$f$ is continuous and of bounded variation on $[a,b]$, then $V[a,x]$ is continuous?
Can someone help to check my proof? Notation.
Since $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, it is uniformly continuous on $[a,b]$. For any $x_0,x_1$ in $[a,b]$, $|f(x_0)-f(x_1)|to 0$ as $|x_0-x_1|to 0$.
W.L.O.G., suppose $ale z_0<z_1le b$, and let $|z_0-z_1|to 0$. Consider the partition $P_0$ of $[a,z_0]$ and the partition $P_1$ of $[a,z_1]$. Hence, $bar{P}=P_0cup P_1$ is a refinement of $P_1$. Then, we can split the partition $bar{P}$ by $$A=bar{P}cap[a,z_0] text{ and } B=bar{P}cap[z_0,z_1].$$
So, begin{align*}S_bar{P}[a,z_1]-S_{P_0}[a,z_0] &=S_A[a,z_0]+S_B[z_0,z_1]-S_{P_0}[a,z_0].
end{align*}
Note that if $|bar{P}|to 0$, then $|P_0|to 0$. Since $f$ is continuous, $$lim_{|bar{P}|to 0}S_{bar{P}}[a,z_1] = V[a,z_1] text{ and } lim_{|bar{P}|to 0} S_{P_0}[a,z_0] = V[a,z_0].$$
Hence, begin{align*}V[a,z_1]-V[a,z_0] &= V[a,z_0]+V[z_0,z_1]-V[a.z_0]\
&= V[z_0,z_1].
end{align*}
Since $B$ is a partition of $[z_0,z_1]$ with finitely many points and $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[z_0,z_1]$, we conclude that $V[z_0,z_1]to 0$ as $|z_0-z_1|to 0$.
I could use $epsilon$-$delta$ argument, but I would need to find the precise value of $delta$ such that $|x_0-x_1|<delta implies |f(x_0)-f(x_1)|<epsilon$. Is this proof valid? Do I need to make any improvement?
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing bounded-variation
add a comment |
Can someone help to check my proof? Notation.
Since $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, it is uniformly continuous on $[a,b]$. For any $x_0,x_1$ in $[a,b]$, $|f(x_0)-f(x_1)|to 0$ as $|x_0-x_1|to 0$.
W.L.O.G., suppose $ale z_0<z_1le b$, and let $|z_0-z_1|to 0$. Consider the partition $P_0$ of $[a,z_0]$ and the partition $P_1$ of $[a,z_1]$. Hence, $bar{P}=P_0cup P_1$ is a refinement of $P_1$. Then, we can split the partition $bar{P}$ by $$A=bar{P}cap[a,z_0] text{ and } B=bar{P}cap[z_0,z_1].$$
So, begin{align*}S_bar{P}[a,z_1]-S_{P_0}[a,z_0] &=S_A[a,z_0]+S_B[z_0,z_1]-S_{P_0}[a,z_0].
end{align*}
Note that if $|bar{P}|to 0$, then $|P_0|to 0$. Since $f$ is continuous, $$lim_{|bar{P}|to 0}S_{bar{P}}[a,z_1] = V[a,z_1] text{ and } lim_{|bar{P}|to 0} S_{P_0}[a,z_0] = V[a,z_0].$$
Hence, begin{align*}V[a,z_1]-V[a,z_0] &= V[a,z_0]+V[z_0,z_1]-V[a.z_0]\
&= V[z_0,z_1].
end{align*}
Since $B$ is a partition of $[z_0,z_1]$ with finitely many points and $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[z_0,z_1]$, we conclude that $V[z_0,z_1]to 0$ as $|z_0-z_1|to 0$.
I could use $epsilon$-$delta$ argument, but I would need to find the precise value of $delta$ such that $|x_0-x_1|<delta implies |f(x_0)-f(x_1)|<epsilon$. Is this proof valid? Do I need to make any improvement?
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing bounded-variation
You have the general idea right but some details are wrong and some are missing.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 3:07
add a comment |
Can someone help to check my proof? Notation.
Since $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, it is uniformly continuous on $[a,b]$. For any $x_0,x_1$ in $[a,b]$, $|f(x_0)-f(x_1)|to 0$ as $|x_0-x_1|to 0$.
