$nabla f=0$ on compact set $implies f$ is $2-Holder$ continuous

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1













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?







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite
    1













    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?







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1






      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?







      share|cite|improve this question















      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?









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 12 at 1:57









      Nate Eldredge

      59.7k577161




      59.7k577161










      asked Aug 12 at 0:42









      Tom Chalmer

      271212




      271212




















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • 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 $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
            – 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.)
            – 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 $A$
            – Tom Chalmer
            Aug 12 at 3:00







          • 1




            @TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
            – Nate Eldredge
            Aug 12 at 3:02






          • 1




            I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
            – Nate Eldredge
            Aug 12 at 3:03











          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',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          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%2f2879877%2fnabla-f-0-on-compact-set-implies-f-is-2-holder-continuous%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • 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 $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
            – 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.)
            – 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 $A$
            – Tom Chalmer
            Aug 12 at 3:00







          • 1




            @TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
            – Nate Eldredge
            Aug 12 at 3:02






          • 1




            I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
            – Nate Eldredge
            Aug 12 at 3:03















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • 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 $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
            – 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.)
            – 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 $A$
            – Tom Chalmer
            Aug 12 at 3:00







          • 1




            @TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
            – Nate Eldredge
            Aug 12 at 3:02






          • 1




            I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
            – Nate Eldredge
            Aug 12 at 3:03













          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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 $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
            – 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.)
            – 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 $A$
            – Tom Chalmer
            Aug 12 at 3:00







          • 1




            @TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
            – Nate Eldredge
            Aug 12 at 3:02






          • 1




            I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
            – 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 $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
            – 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.)
            – 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 $A$
            – Tom Chalmer
            Aug 12 at 3:00







          • 1




            @TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
            – Nate Eldredge
            Aug 12 at 3:02






          • 1




            I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
            – 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 $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
          – 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 $B_delta(x_j)cap A$?
          – 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.)
          – 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.)
          – 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 $A$
          – 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 $A$
          – Tom Chalmer
          Aug 12 at 3:00





          1




          1




          @TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
          – Nate Eldredge
          Aug 12 at 3:02




          @TomChalmer: No, that wouldn't be my interpretation.
          – 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.
          – Nate Eldredge
          Aug 12 at 3:03





          I think the counterexample I suggested can be $C^1$, so that doesn't even help.
          – Nate Eldredge
          Aug 12 at 3:03













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Carbon dioxide

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?