A continuous function $f : (0, 1)toBbb R$ and a Cauchy sequence $x_n$ such that $f(x_n)$ is not a Cauchy sequence

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











up vote
0
down vote

favorite
1













Provide an example or show that it is impossible. A continuous function $f : (0, 1) → R$ and a Cauchy sequence $(x_n)$ such that $f(x_n)$ is not a Cauchy sequence.




I saw several examples that shows that it is possible. However, I want to understand why. It seems to me that the statement contradicts the definition of continuity of a function.



Say $x_n$ is Cauchy then $|x_n-x_n-1| < sigma$, if $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy then $|f(x_n)-f(x_n-1)| ge epsilon$, but that says that $f(x)$ is not convergent.



What is wrong with the argument?







share|cite|improve this question






















  • $f(x_n)$ need not converge just because $x_n$ converges (it is important to note that $1$ is not in the domain, so you could have $x_nto1$ and the function $f$ do many different things that cause divergence).
    – Clayton
    Aug 21 at 12:39











  • For example it can be unbounded.
    – amsmath
    Aug 21 at 12:39










  • Think about a strictly monotone increasing bijection from $(0,1)$ to $mathbbR$(something like a $x^3$ shape maybe). This function is unbounded and for a sequence converging towards $1$ the function values diverge towards infinity.
    – zzuussee
    Aug 21 at 12:40















up vote
0
down vote

favorite
1













Provide an example or show that it is impossible. A continuous function $f : (0, 1) → R$ and a Cauchy sequence $(x_n)$ such that $f(x_n)$ is not a Cauchy sequence.




I saw several examples that shows that it is possible. However, I want to understand why. It seems to me that the statement contradicts the definition of continuity of a function.



Say $x_n$ is Cauchy then $|x_n-x_n-1| < sigma$, if $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy then $|f(x_n)-f(x_n-1)| ge epsilon$, but that says that $f(x)$ is not convergent.



What is wrong with the argument?







share|cite|improve this question






















  • $f(x_n)$ need not converge just because $x_n$ converges (it is important to note that $1$ is not in the domain, so you could have $x_nto1$ and the function $f$ do many different things that cause divergence).
    – Clayton
    Aug 21 at 12:39











  • For example it can be unbounded.
    – amsmath
    Aug 21 at 12:39










  • Think about a strictly monotone increasing bijection from $(0,1)$ to $mathbbR$(something like a $x^3$ shape maybe). This function is unbounded and for a sequence converging towards $1$ the function values diverge towards infinity.
    – zzuussee
    Aug 21 at 12:40













up vote
0
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
0
down vote

favorite
1






1






Provide an example or show that it is impossible. A continuous function $f : (0, 1) → R$ and a Cauchy sequence $(x_n)$ such that $f(x_n)$ is not a Cauchy sequence.




I saw several examples that shows that it is possible. However, I want to understand why. It seems to me that the statement contradicts the definition of continuity of a function.



Say $x_n$ is Cauchy then $|x_n-x_n-1| < sigma$, if $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy then $|f(x_n)-f(x_n-1)| ge epsilon$, but that says that $f(x)$ is not convergent.



What is wrong with the argument?







share|cite|improve this question















Provide an example or show that it is impossible. A continuous function $f : (0, 1) → R$ and a Cauchy sequence $(x_n)$ such that $f(x_n)$ is not a Cauchy sequence.




I saw several examples that shows that it is possible. However, I want to understand why. It seems to me that the statement contradicts the definition of continuity of a function.



Say $x_n$ is Cauchy then $|x_n-x_n-1| < sigma$, if $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy then $|f(x_n)-f(x_n-1)| ge epsilon$, but that says that $f(x)$ is not convergent.



What is wrong with the argument?









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 21 at 12:37









Clayton

18.3k22883




18.3k22883










asked Aug 21 at 12:35









Sargis Iskandaryan

48212




48212











  • $f(x_n)$ need not converge just because $x_n$ converges (it is important to note that $1$ is not in the domain, so you could have $x_nto1$ and the function $f$ do many different things that cause divergence).
    – Clayton
    Aug 21 at 12:39











  • For example it can be unbounded.
    – amsmath
    Aug 21 at 12:39










  • Think about a strictly monotone increasing bijection from $(0,1)$ to $mathbbR$(something like a $x^3$ shape maybe). This function is unbounded and for a sequence converging towards $1$ the function values diverge towards infinity.
    – zzuussee
    Aug 21 at 12:40

















  • $f(x_n)$ need not converge just because $x_n$ converges (it is important to note that $1$ is not in the domain, so you could have $x_nto1$ and the function $f$ do many different things that cause divergence).
    – Clayton
    Aug 21 at 12:39











  • For example it can be unbounded.
    – amsmath
    Aug 21 at 12:39










  • Think about a strictly monotone increasing bijection from $(0,1)$ to $mathbbR$(something like a $x^3$ shape maybe). This function is unbounded and for a sequence converging towards $1$ the function values diverge towards infinity.
    – zzuussee
    Aug 21 at 12:40
















$f(x_n)$ need not converge just because $x_n$ converges (it is important to note that $1$ is not in the domain, so you could have $x_nto1$ and the function $f$ do many different things that cause divergence).
– Clayton
Aug 21 at 12:39





$f(x_n)$ need not converge just because $x_n$ converges (it is important to note that $1$ is not in the domain, so you could have $x_nto1$ and the function $f$ do many different things that cause divergence).
– Clayton
Aug 21 at 12:39













For example it can be unbounded.
– amsmath
Aug 21 at 12:39




For example it can be unbounded.
– amsmath
Aug 21 at 12:39












Think about a strictly monotone increasing bijection from $(0,1)$ to $mathbbR$(something like a $x^3$ shape maybe). This function is unbounded and for a sequence converging towards $1$ the function values diverge towards infinity.
– zzuussee
Aug 21 at 12:40





Think about a strictly monotone increasing bijection from $(0,1)$ to $mathbbR$(something like a $x^3$ shape maybe). This function is unbounded and for a sequence converging towards $1$ the function values diverge towards infinity.
– zzuussee
Aug 21 at 12:40











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










The issue is the following : $f$ continuous, means that if $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then so is $f(x_n)$ , converging to $f(x)$.