W.L.O.G., suppose $ale z_0<z_1le b$, and let $|z_0-z_1|to 0$. Consider the partition $P_0$ of $[a,z_0]$ and the partition $P_1$ of $[a,z_1]$. Hence, $bar{P}=P_0cup P_1$ is a refinement of $P_1$. Then, we can split the partition $bar{P}$ by $$A=bar{P}cap[a,z_0] text{ and } B=bar{P}cap[z_0,z_1].$$
So, begin{align*}S_bar{P}[a,z_1]-S_{P_0}[a,z_0] &=S_A[a,z_0]+S_B[z_0,z_1]-S_{P_0}[a,z_0].
end{align*}
Note that if $|bar{P}|to 0$, then $|P_0|to 0$. Since $f$ is continuous, $$lim_{|bar{P}|to 0}S_{bar{P}}[a,z_1] = V[a,z_1] text{ and } lim_{|bar{P}|to 0} S_{P_0}[a,z_0] = V[a,z_0].$$
Hence, begin{align*}V[a,z_1]-V[a,z_0] &= V[a,z_0]+V[z_0,z_1]-V[a.z_0]\
&= V[z_0,z_1].
end{align*}
Since $B$ is a partition of $[z_0,z_1]$ with finitely many points and $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[z_0,z_1]$, we conclude that $V[z_0,z_1]to 0$ as $|z_0-z_1|to 0$.
I could use $epsilon$-$delta$ argument, but I would need to find the precise value of $delta$ such that $|x_0-x_1|<delta implies |f(x_0)-f(x_1)|<epsilon$. Is this proof valid? Do I need to make any improvement?
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing bounded-variation
Can someone help to check my proof? Notation.
Since $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$, it is uniformly continuous on $[a,b]$. For any $x_0,x_1$ in $[a,b]$, $|f(x_0)-f(x_1)|to 0$ as $|x_0-x_1|to 0$.
W.L.O.G., suppose $ale z_0<z_1le b$, and let $|z_0-z_1|to 0$. Consider the partition $P_0$ of $[a,z_0]$ and the partition $P_1$ of $[a,z_1]$. Hence, $bar{P}=P_0cup P_1$ is a refinement of $P_1$. Then, we can split the partition $bar{P}$ by $$A=bar{P}cap[a,z_0] text{ and } B=bar{P}cap[z_0,z_1].$$
So, begin{align*}S_bar{P}[a,z_1]-S_{P_0}[a,z_0] &=S_A[a,z_0]+S_B[z_0,z_1]-S_{P_0}[a,z_0].
end{align*}
Note that if $|bar{P}|to 0$, then $|P_0|to 0$. Since $f$ is continuous, $$lim_{|bar{P}|to 0}S_{bar{P}}[a,z_1] = V[a,z_1] text{ and } lim_{|bar{P}|to 0} S_{P_0}[a,z_0] = V[a,z_0].$$
Hence, begin{align*}V[a,z_1]-V[a,z_0] &= V[a,z_0]+V[z_0,z_1]-V[a.z_0]\
&= V[z_0,z_1].
end{align*}
Since $B$ is a partition of $[z_0,z_1]$ with finitely many points and $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[z_0,z_1]$, we conclude that $V[z_0,z_1]to 0$ as $|z_0-z_1|to 0$.
I could use $epsilon$-$delta$ argument, but I would need to find the precise value of $delta$ such that $|x_0-x_1|<delta implies |f(x_0)-f(x_1)|<epsilon$. Is this proof valid? Do I need to make any improvement?
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing bounded-variation
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing bounded-variation
edited Nov 19 '18 at 1:26
asked Nov 19 '18 at 1:20
user398843
622215
622215
You have the general idea right but some details are wrong and some are missing.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 3:07
add a comment |
You have the general idea right but some details are wrong and some are missing.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 3:07
You have the general idea right but some details are wrong and some are missing.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 3:07
You have the general idea right but some details are wrong and some are missing.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 3:07
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The vast majority of your argument up to the equation following "Hence" involves unnecessary and inaccurate reasoning to prove simply that
$$tag{*} V[a,z_1] = V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1]$$
For example, the assertion that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$ is false. We can have $|P_1| to 0$ and $|bar{P}| to 0$ while $P_0$ stays fixed. Furthermore, continuity of $f$ is not required to prove (*).
If we take a partition $P$ of $[a,z_0]$ and a partition $P'$ of $[z_0,z_1]$, then $P'' = P cup P'$ is a partition of $[a,z_1]$ and $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] = S_{P''}[a,z_1]$.
