$nabla f=0$ on compact set $implies f$ is $2-Holder$ continuous
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $f:mathbbR^ntomathbbR^n$, let $AsubseteqmathbbR^n$ be compact and suppose $nabla f=0$ on $A$. Show that there is a constant $B$ such that $|f(x)-f(z)|leq B|x-z|^2$ for all $x,zin A$.
My attempt: Cover $A$ by finitely many open balls $B_delta(x_1),...B_delta(x_q)$ of radius $delta$. Since open balls are convex, if $x,zin B_delta(x_j)cap A$ for some $j$, then $|f(x)-f(z)|=0$ by the mean value theorem. There is an $epsilon$ such that if $x,z$ are not in the same ball, then $|x-z|geqepsilon$. Then $|f(x)-f(z)|leq||f(A)||=||f(A)||frac1epsilon^2|x-z|^2$, where $|f(A)|$ is the diameter of $f(A)$. So setting $B=|f(A)|frac1epsilon^2$ gives the result.
Does this proof look correct?
real-analysis proof-verification
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $f:mathbbR^ntomathbbR^n$, let $AsubseteqmathbbR^n$ be compact and suppose $nabla f=0$ on $A$. Show that there is a constant $B$ such that $|f(x)-f(z)|leq B|x-z|^2$ for all $x,zin A$.
My attempt: Cover $A$ by finitely many open balls $B_delta(x_1),...B_delta(x_q)$ of radius $delta$. Since open balls are convex, if $x,zin B_delta(x_j)cap A$ for some $j$, then $|f(x)-f(z)|=0$ by the mean value theorem. There is an $epsilon$ such that if $x,z$ are not in the same ball, then $|x-z|geqepsilon$. Then $|f(x)-f(z)|leq||f(A)||=||f(A)||frac1epsilon^2|x-z|^2$, where $|f(A)|$ is the diameter of $f(A)$. So setting $B=|f(A)|frac1epsilon^2$ gives the result.
Does this proof look correct?
real-analysis proof-verification
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $f:mathbbR^ntomathbbR^n$, let $AsubseteqmathbbR^n$ be compact and suppose $nabla f=0$ on $A$. Show that there is a constant $B$ such that $|f(x)-f(z)|leq B|x-z|^2$ for all $x,zin A$.
My attempt: Cover $A$ by finitely many open balls $B_delta(x_1),...B_delta(x_q)$ of radius $delta$. Since open balls are convex, if $x,zin B_delta(x_j)cap A$ for some $j$, then $|f(x)-f(z)|=0$ by the mean value theorem. There is an $epsilon$ such that if $x,z$ are not in the same ball, then $|x-z|geqepsilon$. Then $|f(x)-f(z)|leq||f(A)||=||f(A)||frac1epsilon^2|x-z|^2$, where $|f(A)|$ is the diameter of $f(A)$. So setting $B=|f(A)|frac1epsilon^2$ gives the result.
Does this proof look correct?
real-analysis proof-verification
Let $f:mathbbR^ntomathbbR^n$, let $AsubseteqmathbbR^n$ be compact and suppose $nabla f=0$ on $A$. Show that there is a constant $B$ such that $|f(x)-f(z)|leq B|x-z|^2$ for all $x,zin A$.
My attempt: Cover $A$ by finitely many open balls $B_delta(x_1),...B_delta(x_q)$ of radius $delta$. Since open balls are convex, if $x,zin B_delta(x_j)cap A$ for some $j$, then $|f(x)-f(z)|=0$ by the mean value theorem. There is an $epsilon$ such that if $x,z$ are not in the same ball, then $|x-z|geqepsilon$. Then $|f(x)-f(z)|leq||f(A)||=||f(A)||frac1epsilon^2|x-z|^2$, where $|f(A)|$ is the diameter of $f(A)$. So setting $B=|f(A)|frac1epsilon^2$ gives the result.
