Showing that $f$ is a uniformly continuous function on the interval $[0, infty)$
$begingroup$
Suppose that $f$: $[0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is continuous on $[0, infty)$ and differentiable on $(1, infty)$ with bounded derivative. Show that $f$ is uniformly continuous. (HINT: split $[0, infty)$ into two pieces, on each of which $f$ is uniformly continuous, then explain why this implies that $f$ is uniformly continuous on the whole $[0, infty)$.)
Question: I have solved the majority of the problem, but wanted a little clarification with regards to the explanation in the second part. Specifically there is the situation where:
$ x in [0, 1)$ and $y > 1$ (or vice versa). In this scenario I still have to show $|x - y| < delta$. Given the conditions that I have can I do the following: $$|x - y| leq |x - 1| + |y - 1| < frac{delta}{2} + frac{delta}{2} = delta$$
And if this is allowed is the reason that I should choose $1$ because the two intervals split at that specific point so it allows me to relate $x,y$ to each other?
Assuming the previous step is true then it follows:
$$ |f(x) - f(y)| leq |f(x) - f(1) + |f(1) - f(y)| < frac{epsilon}{2} + frac{epsilon}{2} = epsilon$$
real-analysis proof-explanation uniform-continuity
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose that $f$: $[0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is continuous on $[0, infty)$ and differentiable on $(1, infty)$ with bounded derivative. Show that $f$ is uniformly continuous. (HINT: split $[0, infty)$ into two pieces, on each of which $f$ is uniformly continuous, then explain why this implies that $f$ is uniformly continuous on the whole $[0, infty)$.)
Question: I have solved the majority of the problem, but wanted a little clarification with regards to the explanation in the second part. Specifically there is the situation where:
$ x in [0, 1)$ and $y > 1$ (or vice versa). In this scenario I still have to show $|x - y| < delta$. Given the conditions that I have can I do the following: $$|x - y| leq |x - 1| + |y - 1| < frac{delta}{2} + frac{delta}{2} = delta$$
And if this is allowed is the reason that I should choose $1$ because the two intervals split at that specific point so it allows me to relate $x,y$ to each other?
Assuming the previous step is true then it follows:
$$ |f(x) - f(y)| leq |f(x) - f(1) + |f(1) - f(y)| < frac{epsilon}{2} + frac{epsilon}{2} = epsilon$$
real-analysis proof-explanation uniform-continuity
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes. I do ....I picked [0,1] and $(1,infty)$ for that reason
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 23 '18 at 23:37
1
$begingroup$
The implication was that you can have the intervals overlap and not have to worry about the $x$ and the $y$ being in separate ``domains''; that is, instead of $[0,2]cup[2,infty)$, you could take $[0,2]cup[3/2,infty)$. Now simply enforce $|x-y|<frac12$ and both $x,y$ will be in the same domain.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Dec 23 '18 at 23:42
1
$begingroup$
However, the $delta$ you are looking for is the minimum of both $delta$s for each domain, where $varepsilon /2$ is given.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 0:13
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose that $f$: $[0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is continuous on $[0, infty)$ and differentiable on $(1, infty)$ with bounded derivative. Show that $f$ is uniformly continuous. (HINT: split $[0, infty)$ into two pieces, on each of which $f$ is uniformly continuous, then explain why this implies that $f$ is uniformly continuous on the whole $[0, infty)$.)
Question: I have solved the majority of the problem, but wanted a little clarification with regards to the explanation in the second part. Specifically there is the situation where:
$ x in [0, 1)$ and $y > 1$ (or vice versa). In this scenario I still have to show $|x - y| < delta$. Given the conditions that I have can I do the following: $$|x - y| leq |x - 1| + |y - 1| < frac{delta}{2} + frac{delta}{2} = delta$$
And if this is allowed is the reason that I should choose $1$ because the two intervals split at that specific point so it allows me to relate $x,y$ to each other?