This implies that $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1]$, and taking suprema on the LHS we get
$$V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1] $$
Another straightforward argument gives us the reverse inequality, thereby proving (*).
With that out of the way, we can move on to the final part of your argument where you conclude that $V[z_0,z_1] to 0 $ as $|z_0 - z_1| to 0$ because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points -- both obviously true but inessential facts. This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details.
For a correct proof, first prove right-continuity by showing that
$$lim_{z_1 to z_0+} V[z_0,z_1] = 0$$
By continuity of $f$, given $epsilon > 0$ there is $xi > z_0$ such that $|f(z_1) - f(z_0)| < epsilon/2$ if $z_0 < z_1 < xi$. Also since total variation is a supremum over partitions, there is a partition $z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = b$ of $[z_0,b]$ such that
$$V[z_0,b] < sum_{k=1}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2$$
If $x_0 = z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ then $|f(x_1) - f(x_0)| leqslant |f(z_1) - f(x_0)| +|f(x_1) - f(z_1)| $
and
$$V[z_0,b] < |f(z_1) - f(z_0)| + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2 \< epsilon/2 + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2\ < V[z_1,b] + epsilon $$
This implies for all $z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ we have
$$V[z_0,z_1] = V[z_0,b] - V[z_1,b] < epsilon,$$
which completes the proof of right-continuity. By a similar argument we can prove left-continuity.
Thank you for the clear explanation. I appreciate it. And I think I should have clarified some notations. By definition of the norm of partition, $|P|$ is defined as the length of a longest subinterval of $P$: $|P|=max_i(x_i-x_{i-1})$, where $P={x_0,x_1,...,x_m}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$. I might be correct to say that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 4:56
Could you tell me which part do you refer to by "This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details."?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 5:07
1
Say $a =0$,$z_0 = 1$ and $z_1 =2$. Take $P_0 = (0,1)$ and $P_1 = (0,1/2,3/2,2)$. Then $bar{P} = (0,1/2,1,3/2,2)$. You could refine $P_1$ and hence, $bar{P}$ without changing $P_0$. On the other hand, I would say let $P$ and $P_0$ be refined together so that $|P_0| to 0$ and $|P| to 0$. It's not a critical point. I think its better to prove additivity of total variation directly from the definition as I showed, but your approach will work. It just is a well-known fact that can be stated up front to facilitate the important part of the proof.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:11
1
@user398843: "I tried to show $V[a,z_1] - V[a,z_0] to 0$ as $|z_0 -z_1| to 0$". That is what it means to be continuous which is what you are trying to prove. You simply said its true because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points. You did not prove it -- so I showed you how.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:15
1
So take partition $P = (z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = z_1)$ where $z_1$ is close enough to $z_0$ such that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < epsilon$ for $k = 1,ldots ,n$. Then $S_P = sum_{k=1}^n |f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < nepsilon$. Does that mean $V[z_0,z_1] < nepsilon$ with $n$ fixed? Not necessarily since $V[z_0,z_1] = sup_P S_P$ and that sup is taken over many partitions with more than $n$ points . We would need that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| to 0$ faster than $1/n$ and we are not given much about $f$ other than continuity.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:58
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004390%2ff-is-continuous-and-of-bounded-variation-on-a-b-then-va-x-is-continuo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The vast majority of your argument up to the equation following "Hence" involves unnecessary and inaccurate reasoning to prove simply that
$$tag{*} V[a,z_1] = V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1]$$
For example, the assertion that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$ is false. We can have $|P_1| to 0$ and $|bar{P}| to 0$ while $P_0$ stays fixed. Furthermore, continuity of $f$ is not required to prove (*).
If we take a partition $P$ of $[a,z_0]$ and a partition $P'$ of $[z_0,z_1]$, then $P'' = P cup P'$ is a partition of $[a,z_1]$ and $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] = S_{P''}[a,z_1]$.
This implies that $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1]$, and taking suprema on the LHS we get
$$V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1] $$
Another straightforward argument gives us the reverse inequality, thereby proving (*).
With that out of the way, we can move on to the final part of your argument where you conclude that $V[z_0,z_1] to 0 $ as $|z_0 - z_1| to 0$ because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points -- both obviously true but inessential facts. This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details.