Does this proof look correct?
real-analysis proof-verification
edited Aug 12 at 1:57
Nate Eldredge
59.7k577161
59.7k577161
asked Aug 12 at 0:42
Tom Chalmer
271212
271212
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
No, I don't agree with your proof. You can cover $A$ by balls as you say, but in general $A$ will be properly contained in the balls. So although the ball $B_delta(x_j)$ is convex, the set $B_delta(x_j) cap A$ need not be, nor even connected. Hence you cannot conclude that $f$ is constant on $B_delta(x_j) cap A$.
In fact, I think this claim is false. Take $n=1$ and start with the function $f(x) = |x|^3/2$, which is differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Consider the sequence $x_n = 1/n$ and choose neighborhoods $U_n$ of the $x_n$ which are disjoint. Now modify $f$ inside each $U_n$ so that it is constant on a smaller neighborhood of $x_n$, without changing the value of $f(x_n) = |x_n|^3/2$. We can do this in such a way that $|f(x)| le 2|x|^3/2$ everywhere, and this will imply that $f$ is still differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Now $f'$ vanishes on the set $A = x_1, x_2, x_3, dots, 0$ which is compact, but $f(x) = |x|^3/2$ for every $x in A$, and this is not 2-Holder continuous.
Does this modification work? If $f$ is differentiable on $A$, there is an open set $U$ such that $f$ is differentiable on $U$ and $Asubseteq U$. Chose the balls such that the closure of each ball is contained inside $U$. Then I believe you can apply the mean value theorem to each ball $B_delta(x_j)$, and so in particular, each $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 2:40
1
@TomChalmer: Just because $f$ is differentiable at $x$, doesn't mean it is differentiable on a neighborhood of $x$. Even if it is, it certainly doesn't imply that the derivative vanishes on any neighborhood of $x$ (think about a function like $f(x)=x^2$, where the derivative is $0$ at $0$ but nonzero at points close to 0.)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 2:46
I see what you mean, but isn't this commonly what people mean by a function being differentiable on an arbitrary subset of $mathbbR^n$ (that it's differentiable on a larger open set)? There might be some ambiguity in what is meant by $f$ being differentiable on $A$
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 3:00
1
@TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:02
1
I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
No, I don't agree with your proof. You can cover $A$ by balls as you say, but in general $A$ will be properly contained in the balls. So although the ball $B_delta(x_j)$ is convex, the set $B_delta(x_j) cap A$ need not be, nor even connected. Hence you cannot conclude that $f$ is constant on $B_delta(x_j) cap A$.
In fact, I think this claim is false. Take $n=1$ and start with the function $f(x) = |x|^3/2$, which is differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Consider the sequence $x_n = 1/n$ and choose neighborhoods $U_n$ of the $x_n$ which are disjoint. Now modify $f$ inside each $U_n$ so that it is constant on a smaller neighborhood of $x_n$, without changing the value of $f(x_n) = |x_n|^3/2$. We can do this in such a way that $|f(x)| le 2|x|^3/2$ everywhere, and this will imply that $f$ is still differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Now $f'$ vanishes on the set $A = x_1, x_2, x_3, dots, 0$ which is compact, but $f(x) = |x|^3/2$ for every $x in A$, and this is not 2-Holder continuous.
Does this modification work? If $f$ is differentiable on $A$, there is an open set $U$ such that $f$ is differentiable on $U$ and $Asubseteq U$. Chose the balls such that the closure of each ball is contained inside $U$. Then I believe you can apply the mean value theorem to each ball $B_delta(x_j)$, and so in particular, each $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 2:40
1
@TomChalmer: Just because $f$ is differentiable at $x$, doesn't mean it is differentiable on a neighborhood of $x$. Even if it is, it certainly doesn't imply that the derivative vanishes on any neighborhood of $x$ (think about a function like $f(x)=x^2$, where the derivative is $0$ at $0$ but nonzero at points close to 0.)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 2:46
I see what you mean, but isn't this commonly what people mean by a function being differentiable on an arbitrary subset of $mathbbR^n$ (that it's differentiable on a larger open set)? There might be some ambiguity in what is meant by $f$ being differentiable on $A$
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 3:00
1
@TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:02
1
I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
No, I don't agree with your proof. You can cover $A$ by balls as you say, but in general $A$ will be properly contained in the balls. So although the ball $B_delta(x_j)$ is convex, the set $B_delta(x_j) cap A$ need not be, nor even connected. Hence you cannot conclude that $f$ is constant on $B_delta(x_j) cap A$.