Note that every convergent sequence is Cauchy. However, the converse is true(in $mathbb R$), only in a closed set. Note that $(0,1)$ is not a closed set. Therefore, there are Cauchy sequences in $(0,1)$ that are not convergent, and the problem is that the continuity of $f$ does not imply anything at all, since it comes into play only for convergent sequences.



The best example of such a function is $f(x) = frac 1x$ on $(0,1)$ , with the sequence $frac 1n$ : clearly, $x_n$ is Cauchy while $f(x_n) = n$ is not. What is happening here, is that $x_n$ is not convergent, so the continuity of $f$ does not help.




The "theory" part of things is this :



Suppose $f$ is continuous. Now, let $x_n$ be any Cauchy sequence in $(0,1)$. Note that Cauchy sequences in a subset of $mathbb R$ converge to a point in the closure of that set, in this case $(0,1)$. Therefore, two things can happen :



  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to $x$, where $x in (0,1)$. Then by the definition of continuity, since $x_n$ is a convergent sequence, we have that $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.


But let us look more deeper, and see "why". We are actually using continuity at the point $x$ for this, because : given $epsilon > 0$, first we know there exists $delta > 0$ such that $|y - x| < delta$ implies $|f(y) - f(x)| < delta$. Now we can find $N$ such that $$n > N implies |x_n - x| < delta implies |f(x_n) - f(x)| < epsilon$$, so $f(x_n) to f(x)$ by the definition of convergence of a sequence of points.




  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to either $0$ or $1$. Then $x_n$ is only Cauchy, not convergent in $(0,1)$. By the previous post, we saw that $f(x_n)$, if it were a convergent sequence, must go to $f(x)$, and the proof depended crucially on continuity at the point $x$, which was the limit of the $x_n$. But here, the limit $x$ does not belong to the set $(0,1)$, and therefore $f$ is not even defined on $x$. If it were possible to define $f$ there, we could speak of extension, which could be continuous if $f$ was continuous at $x$.


Now for the more subtler point : continuity in $(0,1)$, is equivalent to continuity at each point of $(0,1)$. That is, continuity in $(0,1)$ can be written as follows :




Given any point $x in (0,1)$, and given any $epsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta > 0$, depending on $x$ and $epsilon$, such that $|y-x| < delta implies |f(y) - f(x)| < epsilon$.




To put this in plain English : if we fix a point, then if another point is sufficiently close to that point, the function values of the two points are sufficiently close.



Now, let us write down what it means for $f$ to take Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences : it means that if a sequence of points get eventually close to each other, so must the function values of the points. There is no fixing of a point here, rather a sequence is fixed,so the definition of pointwise continuity cannot be used.



Why would we intuitively think this is true if $f$ is continuous? Let's put it this way : if points are getting close, then fixing any two of them which are "sufficiently" close to each other, their function values are "sufficiently" close, by using continuity at either point.




Alas, this is not true. Why? Because, given $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$ depends on $x$, that is why. Suppose I fix an $epsilon > 0$ for trying to show that $f(x_n)$ is Cauchy. I do know that there exists $N$ such that $m,n > N implies |x_m - x_n| < epsilon$, because $x_n$ is Cauchy. Now, let us fix $P,Q > N$, and consider the points $x_P$ and $x_Q$. By continuity at $x_P$, there is $delta_P > 0$ depending on $x_P$ such that if $|y - x_P| < delta_P$ then $|f(y) - f(x_P)| < epsilon$. Similarly $delta_Q$ for $x_Q$.



The inevitable question arises : what if $|x_P - x_Q|$ is greater than both $delta_P$ and $delta_Q$? Then, $|f(x_Q) - f(x_P)|$ cannot be controlled, because we require the points to be close enough to apply the continuity criterion.



Thus, the complete answer to the question is this :




Fix $epsilon > 0$. Even if the points $x_n$ are getting closer and closer to each other, the $delta$ corresponding to each point of the sequence and the given $epsilon$, could possibly reduce more rapidly than the distances between the points. Thus, even though the distances between points is decreasing, for example $|x_P - x_Q|$ is really small, yet since $|x_P - x_Q| > delta_P$ and $delta_Q$, neither of these points fall into the other's "range of continuity" (i.e where the definition of "continuity at a point" can applied for that point) for the given $epsilon$, and since continuity says nothing about what happens if $|x-y| > delta$, this allows the function to behave unwantedly at these points i.e. $|f(x_P) - f(x_Q)|$ may be very large even though $|x_P - x_Q|$ is not.




Back to our example : what serves as $delta_x$ for a point $x$? See that $ left|frac1y - frac 1xright| = frac$, so given $epsilon > 0$ , you can check that $delta = fracepsilon x^21 + epsilon x$ does the job (and no higher $delta_x$ does the job at each $x$). Now, $|frac 1n - frac 1m| = fracmn$, and $delta_frac 1l = fracepsilonl(l+epsilon)$. So, you can check that if $epsilon = frac 12$ then $delta _frac 1n,delta_frac 1m$ both fall short of $|frac 1n -frac 1m|$. So here, for a fixed $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$s are decreasing much faster than $frac 1n - frac 1m$, and continuity of $f$ would help only if $frac 1n - frac 1m$ were small enough to lie in one of the $delta$ neighbourhoods.




How do we tackle this situation i.e. what condition do we put on $f$ so that $x_n$ Cauchy implies $f(x_n)$ Cauchy? There are a few ways around it.



  • If $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then even though $f(x_n)$ and $f(x_m)$ cannot directly be shown to be close to each other, we can show they are both close to $f(x)$ via continuity, and then the triangle inequality shows they are close to each other. This is the condition that the domain be closed, or that the domain of $f$ be continuously extendable to a closed domain.


  • Don't let the $delta$s fall so fast. Maybe, they should depend only on $epsilon$. Such a function is called a uniformly continuous function. For example, $f(x) = x$ on $(0,1)$ is uniformly continuous. (Can you find the $delta$ for each $epsilon$? It should not be difficult!)