For a correct proof, first prove right-continuity by showing that
$$lim_{z_1 to z_0+} V[z_0,z_1] = 0$$
By continuity of $f$, given $epsilon > 0$ there is $xi > z_0$ such that $|f(z_1) - f(z_0)| < epsilon/2$ if $z_0 < z_1 < xi$. Also since total variation is a supremum over partitions, there is a partition $z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = b$ of $[z_0,b]$ such that
$$V[z_0,b] < sum_{k=1}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2$$
If $x_0 = z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ then $|f(x_1) - f(x_0)| leqslant |f(z_1) - f(x_0)| +|f(x_1) - f(z_1)| $
and
$$V[z_0,b] < |f(z_1) - f(z_0)| + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2 \< epsilon/2 + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2\ < V[z_1,b] + epsilon $$
This implies for all $z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ we have
$$V[z_0,z_1] = V[z_0,b] - V[z_1,b] < epsilon,$$
which completes the proof of right-continuity. By a similar argument we can prove left-continuity.
Thank you for the clear explanation. I appreciate it. And I think I should have clarified some notations. By definition of the norm of partition, $|P|$ is defined as the length of a longest subinterval of $P$: $|P|=max_i(x_i-x_{i-1})$, where $P={x_0,x_1,...,x_m}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$. I might be correct to say that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 4:56
Could you tell me which part do you refer to by "This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details."?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 5:07
1
Say $a =0$,$z_0 = 1$ and $z_1 =2$. Take $P_0 = (0,1)$ and $P_1 = (0,1/2,3/2,2)$. Then $bar{P} = (0,1/2,1,3/2,2)$. You could refine $P_1$ and hence, $bar{P}$ without changing $P_0$. On the other hand, I would say let $P$ and $P_0$ be refined together so that $|P_0| to 0$ and $|P| to 0$. It's not a critical point. I think its better to prove additivity of total variation directly from the definition as I showed, but your approach will work. It just is a well-known fact that can be stated up front to facilitate the important part of the proof.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:11
1
@user398843: "I tried to show $V[a,z_1] - V[a,z_0] to 0$ as $|z_0 -z_1| to 0$". That is what it means to be continuous which is what you are trying to prove. You simply said its true because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points. You did not prove it -- so I showed you how.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:15
1
So take partition $P = (z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = z_1)$ where $z_1$ is close enough to $z_0$ such that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < epsilon$ for $k = 1,ldots ,n$. Then $S_P = sum_{k=1}^n |f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < nepsilon$. Does that mean $V[z_0,z_1] < nepsilon$ with $n$ fixed? Not necessarily since $V[z_0,z_1] = sup_P S_P$ and that sup is taken over many partitions with more than $n$ points . We would need that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| to 0$ faster than $1/n$ and we are not given much about $f$ other than continuity.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:58
|
show 4 more comments
The vast majority of your argument up to the equation following "Hence" involves unnecessary and inaccurate reasoning to prove simply that
$$tag{*} V[a,z_1] = V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1]$$
For example, the assertion that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$ is false. We can have $|P_1| to 0$ and $|bar{P}| to 0$ while $P_0$ stays fixed. Furthermore, continuity of $f$ is not required to prove (*).
If we take a partition $P$ of $[a,z_0]$ and a partition $P'$ of $[z_0,z_1]$, then $P'' = P cup P'$ is a partition of $[a,z_1]$ and $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] = S_{P''}[a,z_1]$.
This implies that $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1]$, and taking suprema on the LHS we get
$$V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1] $$
Another straightforward argument gives us the reverse inequality, thereby proving (*).
With that out of the way, we can move on to the final part of your argument where you conclude that $V[z_0,z_1] to 0 $ as $|z_0 - z_1| to 0$ because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points -- both obviously true but inessential facts. This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details.
For a correct proof, first prove right-continuity by showing that
$$lim_{z_1 to z_0+} V[z_0,z_1] = 0$$
By continuity of $f$, given $epsilon > 0$ there is $xi > z_0$ such that $|f(z_1) - f(z_0)| < epsilon/2$ if $z_0 < z_1 < xi$. Also since total variation is a supremum over partitions, there is a partition $z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = b$ of $[z_0,b]$ such that
$$V[z_0,b] < sum_{k=1}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2$$
If $x_0 = z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ then $|f(x_1) - f(x_0)| leqslant |f(z_1) - f(x_0)| +|f(x_1) - f(z_1)| $
and
$$V[z_0,b] < |f(z_1) - f(z_0)| + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2 \< epsilon/2 + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2\ < V[z_1,b] + epsilon $$
This implies for all $z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ we have
$$V[z_0,z_1] = V[z_0,b] - V[z_1,b] < epsilon,$$
which completes the proof of right-continuity. By a similar argument we can prove left-continuity.