Assuming the previous step is true then it follows:
$$ |f(x) - f(y)| leq |f(x) - f(1) + |f(1) - f(y)| < frac{epsilon}{2} + frac{epsilon}{2} = epsilon$$
real-analysis proof-explanation uniform-continuity
$endgroup$
Suppose that $f$: $[0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is continuous on $[0, infty)$ and differentiable on $(1, infty)$ with bounded derivative. Show that $f$ is uniformly continuous. (HINT: split $[0, infty)$ into two pieces, on each of which $f$ is uniformly continuous, then explain why this implies that $f$ is uniformly continuous on the whole $[0, infty)$.)
Question: I have solved the majority of the problem, but wanted a little clarification with regards to the explanation in the second part. Specifically there is the situation where:
$ x in [0, 1)$ and $y > 1$ (or vice versa). In this scenario I still have to show $|x - y| < delta$. Given the conditions that I have can I do the following: $$|x - y| leq |x - 1| + |y - 1| < frac{delta}{2} + frac{delta}{2} = delta$$
And if this is allowed is the reason that I should choose $1$ because the two intervals split at that specific point so it allows me to relate $x,y$ to each other?
Assuming the previous step is true then it follows:
$$ |f(x) - f(y)| leq |f(x) - f(1) + |f(1) - f(y)| < frac{epsilon}{2} + frac{epsilon}{2} = epsilon$$
real-analysis proof-explanation uniform-continuity
real-analysis proof-explanation uniform-continuity
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:57
dc3rddc3rd
1,48611137
1,48611137
$begingroup$
Yes. I do ....I picked [0,1] and $(1,infty)$ for that reason
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 23 '18 at 23:37
1
$begingroup$
The implication was that you can have the intervals overlap and not have to worry about the $x$ and the $y$ being in separate ``domains''; that is, instead of $[0,2]cup[2,infty)$, you could take $[0,2]cup[3/2,infty)$. Now simply enforce $|x-y|<frac12$ and both $x,y$ will be in the same domain.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Dec 23 '18 at 23:42
1
$begingroup$
However, the $delta$ you are looking for is the minimum of both $delta$s for each domain, where $varepsilon /2$ is given.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 0:13
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes. I do ....I picked [0,1] and $(1,infty)$ for that reason
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 23 '18 at 23:37
1
$begingroup$
The implication was that you can have the intervals overlap and not have to worry about the $x$ and the $y$ being in separate ``domains''; that is, instead of $[0,2]cup[2,infty)$, you could take $[0,2]cup[3/2,infty)$. Now simply enforce $|x-y|<frac12$ and both $x,y$ will be in the same domain.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Dec 23 '18 at 23:42
1
$begingroup$
However, the $delta$ you are looking for is the minimum of both $delta$s for each domain, where $varepsilon /2$ is given.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 0:13
$begingroup$
Yes. I do ....I picked [0,1] and $(1,infty)$ for that reason
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 23 '18 at 23:37
$begingroup$
Yes. I do ....I picked [0,1] and $(1,infty)$ for that reason
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 23 '18 at 23:37
1
1
$begingroup$
The implication was that you can have the intervals overlap and not have to worry about the $x$ and the $y$ being in separate ``domains''; that is, instead of $[0,2]cup[2,infty)$, you could take $[0,2]cup[3/2,infty)$. Now simply enforce $|x-y|<frac12$ and both $x,y$ will be in the same domain.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Dec 23 '18 at 23:42
$begingroup$
The implication was that you can have the intervals overlap and not have to worry about the $x$ and the $y$ being in separate ``domains''; that is, instead of $[0,2]cup[2,infty)$, you could take $[0,2]cup[3/2,infty)$. Now simply enforce $|x-y|<frac12$ and both $x,y$ will be in the same domain.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Dec 23 '18 at 23:42
1
1
$begingroup$
However, the $delta$ you are looking for is the minimum of both $delta$s for each domain, where $varepsilon /2$ is given.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 0:13
$begingroup$
However, the $delta$ you are looking for is the minimum of both $delta$s for each domain, where $varepsilon /2$ is given.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 0:13
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Use MVT to show $|f(x)-f(y)|le M|x-y|$ on $(1,infty)$. Since $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[0,1]$, for any $epsilon>0$ there exists $delta>0$ so that $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$ when $|x-y|<delta$ and $x,yin[0,1]$. If $xle 1le y$, because $f$ is continuous at $1$, there is $eta$ so that if $|x-y|<eta$ implies $|x-1|,|y-1|<eta$ and
$$|f(x)-f(y)|le |f(x)-f(1)|+|f(1)-f(y)|<epsilon $$
Now if $|x-y|<min{epsilon/M,delta,eta}$, we get $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This provides more clarity to my situation. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 24 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
However, it has to be $frac{varepsilon} {2 M}$ to satisfy the desired inequlity. Apart from that it's perfectly fine and almost the same, though a little bit more complicated imao.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 21:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mean value theorem gives Lipschitz and therefore uniform continuity
of $f$ in $[1,infty)$ including $1$. That is because you need
differentiablity only in the interior. Moreover, $f$ is uniformly
continuous in $[0,1]$ since every continuous function on compact sets
are automatically uniformly continuous.