This should be a comprehensive discussion on the desired topic.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • One more time... $(x_n) = 1/n$ is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval $(0,1)$ => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that $f(x)$ is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:52










  • So you want to see the "theory" : that is what I thought I would indicate with the first two paragraphs. Nevertheless, let me edit the answer further and get back.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 13:02










  • I request you to see the explanation now @SargisIskandaryan
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 14:44

















up vote
2
down vote













In complete metric spaces, Cauchy sequences are the same thing as convergent sequences, so in complete spaces, the statement contradicts the definition of continuity.



However, in your example, the space $(0,1)$ that your function is defined on is not complete. Hence there are Cauchy sequences that do not converge to a limit in $(0,1)$, for example, $x_n=frac1n$. [And then choosing $f(x)=frac1x$ maps this into the non-Cauchy sequence $y_n=n$).






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • The same thing as with the previous answer. (xn)=1/n is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval (0,1) => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that f(x) is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:59










  • @SargisIskandaryan -- Do you know the definition of a Cauchy sequence? $$forallepsilon>0,exists ninmathbb N:forall j>n,forall k>n,|x_j-x_k|<epsilon$$ With $x_n=1/n$ and $f(x_n)=n$, successive terms are always $1$ apart, so for $epsilon<1$, there is no $n$ that makes $|x_n+1-x_n|<epsilon$. Thus the sequence $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy.
    – mr_e_man
    Aug 21 at 13:30











  • That the interval is not closed does not imply "$f(x)$ is not Cauchy". What is true is that $(x_n)$ Cauchy does not imply $(f(x_n))$ Cauchy for continuous $f$ (as shown by examples). You need extra conditions if you want Cauchy sequences to be mapped to Cauchy sequences: either your space needs to be complete, or the function $f$ needs to be uniformly continuous.
    – Kusma
    Aug 21 at 13:39










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%2f2889813%2fa-continuous-function-f-0-1-to-bbb-r-and-a-cauchy-sequence-x-n-such-tha%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote



accepted










The issue is the following : $f$ continuous, means that if $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then so is $f(x_n)$ , converging to $f(x)$.



Note that every convergent sequence is Cauchy. However, the converse is true(in $mathbb R$), only in a closed set. Note that $(0,1)$ is not a closed set. Therefore, there are Cauchy sequences in $(0,1)$ that are not convergent, and the problem is that the continuity of $f$ does not imply anything at all, since it comes into play only for convergent sequences.



The best example of such a function is $f(x) = frac 1x$ on $(0,1)$ , with the sequence $frac 1n$ : clearly, $x_n$ is Cauchy while $f(x_n) = n$ is not. What is happening here, is that $x_n$ is not convergent, so the continuity of $f$ does not help.




The "theory" part of things is this :



Suppose $f$ is continuous. Now, let $x_n$ be any Cauchy sequence in $(0,1)$. Note that Cauchy sequences in a subset of $mathbb R$ converge to a point in the closure of that set, in this case $(0,1)$. Therefore, two things can happen :



  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to $x$, where $x in (0,1)$. Then by the definition of continuity, since $x_n$ is a convergent sequence, we have that $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.


But let us look more deeper, and see "why". We are actually using continuity at the point $x$ for this, because : given $epsilon > 0$, first we know there exists $delta > 0$ such that $|y - x| < delta$ implies $|f(y) - f(x)| < delta$. Now we can find $N$ such that $$n > N implies |x_n - x| < delta implies |f(x_n) - f(x)| < epsilon$$, so $f(x_n) to f(x)$ by the definition of convergence of a sequence of points.




  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to either $0$ or $1$. Then $x_n$ is only Cauchy, not convergent in $(0,1)$. By the previous post, we saw that $f(x_n)$, if it were a convergent sequence, must go to $f(x)$, and the proof depended crucially on continuity at the point $x$, which was the limit of the $x_n$. But here, the limit $x$ does not belong to the set $(0,1)$, and therefore $f$ is not even defined on $x$. If it were possible to define $f$ there, we could speak of extension, which could be continuous if $f$ was continuous at $x$.


Now for the more subtler point : continuity in $(0,1)$, is equivalent to continuity at each point of $(0,1)$. That is, continuity in $(0,1)$ can be written as follows :




Given any point $x in (0,1)$, and given any $epsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta > 0$, depending on $x$ and $epsilon$, such that $|y-x| < delta implies |f(y) - f(x)| < epsilon$.




To put this in plain English : if we fix a point, then if another point is sufficiently close to that point, the function values of the two points are sufficiently close.



Now, let us write down what it means for $f$ to take Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences : it means that if a sequence of points get eventually close to each other, so must the function values of the points. There is no fixing of a point here, rather a sequence is fixed,so the definition of pointwise continuity cannot be used.



Why would we intuitively think this is true if $f$ is continuous? Let's put it this way : if points are getting close, then fixing any two of them which are "sufficiently" close to each other, their function values are "sufficiently" close, by using continuity at either point.




Alas, this is not true. Why? Because, given $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$ depends on $x$, that is why. Suppose I fix an $epsilon > 0$ for trying to show that $f(x_n)$ is Cauchy. I do know that there exists $N$ such that $m,n > N implies |x_m - x_n| < epsilon$, because $x_n$ is Cauchy. Now, let us fix $P,Q > N$, and consider the points $x_P$ and $x_Q$. By continuity at $x_P$, there is $delta_P > 0$ depending on $x_P$ such that if $|y - x_P| < delta_P$ then $|f(y) - f(x_P)| < epsilon$. Similarly $delta_Q$ for $x_Q$.



The inevitable question arises : what if $|x_P - x_Q|$ is greater than both $delta_P$ and $delta_Q$? Then, $|f(x_Q) - f(x_P)|$ cannot be controlled, because we require the points to be close enough to apply the continuity criterion.



Thus, the complete answer to the question is this :




Fix $epsilon > 0$. Even if the points $x_n$ are getting closer and closer to each other, the $delta$ corresponding to each point of the sequence and the given $epsilon$, could possibly reduce more rapidly than the distances between the points. Thus, even though the distances between points is decreasing, for example $|x_P - x_Q|$ is really small, yet since $|x_P - x_Q| > delta_P$ and $delta_Q$, neither of these points fall into the other's "range of continuity" (i.e where the definition of "continuity at a point" can applied for that point) for the given $epsilon$, and since continuity says nothing about what happens if $|x-y| > delta$, this allows the function to behave unwantedly at these points i.e. $|f(x_P) - f(x_Q)|$ may be very large even though $|x_P - x_Q|$ is not.