In fact, I think this claim is false. Take $n=1$ and start with the function $f(x) = |x|^3/2$, which is differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Consider the sequence $x_n = 1/n$ and choose neighborhoods $U_n$ of the $x_n$ which are disjoint. Now modify $f$ inside each $U_n$ so that it is constant on a smaller neighborhood of $x_n$, without changing the value of $f(x_n) = |x_n|^3/2$. We can do this in such a way that $|f(x)| le 2|x|^3/2$ everywhere, and this will imply that $f$ is still differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Now $f'$ vanishes on the set $A = x_1, x_2, x_3, dots, 0$ which is compact, but $f(x) = |x|^3/2$ for every $x in A$, and this is not 2-Holder continuous.
Does this modification work? If $f$ is differentiable on $A$, there is an open set $U$ such that $f$ is differentiable on $U$ and $Asubseteq U$. Chose the balls such that the closure of each ball is contained inside $U$. Then I believe you can apply the mean value theorem to each ball $B_delta(x_j)$, and so in particular, each $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 2:40
1
@TomChalmer: Just because $f$ is differentiable at $x$, doesn't mean it is differentiable on a neighborhood of $x$. Even if it is, it certainly doesn't imply that the derivative vanishes on any neighborhood of $x$ (think about a function like $f(x)=x^2$, where the derivative is $0$ at $0$ but nonzero at points close to 0.)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 2:46
I see what you mean, but isn't this commonly what people mean by a function being differentiable on an arbitrary subset of $mathbbR^n$ (that it's differentiable on a larger open set)? There might be some ambiguity in what is meant by $f$ being differentiable on $A$
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 3:00
1
@TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:02
1
I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
No, I don't agree with your proof. You can cover $A$ by balls as you say, but in general $A$ will be properly contained in the balls. So although the ball $B_delta(x_j)$ is convex, the set $B_delta(x_j) cap A$ need not be, nor even connected. Hence you cannot conclude that $f$ is constant on $B_delta(x_j) cap A$.
In fact, I think this claim is false. Take $n=1$ and start with the function $f(x) = |x|^3/2$, which is differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Consider the sequence $x_n = 1/n$ and choose neighborhoods $U_n$ of the $x_n$ which are disjoint. Now modify $f$ inside each $U_n$ so that it is constant on a smaller neighborhood of $x_n$, without changing the value of $f(x_n) = |x_n|^3/2$. We can do this in such a way that $|f(x)| le 2|x|^3/2$ everywhere, and this will imply that $f$ is still differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Now $f'$ vanishes on the set $A = x_1, x_2, x_3, dots, 0$ which is compact, but $f(x) = |x|^3/2$ for every $x in A$, and this is not 2-Holder continuous.
No, I don't agree with your proof. You can cover $A$ by balls as you say, but in general $A$ will be properly contained in the balls. So although the ball $B_delta(x_j)$ is convex, the set $B_delta(x_j) cap A$ need not be, nor even connected. Hence you cannot conclude that $f$ is constant on $B_delta(x_j) cap A$.
In fact, I think this claim is false. Take $n=1$ and start with the function $f(x) = |x|^3/2$, which is differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Consider the sequence $x_n = 1/n$ and choose neighborhoods $U_n$ of the $x_n$ which are disjoint. Now modify $f$ inside each $U_n$ so that it is constant on a smaller neighborhood of $x_n$, without changing the value of $f(x_n) = |x_n|^3/2$. We can do this in such a way that $|f(x)| le 2|x|^3/2$ everywhere, and this will imply that $f$ is still differentiable at $x=0$ with $f'(0)=0$. Now $f'$ vanishes on the set $A = x_1, x_2, x_3, dots, 0$ which is compact, but $f(x) = |x|^3/2$ for every $x in A$, and this is not 2-Holder continuous.