Now, let be $varepsilon > 0$. Then,
there exist $delta_{1/2}$ such that $$ lvert f(x_i) - f(1) rvert <
frac{varepsilon}{2} $$ for $lvert x_i - 1 rvert < delta_i$ where $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. Of course, $delta_i$ does not depend on $1$ nor $x_i$ due to the uniform continuity; this is important. Hence,
if we choose $delta = min{ delta_1,delta_2 }$, we obtain $$ lvert
f(x_1) - f(x_2) rvert leq lvert f(x_1) - f(1) rvert + lvert f(1) -
f(x_2) rvert < frac{varepsilon}{2} + frac{varepsilon}{2} =
varepsilon$$ since $$lvert x_i - 1 rvert leq lvert x_1 - x_2 rvert < delta leq delta_i$$
for $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. For arbitrary $x_1,x_2$ both entirely in either $[0,1]$ or $[1,infty)$, we can use the same $delta$ due to the choices of each $delta_i$, which proves the statement.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050776%2fshowing-that-f-is-a-uniformly-continuous-function-on-the-interval-0-infty%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Use MVT to show $|f(x)-f(y)|le M|x-y|$ on $(1,infty)$. Since $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[0,1]$, for any $epsilon>0$ there exists $delta>0$ so that $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$ when $|x-y|<delta$ and $x,yin[0,1]$. If $xle 1le y$, because $f$ is continuous at $1$, there is $eta$ so that if $|x-y|<eta$ implies $|x-1|,|y-1|<eta$ and
$$|f(x)-f(y)|le |f(x)-f(1)|+|f(1)-f(y)|<epsilon $$
Now if $|x-y|<min{epsilon/M,delta,eta}$, we get $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This provides more clarity to my situation. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 24 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
However, it has to be $frac{varepsilon} {2 M}$ to satisfy the desired inequlity. Apart from that it's perfectly fine and almost the same, though a little bit more complicated imao.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 21:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use MVT to show $|f(x)-f(y)|le M|x-y|$ on $(1,infty)$. Since $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[0,1]$, for any $epsilon>0$ there exists $delta>0$ so that $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$ when $|x-y|<delta$ and $x,yin[0,1]$. If $xle 1le y$, because $f$ is continuous at $1$, there is $eta$ so that if $|x-y|<eta$ implies $|x-1|,|y-1|<eta$ and
$$|f(x)-f(y)|le |f(x)-f(1)|+|f(1)-f(y)|<epsilon $$
Now if $|x-y|<min{epsilon/M,delta,eta}$, we get $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This provides more clarity to my situation. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 24 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
However, it has to be $frac{varepsilon} {2 M}$ to satisfy the desired inequlity. Apart from that it's perfectly fine and almost the same, though a little bit more complicated imao.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 21:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use MVT to show $|f(x)-f(y)|le M|x-y|$ on $(1,infty)$. Since $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[0,1]$, for any $epsilon>0$ there exists $delta>0$ so that $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$ when $|x-y|<delta$ and $x,yin[0,1]$. If $xle 1le y$, because $f$ is continuous at $1$, there is $eta$ so that if $|x-y|<eta$ implies $|x-1|,|y-1|<eta$ and
$$|f(x)-f(y)|le |f(x)-f(1)|+|f(1)-f(y)|<epsilon $$
Now if $|x-y|<min{epsilon/M,delta,eta}$, we get $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
Use MVT to show $|f(x)-f(y)|le M|x-y|$ on $(1,infty)$. Since $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[0,1]$, for any $epsilon>0$ there exists $delta>0$ so that $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$ when $|x-y|<delta$ and $x,yin[0,1]$. If $xle 1le y$, because $f$ is continuous at $1$, there is $eta$ so that if $|x-y|<eta$ implies $|x-1|,|y-1|<eta$ and
$$|f(x)-f(y)|le |f(x)-f(1)|+|f(1)-f(y)|<epsilon $$
Now if $|x-y|<min{epsilon/M,delta,eta}$, we get $|f(x)-f(y)|<epsilon$.