Back to our example : what serves as $delta_x$ for a point $x$? See that $ left|frac1y - frac 1xright| = frac$, so given $epsilon > 0$ , you can check that $delta = fracepsilon x^21 + epsilon x$ does the job (and no higher $delta_x$ does the job at each $x$). Now, $|frac 1n - frac 1m| = fracmn$, and $delta_frac 1l = fracepsilonl(l+epsilon)$. So, you can check that if $epsilon = frac 12$ then $delta _frac 1n,delta_frac 1m$ both fall short of $|frac 1n -frac 1m|$. So here, for a fixed $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$s are decreasing much faster than $frac 1n - frac 1m$, and continuity of $f$ would help only if $frac 1n - frac 1m$ were small enough to lie in one of the $delta$ neighbourhoods.




How do we tackle this situation i.e. what condition do we put on $f$ so that $x_n$ Cauchy implies $f(x_n)$ Cauchy? There are a few ways around it.



  • If $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then even though $f(x_n)$ and $f(x_m)$ cannot directly be shown to be close to each other, we can show they are both close to $f(x)$ via continuity, and then the triangle inequality shows they are close to each other. This is the condition that the domain be closed, or that the domain of $f$ be continuously extendable to a closed domain.


  • Don't let the $delta$s fall so fast. Maybe, they should depend only on $epsilon$. Such a function is called a uniformly continuous function. For example, $f(x) = x$ on $(0,1)$ is uniformly continuous. (Can you find the $delta$ for each $epsilon$? It should not be difficult!)


This should be a comprehensive discussion on the desired topic.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • One more time... $(x_n) = 1/n$ is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval $(0,1)$ => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that $f(x)$ is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:52










  • So you want to see the "theory" : that is what I thought I would indicate with the first two paragraphs. Nevertheless, let me edit the answer further and get back.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 13:02










  • I request you to see the explanation now @SargisIskandaryan
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 14:44














up vote
2
down vote



accepted










The issue is the following : $f$ continuous, means that if $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then so is $f(x_n)$ , converging to $f(x)$.



Note that every convergent sequence is Cauchy. However, the converse is true(in $mathbb R$), only in a closed set. Note that $(0,1)$ is not a closed set. Therefore, there are Cauchy sequences in $(0,1)$ that are not convergent, and the problem is that the continuity of $f$ does not imply anything at all, since it comes into play only for convergent sequences.



The best example of such a function is $f(x) = frac 1x$ on $(0,1)$ , with the sequence $frac 1n$ : clearly, $x_n$ is Cauchy while $f(x_n) = n$ is not. What is happening here, is that $x_n$ is not convergent, so the continuity of $f$ does not help.




The "theory" part of things is this :



Suppose $f$ is continuous. Now, let $x_n$ be any Cauchy sequence in $(0,1)$. Note that Cauchy sequences in a subset of $mathbb R$ converge to a point in the closure of that set, in this case $(0,1)$. Therefore, two things can happen :



  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to $x$, where $x in (0,1)$. Then by the definition of continuity, since $x_n$ is a convergent sequence, we have that $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.


But let us look more deeper, and see "why". We are actually using continuity at the point $x$ for this, because : given $epsilon > 0$, first we know there exists $delta > 0$ such that $|y - x| < delta$ implies $|f(y) - f(x)| < delta$. Now we can find $N$ such that $$n > N implies |x_n - x| < delta implies |f(x_n) - f(x)| < epsilon$$, so $f(x_n) to f(x)$ by the definition of convergence of a sequence of points.




  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to either $0$ or $1$. Then $x_n$ is only Cauchy, not convergent in $(0,1)$. By the previous post, we saw that $f(x_n)$, if it were a convergent sequence, must go to $f(x)$, and the proof depended crucially on continuity at the point $x$, which was the limit of the $x_n$. But here, the limit $x$ does not belong to the set $(0,1)$, and therefore $f$ is not even defined on $x$. If it were possible to define $f$ there, we could speak of extension, which could be continuous if $f$ was continuous at $x$.


Now for the more subtler point : continuity in $(0,1)$, is equivalent to continuity at each point of $(0,1)$. That is, continuity in $(0,1)$ can be written as follows :




Given any point $x in (0,1)$, and given any $epsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta > 0$, depending on $x$ and $epsilon$, such that $|y-x| < delta implies |f(y) - f(x)| < epsilon$.




To put this in plain English : if we fix a point, then if another point is sufficiently close to that point, the function values of the two points are sufficiently close.



Now, let us write down what it means for $f$ to take Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences : it means that if a sequence of points get eventually close to each other, so must the function values of the points. There is no fixing of a point here, rather a sequence is fixed,so the definition of pointwise continuity cannot be used.



Why would we intuitively think this is true if $f$ is continuous? Let's put it this way : if points are getting close, then fixing any two of them which are "sufficiently" close to each other, their function values are "sufficiently" close, by using continuity at either point.




Alas, this is not true. Why? Because, given $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$ depends on $x$, that is why. Suppose I fix an $epsilon > 0$ for trying to show that $f(x_n)$ is Cauchy. I do know that there exists $N$ such that $m,n > N implies |x_m - x_n| < epsilon$, because $x_n$ is Cauchy. Now, let us fix $P,Q > N$, and consider the points $x_P$ and $x_Q$. By continuity at $x_P$, there is $delta_P > 0$ depending on $x_P$ such that if $|y - x_P| < delta_P$ then $|f(y) - f(x_P)| < epsilon$. Similarly $delta_Q$ for $x_Q$.



The inevitable question arises : what if $|x_P - x_Q|$ is greater than both $delta_P$ and $delta_Q$? Then, $|f(x_Q) - f(x_P)|$ cannot be controlled, because we require the points to be close enough to apply the continuity criterion.