Thank you for the clear explanation. I appreciate it. And I think I should have clarified some notations. By definition of the norm of partition, $|P|$ is defined as the length of a longest subinterval of $P$: $|P|=max_i(x_i-x_{i-1})$, where $P={x_0,x_1,...,x_m}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$. I might be correct to say that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 4:56
Could you tell me which part do you refer to by "This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details."?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 5:07
1
Say $a =0$,$z_0 = 1$ and $z_1 =2$. Take $P_0 = (0,1)$ and $P_1 = (0,1/2,3/2,2)$. Then $bar{P} = (0,1/2,1,3/2,2)$. You could refine $P_1$ and hence, $bar{P}$ without changing $P_0$. On the other hand, I would say let $P$ and $P_0$ be refined together so that $|P_0| to 0$ and $|P| to 0$. It's not a critical point. I think its better to prove additivity of total variation directly from the definition as I showed, but your approach will work. It just is a well-known fact that can be stated up front to facilitate the important part of the proof.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:11
1
@user398843: "I tried to show $V[a,z_1] - V[a,z_0] to 0$ as $|z_0 -z_1| to 0$". That is what it means to be continuous which is what you are trying to prove. You simply said its true because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points. You did not prove it -- so I showed you how.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:15
1
So take partition $P = (z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = z_1)$ where $z_1$ is close enough to $z_0$ such that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < epsilon$ for $k = 1,ldots ,n$. Then $S_P = sum_{k=1}^n |f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < nepsilon$. Does that mean $V[z_0,z_1] < nepsilon$ with $n$ fixed? Not necessarily since $V[z_0,z_1] = sup_P S_P$ and that sup is taken over many partitions with more than $n$ points . We would need that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| to 0$ faster than $1/n$ and we are not given much about $f$ other than continuity.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:58
|
show 4 more comments
The vast majority of your argument up to the equation following "Hence" involves unnecessary and inaccurate reasoning to prove simply that
$$tag{*} V[a,z_1] = V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1]$$
For example, the assertion that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$ is false. We can have $|P_1| to 0$ and $|bar{P}| to 0$ while $P_0$ stays fixed. Furthermore, continuity of $f$ is not required to prove (*).
If we take a partition $P$ of $[a,z_0]$ and a partition $P'$ of $[z_0,z_1]$, then $P'' = P cup P'$ is a partition of $[a,z_1]$ and $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] = S_{P''}[a,z_1]$.
This implies that $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1]$, and taking suprema on the LHS we get
$$V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1] $$
Another straightforward argument gives us the reverse inequality, thereby proving (*).
With that out of the way, we can move on to the final part of your argument where you conclude that $V[z_0,z_1] to 0 $ as $|z_0 - z_1| to 0$ because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points -- both obviously true but inessential facts. This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details.
For a correct proof, first prove right-continuity by showing that
$$lim_{z_1 to z_0+} V[z_0,z_1] = 0$$
By continuity of $f$, given $epsilon > 0$ there is $xi > z_0$ such that $|f(z_1) - f(z_0)| < epsilon/2$ if $z_0 < z_1 < xi$. Also since total variation is a supremum over partitions, there is a partition $z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = b$ of $[z_0,b]$ such that
$$V[z_0,b] < sum_{k=1}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2$$
If $x_0 = z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ then $|f(x_1) - f(x_0)| leqslant |f(z_1) - f(x_0)| +|f(x_1) - f(z_1)| $
and
$$V[z_0,b] < |f(z_1) - f(z_0)| + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2 \< epsilon/2 + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2\ < V[z_1,b] + epsilon $$
This implies for all $z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ we have
$$V[z_0,z_1] = V[z_0,b] - V[z_1,b] < epsilon,$$
which completes the proof of right-continuity. By a similar argument we can prove left-continuity.
The vast majority of your argument up to the equation following "Hence" involves unnecessary and inaccurate reasoning to prove simply that
$$tag{*} V[a,z_1] = V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1]$$
For example, the assertion that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$ is false. We can have $|P_1| to 0$ and $|bar{P}| to 0$ while $P_0$ stays fixed. Furthermore, continuity of $f$ is not required to prove (*).