edited Dec 24 '18 at 1:14
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:46
Guacho PerezGuacho Perez
3,92911132
3,92911132
$begingroup$
This provides more clarity to my situation. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 24 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
However, it has to be $frac{varepsilon} {2 M}$ to satisfy the desired inequlity. Apart from that it's perfectly fine and almost the same, though a little bit more complicated imao.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 21:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This provides more clarity to my situation. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 24 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
However, it has to be $frac{varepsilon} {2 M}$ to satisfy the desired inequlity. Apart from that it's perfectly fine and almost the same, though a little bit more complicated imao.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 21:11
$begingroup$
This provides more clarity to my situation. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 24 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
This provides more clarity to my situation. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 24 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
However, it has to be $frac{varepsilon} {2 M}$ to satisfy the desired inequlity. Apart from that it's perfectly fine and almost the same, though a little bit more complicated imao.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 21:11
$begingroup$
However, it has to be $frac{varepsilon} {2 M}$ to satisfy the desired inequlity. Apart from that it's perfectly fine and almost the same, though a little bit more complicated imao.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 21:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mean value theorem gives Lipschitz and therefore uniform continuity
of $f$ in $[1,infty)$ including $1$. That is because you need
differentiablity only in the interior. Moreover, $f$ is uniformly
continuous in $[0,1]$ since every continuous function on compact sets
are automatically uniformly continuous.
Now, let be $varepsilon > 0$. Then,
there exist $delta_{1/2}$ such that $$ lvert f(x_i) - f(1) rvert <
frac{varepsilon}{2} $$ for $lvert x_i - 1 rvert < delta_i$ where $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. Of course, $delta_i$ does not depend on $1$ nor $x_i$ due to the uniform continuity; this is important. Hence,
if we choose $delta = min{ delta_1,delta_2 }$, we obtain $$ lvert
f(x_1) - f(x_2) rvert leq lvert f(x_1) - f(1) rvert + lvert f(1) -
f(x_2) rvert < frac{varepsilon}{2} + frac{varepsilon}{2} =
varepsilon$$ since $$lvert x_i - 1 rvert leq lvert x_1 - x_2 rvert < delta leq delta_i$$
for $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. For arbitrary $x_1,x_2$ both entirely in either $[0,1]$ or $[1,infty)$, we can use the same $delta$ due to the choices of each $delta_i$, which proves the statement.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mean value theorem gives Lipschitz and therefore uniform continuity
of $f$ in $[1,infty)$ including $1$. That is because you need
differentiablity only in the interior. Moreover, $f$ is uniformly
continuous in $[0,1]$ since every continuous function on compact sets
are automatically uniformly continuous.