Thus, the complete answer to the question is this :




Fix $epsilon > 0$. Even if the points $x_n$ are getting closer and closer to each other, the $delta$ corresponding to each point of the sequence and the given $epsilon$, could possibly reduce more rapidly than the distances between the points. Thus, even though the distances between points is decreasing, for example $|x_P - x_Q|$ is really small, yet since $|x_P - x_Q| > delta_P$ and $delta_Q$, neither of these points fall into the other's "range of continuity" (i.e where the definition of "continuity at a point" can applied for that point) for the given $epsilon$, and since continuity says nothing about what happens if $|x-y| > delta$, this allows the function to behave unwantedly at these points i.e. $|f(x_P) - f(x_Q)|$ may be very large even though $|x_P - x_Q|$ is not.




Back to our example : what serves as $delta_x$ for a point $x$? See that $ left|frac1y - frac 1xright| = frac$, so given $epsilon > 0$ , you can check that $delta = fracepsilon x^21 + epsilon x$ does the job (and no higher $delta_x$ does the job at each $x$). Now, $|frac 1n - frac 1m| = fracmn$, and $delta_frac 1l = fracepsilonl(l+epsilon)$. So, you can check that if $epsilon = frac 12$ then $delta _frac 1n,delta_frac 1m$ both fall short of $|frac 1n -frac 1m|$. So here, for a fixed $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$s are decreasing much faster than $frac 1n - frac 1m$, and continuity of $f$ would help only if $frac 1n - frac 1m$ were small enough to lie in one of the $delta$ neighbourhoods.




How do we tackle this situation i.e. what condition do we put on $f$ so that $x_n$ Cauchy implies $f(x_n)$ Cauchy? There are a few ways around it.



  • If $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then even though $f(x_n)$ and $f(x_m)$ cannot directly be shown to be close to each other, we can show they are both close to $f(x)$ via continuity, and then the triangle inequality shows they are close to each other. This is the condition that the domain be closed, or that the domain of $f$ be continuously extendable to a closed domain.


  • Don't let the $delta$s fall so fast. Maybe, they should depend only on $epsilon$. Such a function is called a uniformly continuous function. For example, $f(x) = x$ on $(0,1)$ is uniformly continuous. (Can you find the $delta$ for each $epsilon$? It should not be difficult!)


This should be a comprehensive discussion on the desired topic.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • One more time... $(x_n) = 1/n$ is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval $(0,1)$ => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that $f(x)$ is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:52










  • So you want to see the "theory" : that is what I thought I would indicate with the first two paragraphs. Nevertheless, let me edit the answer further and get back.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 13:02










  • I request you to see the explanation now @SargisIskandaryan
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 14:44












up vote
2
down vote



accepted







up vote
2
down vote



accepted






The issue is the following : $f$ continuous, means that if $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then so is $f(x_n)$ , converging to $f(x)$.



Note that every convergent sequence is Cauchy. However, the converse is true(in $mathbb R$), only in a closed set. Note that $(0,1)$ is not a closed set. Therefore, there are Cauchy sequences in $(0,1)$ that are not convergent, and the problem is that the continuity of $f$ does not imply anything at all, since it comes into play only for convergent sequences.



The best example of such a function is $f(x) = frac 1x$ on $(0,1)$ , with the sequence $frac 1n$ : clearly, $x_n$ is Cauchy while $f(x_n) = n$ is not. What is happening here, is that $x_n$ is not convergent, so the continuity of $f$ does not help.




The "theory" part of things is this :



Suppose $f$ is continuous. Now, let $x_n$ be any Cauchy sequence in $(0,1)$. Note that Cauchy sequences in a subset of $mathbb R$ converge to a point in the closure of that set, in this case $(0,1)$. Therefore, two things can happen :



  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to $x$, where $x in (0,1)$. Then by the definition of continuity, since $x_n$ is a convergent sequence, we have that $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.


But let us look more deeper, and see "why". We are actually using continuity at the point $x$ for this, because : given $epsilon > 0$, first we know there exists $delta > 0$ such that $|y - x| < delta$ implies $|f(y) - f(x)| < delta$. Now we can find $N$ such that $$n > N implies |x_n - x| < delta implies |f(x_n) - f(x)| < epsilon$$, so $f(x_n) to f(x)$ by the definition of convergence of a sequence of points.




  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to either $0$ or $1$. Then $x_n$ is only Cauchy, not convergent in $(0,1)$. By the previous post, we saw that $f(x_n)$, if it were a convergent sequence, must go to $f(x)$, and the proof depended crucially on continuity at the point $x$, which was the limit of the $x_n$. But here, the limit $x$ does not belong to the set $(0,1)$, and therefore $f$ is not even defined on $x$. If it were possible to define $f$ there, we could speak of extension, which could be continuous if $f$ was continuous at $x$.


Now for the more subtler point : continuity in $(0,1)$, is equivalent to continuity at each point of $(0,1)$. That is, continuity in $(0,1)$ can be written as follows :




Given any point $x in (0,1)$, and given any $epsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta > 0$, depending on $x$ and $epsilon$, such that $|y-x| < delta implies |f(y) - f(x)| < epsilon$.




To put this in plain English : if we fix a point, then if another point is sufficiently close to that point, the function values of the two points are sufficiently close.



Now, let us write down what it means for $f$ to take Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences : it means that if a sequence of points get eventually close to each other, so must the function values of the points. There is no fixing of a point here, rather a sequence is fixed,so the definition of pointwise continuity cannot be used.



Why would we intuitively think this is true if $f$ is continuous? Let's put it this way : if points are getting close, then fixing any two of them which are "sufficiently" close to each other, their function values are "sufficiently" close, by using continuity at either point.




Alas, this is not true. Why? Because, given $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$ depends on $x$, that is why. Suppose I fix an $epsilon > 0$ for trying to show that $f(x_n)$ is Cauchy. I do know that there exists $N$ such that $m,n > N implies |x_m - x_n| < epsilon$, because $x_n$ is Cauchy. Now, let us fix $P,Q > N$, and consider the points $x_P$ and $x_Q$. By continuity at $x_P$, there is $delta_P > 0$ depending on $x_P$ such that if $|y - x_P| < delta_P$ then $|f(y) - f(x_P)| < epsilon$. Similarly $delta_Q$ for $x_Q$.



The inevitable question arises : what if $|x_P - x_Q|$ is greater than both $delta_P$ and $delta_Q$? Then, $|f(x_Q) - f(x_P)|$ cannot be controlled, because we require the points to be close enough to apply the continuity criterion.