edited Aug 12 at 2:43
answered Aug 12 at 1:54
Nate Eldredge
59.7k577161
59.7k577161
Does this modification work? If $f$ is differentiable on $A$, there is an open set $U$ such that $f$ is differentiable on $U$ and $Asubseteq U$. Chose the balls such that the closure of each ball is contained inside $U$. Then I believe you can apply the mean value theorem to each ball $B_delta(x_j)$, and so in particular, each $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 2:40
1
@TomChalmer: Just because $f$ is differentiable at $x$, doesn't mean it is differentiable on a neighborhood of $x$. Even if it is, it certainly doesn't imply that the derivative vanishes on any neighborhood of $x$ (think about a function like $f(x)=x^2$, where the derivative is $0$ at $0$ but nonzero at points close to 0.)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 2:46
I see what you mean, but isn't this commonly what people mean by a function being differentiable on an arbitrary subset of $mathbbR^n$ (that it's differentiable on a larger open set)? There might be some ambiguity in what is meant by $f$ being differentiable on $A$
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 3:00
1
@TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:02
1
I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
Does this modification work? If $f$ is differentiable on $A$, there is an open set $U$ such that $f$ is differentiable on $U$ and $Asubseteq U$. Chose the balls such that the closure of each ball is contained inside $U$. Then I believe you can apply the mean value theorem to each ball $B_delta(x_j)$, and so in particular, each $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 2:40
1
@TomChalmer: Just because $f$ is differentiable at $x$, doesn't mean it is differentiable on a neighborhood of $x$. Even if it is, it certainly doesn't imply that the derivative vanishes on any neighborhood of $x$ (think about a function like $f(x)=x^2$, where the derivative is $0$ at $0$ but nonzero at points close to 0.)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 2:46
I see what you mean, but isn't this commonly what people mean by a function being differentiable on an arbitrary subset of $mathbbR^n$ (that it's differentiable on a larger open set)? There might be some ambiguity in what is meant by $f$ being differentiable on $A$
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 3:00
1
@TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:02
1
I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:03
Does this modification work? If $f$ is differentiable on $A$, there is an open set $U$ such that $f$ is differentiable on $U$ and $Asubseteq U$. Chose the balls such that the closure of each ball is contained inside $U$. Then I believe you can apply the mean value theorem to each ball $B_delta(x_j)$, and so in particular, each $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 2:40
Does this modification work? If $f$ is differentiable on $A$, there is an open set $U$ such that $f$ is differentiable on $U$ and $Asubseteq U$. Chose the balls such that the closure of each ball is contained inside $U$. Then I believe you can apply the mean value theorem to each ball $B_delta(x_j)$, and so in particular, each $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 2:40
1
1
@TomChalmer: Just because $f$ is differentiable at $x$, doesn't mean it is differentiable on a neighborhood of $x$. Even if it is, it certainly doesn't imply that the derivative vanishes on any neighborhood of $x$ (think about a function like $f(x)=x^2$, where the derivative is $0$ at $0$ but nonzero at points close to 0.)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 2:46
@TomChalmer: Just because $f$ is differentiable at $x$, doesn't mean it is differentiable on a neighborhood of $x$. Even if it is, it certainly doesn't imply that the derivative vanishes on any neighborhood of $x$ (think about a function like $f(x)=x^2$, where the derivative is $0$ at $0$ but nonzero at points close to 0.)
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 2:46
I see what you mean, but isn't this commonly what people mean by a function being differentiable on an arbitrary subset of $mathbbR^n$ (that it's differentiable on a larger open set)? There might be some ambiguity in what is meant by $f$ being differentiable on $A$
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 3:00
I see what you mean, but isn't this commonly what people mean by a function being differentiable on an arbitrary subset of $mathbbR^n$ (that it's differentiable on a larger open set)? There might be some ambiguity in what is meant by $f$ being differentiable on $A$
â Tom Chalmer
Aug 12 at 3:00
1
1
@TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:02
@TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:02
1
1
I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:03
I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
â Nate Eldredge
Aug 12 at 3:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2879877%2fnabla-f-0-on-compact-set-implies-f-is-2-holder-continuous%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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