniform continuity for showing $omega_f$ is continuous at $0.$ Do you suggest that I need it also for $rin (0,1].$
            $endgroup$
            – model_checker
            Jan 7 at 19:58










          • $begingroup$
            Not at all, the « triangle inequality » and squeezing theorem work well enough.
            $endgroup$
            – Mindlack
            Jan 7 at 19:59
















          0












          $begingroup$

          Monotonicity alone of $omega_f$ is not enough to yield continuity. You have to use that $f$ is (uniformly) continuous.



          A small (maybe pedantic) point of notation: $omega_f(delta)$ is a real number, so it cannot be continuous. What you meant was that you wanted to prove that $omega_f$ was continuous on $[0,1]$, or, if you really want to write $omega_f(delta)$, write that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous at every $delta in [0,1]$.



          Otherwise, it seems correct to me (however, you that $omega_f(r-h) leq omega_f(r)$ is a straight consequence of its monotonicity).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Yes I used uniform continuity for showing $omega_f$ is continuous at $0.$ Do you suggest that I need it also for $rin (0,1].$
            $endgroup$
            – model_checker
            Jan 7 at 19:58










          • $begingroup$
            Not at all, the « triangle inequality » and squeezing theorem work well enough.
            $endgroup$
            – Mindlack
            Jan 7 at 19:59














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          Monotonicity alone of $omega_f$ is not enough to yield continuity. You have to use that $f$ is (uniformly) continuous.



          A small (maybe pedantic) point of notation: $omega_f(delta)$ is a real number, so it cannot be continuous. What you meant was that you wanted to prove that $omega_f$ was continuous on $[0,1]$, or, if you really want to write $omega_f(delta)$, write that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous at every $delta in [0,1]$.



          Otherwise, it seems correct to me (however, you that $omega_f(r-h) leq omega_f(r)$ is a straight consequence of its monotonicity).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Monotonicity alone of $omega_f$ is not enough to yield continuity. You have to use that $f$ is (uniformly) continuous.



          A small (maybe pedantic) point of notation: $omega_f(delta)$ is a real number, so it cannot be continuous. What you meant was that you wanted to prove that $omega_f$ was continuous on $[0,1]$, or, if you really want to write $omega_f(delta)$, write that $omega_f(delta)$ is continuous at every $delta in [0,1]$.



          Otherwise, it seems correct to me (however, you that $omega_f(r-h) leq omega_f(r)$ is a straight consequence of its monotonicity).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 7 at 19:52









          MindlackMindlack

          4,910211




          4,910211












          • $begingroup$
            Yes I used uniform continuity for showing $omega_f$ is continuous at $0.$ Do you suggest that I need it also for $rin (0,1].$
            $endgroup$
            – model_checker
            Jan 7 at 19:58










          • $begingroup$
            Not at all, the « triangle inequality » and squeezing theorem work well enough.
            $endgroup$
            – Mindlack
            Jan 7 at 19:59


















          • $begingroup$
            Yes I used uniform continuity for showing $omega_f$ is continuous at $0.$ Do you suggest that I need it also for $rin (0,1].$
            $endgroup$
            – model_checker
            Jan 7 at 19:58










          • $begingroup$
            Not at all, the « triangle inequality » and squeezing theorem work well enough.
            $endgroup$
            – Mindlack
            Jan 7 at 19:59
















          $begingroup$
          Yes I used uniform continuity for showing $omega_f$ is continuous at $0.$ Do you suggest that I need it also for $rin (0,1].$
          $endgroup$
          – model_checker
          Jan 7 at 19:58




          $begingroup$
          Yes I used uniform continuity for showing $omega_f$ is continuous at $0.$ Do you suggest that I need it also for $rin (0,1].$
          $endgroup$
          – model_checker
          Jan 7 at 19:58












          $begingroup$
          Not at all, the « triangle inequality » and squeezing theorem work well enough.
          $endgroup$
          – Mindlack
          Jan 7 at 19:59