Thus, the complete answer to the question is this :




Fix $epsilon > 0$. Even if the points $x_n$ are getting closer and closer to each other, the $delta$ corresponding to each point of the sequence and the given $epsilon$, could possibly reduce more rapidly than the distances between the points. Thus, even though the distances between points is decreasing, for example $|x_P - x_Q|$ is really small, yet since $|x_P - x_Q| > delta_P$ and $delta_Q$, neither of these points fall into the other's "range of continuity" (i.e where the definition of "continuity at a point" can applied for that point) for the given $epsilon$, and since continuity says nothing about what happens if $|x-y| > delta$, this allows the function to behave unwantedly at these points i.e. $|f(x_P) - f(x_Q)|$ may be very large even though $|x_P - x_Q|$ is not.




Back to our example : what serves as $delta_x$ for a point $x$? See that $ left|frac1y - frac 1xright| = frac$, so given $epsilon > 0$ , you can check that $delta = fracepsilon x^21 + epsilon x$ does the job (and no higher $delta_x$ does the job at each $x$). Now, $|frac 1n - frac 1m| = fracmn$, and $delta_frac 1l = fracepsilonl(l+epsilon)$. So, you can check that if $epsilon = frac 12$ then $delta _frac 1n,delta_frac 1m$ both fall short of $|frac 1n -frac 1m|$. So here, for a fixed $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$s are decreasing much faster than $frac 1n - frac 1m$, and continuity of $f$ would help only if $frac 1n - frac 1m$ were small enough to lie in one of the $delta$ neighbourhoods.




How do we tackle this situation i.e. what condition do we put on $f$ so that $x_n$ Cauchy implies $f(x_n)$ Cauchy? There are a few ways around it.



  • If $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then even though $f(x_n)$ and $f(x_m)$ cannot directly be shown to be close to each other, we can show they are both close to $f(x)$ via continuity, and then the triangle inequality shows they are close to each other. This is the condition that the domain be closed, or that the domain of $f$ be continuously extendable to a closed domain.


  • Don't let the $delta$s fall so fast. Maybe, they should depend only on $epsilon$. Such a function is called a uniformly continuous function. For example, $f(x) = x$ on $(0,1)$ is uniformly continuous. (Can you find the $delta$ for each $epsilon$? It should not be difficult!)


This should be a comprehensive discussion on the desired topic.






share|cite|improve this answer














The issue is the following : $f$ continuous, means that if $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then so is $f(x_n)$ , converging to $f(x)$.



Note that every convergent sequence is Cauchy. However, the converse is true(in $mathbb R$), only in a closed set. Note that $(0,1)$ is not a closed set. Therefore, there are Cauchy sequences in $(0,1)$ that are not convergent, and the problem is that the continuity of $f$ does not imply anything at all, since it comes into play only for convergent sequences.



The best example of such a function is $f(x) = frac 1x$ on $(0,1)$ , with the sequence $frac 1n$ : clearly, $x_n$ is Cauchy while $f(x_n) = n$ is not. What is happening here, is that $x_n$ is not convergent, so the continuity of $f$ does not help.




The "theory" part of things is this :



Suppose $f$ is continuous. Now, let $x_n$ be any Cauchy sequence in $(0,1)$. Note that Cauchy sequences in a subset of $mathbb R$ converge to a point in the closure of that set, in this case $(0,1)$. Therefore, two things can happen :



  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to $x$, where $x in (0,1)$. Then by the definition of continuity, since $x_n$ is a convergent sequence, we have that $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$.


But let us look more deeper, and see "why". We are actually using continuity at the point $x$ for this, because : given $epsilon > 0$, first we know there exists $delta > 0$ such that $|y - x| < delta$ implies $|f(y) - f(x)| < delta$. Now we can find $N$ such that $$n > N implies |x_n - x| < delta implies |f(x_n) - f(x)| < epsilon$$, so $f(x_n) to f(x)$ by the definition of convergence of a sequence of points.




  • Suppose that $x_n$ converges to either $0$ or $1$. Then $x_n$ is only Cauchy, not convergent in $(0,1)$. By the previous post, we saw that $f(x_n)$, if it were a convergent sequence, must go to $f(x)$, and the proof depended crucially on continuity at the point $x$, which was the limit of the $x_n$. But here, the limit $x$ does not belong to the set $(0,1)$, and therefore $f$ is not even defined on $x$. If it were possible to define $f$ there, we could speak of extension, which could be continuous if $f$ was continuous at $x$.


Now for the more subtler point : continuity in $(0,1)$, is equivalent to continuity at each point of $(0,1)$. That is, continuity in $(0,1)$ can be written as follows :




Given any point $x in (0,1)$, and given any $epsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta > 0$, depending on $x$ and $epsilon$, such that $|y-x| < delta implies |f(y) - f(x)| < epsilon$.




To put this in plain English : if we fix a point, then if another point is sufficiently close to that point, the function values of the two points are sufficiently close.



Now, let us write down what it means for $f$ to take Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences : it means that if a sequence of points get eventually close to each other, so must the function values of the points. There is no fixing of a point here, rather a sequence is fixed,so the definition of pointwise continuity cannot be used.



Why would we intuitively think this is true if $f$ is continuous? Let's put it this way : if points are getting close, then fixing any two of them which are "sufficiently" close to each other, their function values are "sufficiently" close, by using continuity at either point.




Alas, this is not true. Why? Because, given $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$ depends on $x$, that is why. Suppose I fix an $epsilon > 0$ for trying to show that $f(x_n)$ is Cauchy. I do know that there exists $N$ such that $m,n > N implies |x_m - x_n| < epsilon$, because $x_n$ is Cauchy. Now, let us fix $P,Q > N$, and consider the points $x_P$ and $x_Q$. By continuity at $x_P$, there is $delta_P > 0$ depending on $x_P$ such that if $|y - x_P| < delta_P$ then $|f(y) - f(x_P)| < epsilon$. Similarly $delta_Q$ for $x_Q$.



The inevitable question arises : what if $|x_P - x_Q|$ is greater than both $delta_P$ and $delta_Q$? Then, $|f(x_Q) - f(x_P)|$ cannot be controlled, because we require the points to be close enough to apply the continuity criterion.