Now, let be $varepsilon > 0$. Then,
there exist $delta_{1/2}$ such that $$ lvert f(x_i) - f(1) rvert <
frac{varepsilon}{2} $$ for $lvert x_i - 1 rvert < delta_i$ where $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. Of course, $delta_i$ does not depend on $1$ nor $x_i$ due to the uniform continuity; this is important. Hence,
if we choose $delta = min{ delta_1,delta_2 }$, we obtain $$ lvert
f(x_1) - f(x_2) rvert leq lvert f(x_1) - f(1) rvert + lvert f(1) -
f(x_2) rvert < frac{varepsilon}{2} + frac{varepsilon}{2} =
varepsilon$$ since $$lvert x_i - 1 rvert leq lvert x_1 - x_2 rvert < delta leq delta_i$$
for $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. For arbitrary $x_1,x_2$ both entirely in either $[0,1]$ or $[1,infty)$, we can use the same $delta$ due to the choices of each $delta_i$, which proves the statement.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mean value theorem gives Lipschitz and therefore uniform continuity
of $f$ in $[1,infty)$ including $1$. That is because you need
differentiablity only in the interior. Moreover, $f$ is uniformly
continuous in $[0,1]$ since every continuous function on compact sets
are automatically uniformly continuous.
Now, let be $varepsilon > 0$. Then,
there exist $delta_{1/2}$ such that $$ lvert f(x_i) - f(1) rvert <
frac{varepsilon}{2} $$ for $lvert x_i - 1 rvert < delta_i$ where $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. Of course, $delta_i$ does not depend on $1$ nor $x_i$ due to the uniform continuity; this is important. Hence,
if we choose $delta = min{ delta_1,delta_2 }$, we obtain $$ lvert
f(x_1) - f(x_2) rvert leq lvert f(x_1) - f(1) rvert + lvert f(1) -
f(x_2) rvert < frac{varepsilon}{2} + frac{varepsilon}{2} =
varepsilon$$ since $$lvert x_i - 1 rvert leq lvert x_1 - x_2 rvert < delta leq delta_i$$
for $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. For arbitrary $x_1,x_2$ both entirely in either $[0,1]$ or $[1,infty)$, we can use the same $delta$ due to the choices of each $delta_i$, which proves the statement.
$endgroup$
The mean value theorem gives Lipschitz and therefore uniform continuity
of $f$ in $[1,infty)$ including $1$. That is because you need
differentiablity only in the interior. Moreover, $f$ is uniformly
continuous in $[0,1]$ since every continuous function on compact sets
are automatically uniformly continuous.
Now, let be $varepsilon > 0$. Then,
there exist $delta_{1/2}$ such that $$ lvert f(x_i) - f(1) rvert <
frac{varepsilon}{2} $$ for $lvert x_i - 1 rvert < delta_i$ where $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. Of course, $delta_i$ does not depend on $1$ nor $x_i$ due to the uniform continuity; this is important. Hence,
if we choose $delta = min{ delta_1,delta_2 }$, we obtain $$ lvert
f(x_1) - f(x_2) rvert leq lvert f(x_1) - f(1) rvert + lvert f(1) -
f(x_2) rvert < frac{varepsilon}{2} + frac{varepsilon}{2} =
varepsilon$$ since $$lvert x_i - 1 rvert leq lvert x_1 - x_2 rvert < delta leq delta_i$$
for $0 leq x_1 leq 1 leq x_2$. For arbitrary $x_1,x_2$ both entirely in either $[0,1]$ or $[1,infty)$, we can use the same $delta$ due to the choices of each $delta_i$, which proves the statement.
edited Dec 24 '18 at 22:07
answered Dec 24 '18 at 16:13
YoungMathYoungMath
190110
190110
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050776%2fshowing-that-f-is-a-uniformly-continuous-function-on-the-interval-0-infty%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
Yes. I do ....I picked [0,1] and $(1,infty)$ for that reason
$endgroup$
– dc3rd
Dec 23 '18 at 23:37
1
$begingroup$
The implication was that you can have the intervals overlap and not have to worry about the $x$ and the $y$ being in separate ``domains''; that is, instead of $[0,2]cup[2,infty)$, you could take $[0,2]cup[3/2,infty)$. Now simply enforce $|x-y|<frac12$ and both $x,y$ will be in the same domain.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Dec 23 '18 at 23:42
1
$begingroup$
However, the $delta$ you are looking for is the minimum of both $delta$s for each domain, where $varepsilon /2$ is given.
$endgroup$
– YoungMath
Dec 24 '18 at 0:13