          $begingroup$
          Not at all, the « triangle inequality » and squeezing theorem work well enough.
          $endgroup$
          – Mindlack
          Jan 7 at 19:59


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3065405%2fshow-that-the-following-function-is-continuous-on-0-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Wiesbaden

          Image
          Wappen Deutschlandkarte 50.0825 8.24 117 Koordinaten: 50° 5′  N , 8° 14′  O Basisdaten Bundesland: Hessen Regierungsbezirk: Darmstadt Höhe: 117 m ü. NHN Fläche: 203,93 km 2 Einwohner: 278.654 (31. Dez. 2017) [1] Bevölkerungsdichte: 1366 Einwohner je km 2 Postleitzahlen: 65183–65207, 55246, 55252 Vorlage:Infobox Gemeinde in Deutschland/Wartung/PLZ enthält Text Vorwahlen: 0611, 06122, 06127, 06134 Kfz-Kennzeichen: WI Gemeindeschlüssel: 06 4 14 000 LOCODE: DE WIB NUTS: DE714 Stadtgliederung: 26 Ortsbezirke Adresse der Stadtverwaltung: Schlossplatz 6 65183 Wiesbaden Webpräsenz: www.wiesbaden.de Oberbürgermeister: Sven Gerich (SPD) Lage der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden in Hessen und im Regierungsbezirk Darmstadt Offizielles Logo der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden Flagge der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden Wiesbaden is
          Read more

          Marschland

          Image
          Kilometerweite Marsch in den Vier- und Marschlanden am Elbdeich Die Wedeler Marschlandschaft in Schleswig-Holstein Der Hadelner Kanal zur Entwässerung der Marsch Die tief gelegene Marsch und ein Entwässerungskanal Das Schöpfwerk Otterndorf im Land Hadeln zur Entwässerung der Medem verfügte damals bereits über die größte Kreiselpumpe Europas. Das Schöpfwerk in Neuhaus für die Aue und des Neuhaus-Bülkauer Kanals Als Marsch(land) (v. niederdt., altsächs. mersc ) – auch Masch , Mersch oder Schwemmland genannt – bezeichnet man eine nacheiszeitlich entstandene geomorphologische Landform im Gebiet der nordwestdeutschen Küsten und Flüsse sowie vergleichbare Landformen weltweit. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Landschaft 2 Entstehung 3 Marschböden 4 Nutzung 5 Marschgebiete in Deutschland 6 Siehe auch 7 Literatur 8 Weblinks 9 Einzelnachweise Landschaft | Marschen sind generell flache Landstriche ohne natürliche Erhebungen. Si
          Read more

          Dieringhausen

          Image
          Dieringhausen Stadt Gummersbach 50.982777777778 7.5316666666667 165 Koordinaten: 50° 58′ 58″  N , 7° 31′ 54″  O Höhe: 165  (160–245)  m Einwohner: 5055  (30. Jun. 2016) Postleitzahl: 51645 Vorwahl: 02261 Lage von Dieringhausen in Gummersbach Im Hohl ca. 1927–1930 Ansicht von Südwesten bei Bünghausen Dieringhausen (im örtlichen Dialekt Dierkesen ) ist ein Ortsteil von Gummersbach im Oberbergischen Kreis, Regierungsbezirk Köln, Nordrhein-Westfalen (Deutschland). Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Geographie 2 Geschichte 3 Kultur 3.1 Sehenswürdigkeiten 3.2 Regelmäßige Veranstaltungen 4 Infrastruktur und Wirtschaft 4.1 Verkehr 4.1.1 Schienen- und Busverkehr 4.1.2 Straßen 4.2 Öffentliche Einrichtungen 4.2.1 Schulen und Bildungseinrichtungen 4.2.2 Kirchliche Einrichtungen 5 Persönlichkeiten 5.1 In Dieringhausen geboren 5.2 In Dieringhausen gelebt 6 Einzelnachweise 7
          Read more