Thus, the complete answer to the question is this :




Fix $epsilon > 0$. Even if the points $x_n$ are getting closer and closer to each other, the $delta$ corresponding to each point of the sequence and the given $epsilon$, could possibly reduce more rapidly than the distances between the points. Thus, even though the distances between points is decreasing, for example $|x_P - x_Q|$ is really small, yet since $|x_P - x_Q| > delta_P$ and $delta_Q$, neither of these points fall into the other's "range of continuity" (i.e where the definition of "continuity at a point" can applied for that point) for the given $epsilon$, and since continuity says nothing about what happens if $|x-y| > delta$, this allows the function to behave unwantedly at these points i.e. $|f(x_P) - f(x_Q)|$ may be very large even though $|x_P - x_Q|$ is not.




Back to our example : what serves as $delta_x$ for a point $x$? See that $ left|frac1y - frac 1xright| = frac$, so given $epsilon > 0$ , you can check that $delta = fracepsilon x^21 + epsilon x$ does the job (and no higher $delta_x$ does the job at each $x$). Now, $|frac 1n - frac 1m| = fracmn$, and $delta_frac 1l = fracepsilonl(l+epsilon)$. So, you can check that if $epsilon = frac 12$ then $delta _frac 1n,delta_frac 1m$ both fall short of $|frac 1n -frac 1m|$. So here, for a fixed $epsilon > 0$, the $delta$s are decreasing much faster than $frac 1n - frac 1m$, and continuity of $f$ would help only if $frac 1n - frac 1m$ were small enough to lie in one of the $delta$ neighbourhoods.




How do we tackle this situation i.e. what condition do we put on $f$ so that $x_n$ Cauchy implies $f(x_n)$ Cauchy? There are a few ways around it.



  • If $x_n$ is a convergent sequence to $x$, then even though $f(x_n)$ and $f(x_m)$ cannot directly be shown to be close to each other, we can show they are both close to $f(x)$ via continuity, and then the triangle inequality shows they are close to each other. This is the condition that the domain be closed, or that the domain of $f$ be continuously extendable to a closed domain.


  • Don't let the $delta$s fall so fast. Maybe, they should depend only on $epsilon$. Such a function is called a uniformly continuous function. For example, $f(x) = x$ on $(0,1)$ is uniformly continuous. (Can you find the $delta$ for each $epsilon$? It should not be difficult!)


This should be a comprehensive discussion on the desired topic.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 21 at 14:44

























answered Aug 21 at 12:43









астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг

32.8k22464




32.8k22464











  • One more time... $(x_n) = 1/n$ is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval $(0,1)$ => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that $f(x)$ is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:52










  • So you want to see the "theory" : that is what I thought I would indicate with the first two paragraphs. Nevertheless, let me edit the answer further and get back.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 13:02










  • I request you to see the explanation now @SargisIskandaryan
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 14:44
















  • One more time... $(x_n) = 1/n$ is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval $(0,1)$ => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that $f(x)$ is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:52










  • So you want to see the "theory" : that is what I thought I would indicate with the first two paragraphs. Nevertheless, let me edit the answer further and get back.
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 13:02










  • I request you to see the explanation now @SargisIskandaryan
    – Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Aug 21 at 14:44















One more time... $(x_n) = 1/n$ is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval $(0,1)$ => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that $f(x)$ is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
– Sargis Iskandaryan
Aug 21 at 12:52




One more time... $(x_n) = 1/n$ is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval $(0,1)$ => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that $f(x)$ is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
– Sargis Iskandaryan
Aug 21 at 12:52












So you want to see the "theory" : that is what I thought I would indicate with the first two paragraphs. Nevertheless, let me edit the answer further and get back.
– Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Aug 21 at 13:02




So you want to see the "theory" : that is what I thought I would indicate with the first two paragraphs. Nevertheless, let me edit the answer further and get back.
– Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Aug 21 at 13:02












I request you to see the explanation now @SargisIskandaryan
– Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Aug 21 at 14:44




I request you to see the explanation now @SargisIskandaryan
– Ð°ÑÑ‚он вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Aug 21 at 14:44










up vote
2
down vote













In complete metric spaces, Cauchy sequences are the same thing as convergent sequences, so in complete spaces, the statement contradicts the definition of continuity.



However, in your example, the space $(0,1)$ that your function is defined on is not complete. Hence there are Cauchy sequences that do not converge to a limit in $(0,1)$, for example, $x_n=frac1n$. [And then choosing $f(x)=frac1x$ maps this into the non-Cauchy sequence $y_n=n$).






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • The same thing as with the previous answer. (xn)=1/n is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval (0,1) => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that f(x) is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:59










  • @SargisIskandaryan -- Do you know the definition of a Cauchy sequence? $$forallepsilon>0,exists ninmathbb N:forall j>n,forall k>n,|x_j-x_k|<epsilon$$ With $x_n=1/n$ and $f(x_n)=n$, successive terms are always $1$ apart, so for $epsilon<1$, there is no $n$ that makes $|x_n+1-x_n|<epsilon$. Thus the sequence $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy.
    – mr_e_man
    Aug 21 at 13:30











  • That the interval is not closed does not imply "$f(x)$ is not Cauchy". What is true is that $(x_n)$ Cauchy does not imply $(f(x_n))$ Cauchy for continuous $f$ (as shown by examples). You need extra conditions if you want Cauchy sequences to be mapped to Cauchy sequences: either your space needs to be complete, or the function $f$ needs to be uniformly continuous.
    – Kusma
    Aug 21 at 13:39














up vote
2
down vote













In complete metric spaces, Cauchy sequences are the same thing as convergent sequences, so in complete spaces, the statement contradicts the definition of continuity.



However, in your example, the space $(0,1)$ that your function is defined on is not complete. Hence there are Cauchy sequences that do not converge to a limit in $(0,1)$, for example, $x_n=frac1n$. [And then choosing $f(x)=frac1x$ maps this into the non-Cauchy sequence $y_n=n$).






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • The same thing as with the previous answer. (xn)=1/n is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval (0,1) => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that f(x) is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:59










  • @SargisIskandaryan -- Do you know the definition of a Cauchy sequence? $$forallepsilon>0,exists ninmathbb N:forall j>n,forall k>n,|x_j-x_k|<epsilon$$ With $x_n=1/n$ and $f(x_n)=n$, successive terms are always $1$ apart, so for $epsilon<1$, there is no $n$ that makes $|x_n+1-x_n|<epsilon$. Thus the sequence $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy.
    – mr_e_man
    Aug 21 at 13:30











  • That the interval is not closed does not imply "$f(x)$ is not Cauchy". What is true is that $(x_n)$ Cauchy does not imply $(f(x_n))$ Cauchy for continuous $f$ (as shown by examples). You need extra conditions if you want Cauchy sequences to be mapped to Cauchy sequences: either your space needs to be complete, or the function $f$ needs to be uniformly continuous.
    – Kusma
    Aug 21 at 13:39












up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









In complete metric spaces, Cauchy sequences are the same thing as convergent sequences, so in complete spaces, the statement contradicts the definition of continuity.



However, in your example, the space $(0,1)$ that your function is defined on is not complete. Hence there are Cauchy sequences that do not converge to a limit in $(0,1)$, for example, $x_n=frac1n$. [And then choosing $f(x)=frac1x$ maps this into the non-Cauchy sequence $y_n=n$).






share|cite|improve this answer












In complete metric spaces, Cauchy sequences are the same thing as convergent sequences, so in complete spaces, the statement contradicts the definition of continuity.



However, in your example, the space $(0,1)$ that your function is defined on is not complete. Hence there are Cauchy sequences that do not converge to a limit in $(0,1)$, for example, $x_n=frac1n$. [And then choosing $f(x)=frac1x$ maps this into the non-Cauchy sequence $y_n=n$).







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Aug 21 at 12:41









Kusma

2,373213




2,373213











  • The same thing as with the previous answer. (xn)=1/n is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval (0,1) => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that f(x) is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:59










  • @SargisIskandaryan -- Do you know the definition of a Cauchy sequence? $$forallepsilon>0,exists ninmathbb N:forall j>n,forall k>n,|x_j-x_k|<epsilon$$ With $x_n=1/n$ and $f(x_n)=n$, successive terms are always $1$ apart, so for $epsilon<1$, there is no $n$ that makes $|x_n+1-x_n|<epsilon$. Thus the sequence $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy.
    – mr_e_man
    Aug 21 at 13:30











  • That the interval is not closed does not imply "$f(x)$ is not Cauchy". What is true is that $(x_n)$ Cauchy does not imply $(f(x_n))$ Cauchy for continuous $f$ (as shown by examples). You need extra conditions if you want Cauchy sequences to be mapped to Cauchy sequences: either your space needs to be complete, or the function $f$ needs to be uniformly continuous.
    – Kusma
    Aug 21 at 13:39
















  • The same thing as with the previous answer. (xn)=1/n is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval (0,1) => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that f(x) is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
    – Sargis Iskandaryan
    Aug 21 at 12:59










  • @SargisIskandaryan -- Do you know the definition of a Cauchy sequence? $$forallepsilon>0,exists ninmathbb N:forall j>n,forall k>n,|x_j-x_k|<epsilon$$ With $x_n=1/n$ and $f(x_n)=n$, successive terms are always $1$ apart, so for $epsilon<1$, there is no $n$ that makes $|x_n+1-x_n|<epsilon$. Thus the sequence $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy.
    – mr_e_man
    Aug 21 at 13:30











  • That the interval is not closed does not imply "$f(x)$ is not Cauchy". What is true is that $(x_n)$ Cauchy does not imply $(f(x_n))$ Cauchy for continuous $f$ (as shown by examples). You need extra conditions if you want Cauchy sequences to be mapped to Cauchy sequences: either your space needs to be complete, or the function $f$ needs to be uniformly continuous.
    – Kusma
    Aug 21 at 13:39















The same thing as with the previous answer. (xn)=1/n is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval (0,1) => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that f(x) is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
– Sargis Iskandaryan
Aug 21 at 12:59




The same thing as with the previous answer. (xn)=1/n is convergent => Cauchy it goes to a limit that is not in the interval (0,1) => the interval is not closed. Why does this imply that f(x) is not Cauchy. I saw an example, it illustrates the things greately, but I want to get the theory.
– Sargis Iskandaryan
Aug 21 at 12:59












@SargisIskandaryan -- Do you know the definition of a Cauchy sequence? $$forallepsilon>0,exists ninmathbb N:forall j>n,forall k>n,|x_j-x_k|<epsilon$$ With $x_n=1/n$ and $f(x_n)=n$, successive terms are always $1$ apart, so for $epsilon<1$, there is no $n$ that makes $|x_n+1-x_n|<epsilon$. Thus the sequence $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy.
– mr_e_man
Aug 21 at 13:30





@SargisIskandaryan -- Do you know the definition of a Cauchy sequence? $$forallepsilon>0,exists ninmathbb N:forall j>n,forall k>n,|x_j-x_k|<epsilon$$ With $x_n=1/n$ and $f(x_n)=n$, successive terms are always $1$ apart, so for $epsilon<1$, there is no $n$ that makes $|x_n+1-x_n|<epsilon$. Thus the sequence $f(x_n)$ is not Cauchy.
– mr_e_man
Aug 21 at 13:30













That the interval is not closed does not imply "$f(x)$ is not Cauchy". What is true is that $(x_n)$ Cauchy does not imply $(f(x_n))$ Cauchy for continuous $f$ (as shown by examples). You need extra conditions if you want Cauchy sequences to be mapped to Cauchy sequences: either your space needs to be complete, or the function $f$ needs to be uniformly continuous.
– Kusma
Aug 21 at 13:39




That the interval is not closed does not imply "$f(x)$ is not Cauchy". What is true is that $(x_n)$ Cauchy does not imply $(f(x_n))$ Cauchy for continuous $f$ (as shown by examples). You need extra conditions if you want Cauchy sequences to be mapped to Cauchy sequences: either your space needs to be complete, or the function $f$ needs to be uniformly continuous.
– Kusma
Aug 21 at 13:39












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2889813%2fa-continuous-function-f-0-1-to-bbb-r-and-a-cauchy-sequence-x-n-such-tha%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?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

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