If we take a partition $P$ of $[a,z_0]$ and a partition $P'$ of $[z_0,z_1]$, then $P'' = P cup P'$ is a partition of $[a,z_1]$ and $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] = S_{P''}[a,z_1]$.
This implies that $S_P[a,z_0] + S_{P'}[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1]$, and taking suprema on the LHS we get
$$V[a,z_0] + V[z_0,z_1] leqslant V[a,z_1] $$
Another straightforward argument gives us the reverse inequality, thereby proving (*).
With that out of the way, we can move on to the final part of your argument where you conclude that $V[z_0,z_1] to 0 $ as $|z_0 - z_1| to 0$ because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points -- both obviously true but inessential facts. This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details.
For a correct proof, first prove right-continuity by showing that
$$lim_{z_1 to z_0+} V[z_0,z_1] = 0$$
By continuity of $f$, given $epsilon > 0$ there is $xi > z_0$ such that $|f(z_1) - f(z_0)| < epsilon/2$ if $z_0 < z_1 < xi$. Also since total variation is a supremum over partitions, there is a partition $z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = b$ of $[z_0,b]$ such that
$$V[z_0,b] < sum_{k=1}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2$$
If $x_0 = z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ then $|f(x_1) - f(x_0)| leqslant |f(z_1) - f(x_0)| +|f(x_1) - f(z_1)| $
and
$$V[z_0,b] < |f(z_1) - f(z_0)| + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2 \< epsilon/2 + |f(x_1) - f(z_1)| + sum_{k=2}^n|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| + epsilon/2\ < V[z_1,b] + epsilon $$
This implies for all $z_0 < z_1 < min(x_1,xi)$ we have
$$V[z_0,z_1] = V[z_0,b] - V[z_1,b] < epsilon,$$
which completes the proof of right-continuity. By a similar argument we can prove left-continuity.
answered Nov 19 '18 at 2:52
RRL
49k42573
49k42573
Thank you for the clear explanation. I appreciate it. And I think I should have clarified some notations. By definition of the norm of partition, $|P|$ is defined as the length of a longest subinterval of $P$: $|P|=max_i(x_i-x_{i-1})$, where $P={x_0,x_1,...,x_m}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$. I might be correct to say that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 4:56
Could you tell me which part do you refer to by "This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details."?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 5:07
1
Say $a =0$,$z_0 = 1$ and $z_1 =2$. Take $P_0 = (0,1)$ and $P_1 = (0,1/2,3/2,2)$. Then $bar{P} = (0,1/2,1,3/2,2)$. You could refine $P_1$ and hence, $bar{P}$ without changing $P_0$. On the other hand, I would say let $P$ and $P_0$ be refined together so that $|P_0| to 0$ and $|P| to 0$. It's not a critical point. I think its better to prove additivity of total variation directly from the definition as I showed, but your approach will work. It just is a well-known fact that can be stated up front to facilitate the important part of the proof.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:11
1
@user398843: "I tried to show $V[a,z_1] - V[a,z_0] to 0$ as $|z_0 -z_1| to 0$". That is what it means to be continuous which is what you are trying to prove. You simply said its true because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points. You did not prove it -- so I showed you how.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:15
1
So take partition $P = (z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = z_1)$ where $z_1$ is close enough to $z_0$ such that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < epsilon$ for $k = 1,ldots ,n$. Then $S_P = sum_{k=1}^n |f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < nepsilon$. Does that mean $V[z_0,z_1] < nepsilon$ with $n$ fixed? Not necessarily since $V[z_0,z_1] = sup_P S_P$ and that sup is taken over many partitions with more than $n$ points . We would need that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| to 0$ faster than $1/n$ and we are not given much about $f$ other than continuity.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:58
|
show 4 more comments
Thank you for the clear explanation. I appreciate it. And I think I should have clarified some notations. By definition of the norm of partition, $|P|$ is defined as the length of a longest subinterval of $P$: $|P|=max_i(x_i-x_{i-1})$, where $P={x_0,x_1,...,x_m}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$. I might be correct to say that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 4:56
Could you tell me which part do you refer to by "This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details."?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 5:07
1
Say $a =0$,$z_0 = 1$ and $z_1 =2$. Take $P_0 = (0,1)$ and $P_1 = (0,1/2,3/2,2)$. Then $bar{P} = (0,1/2,1,3/2,2)$. You could refine $P_1$ and hence, $bar{P}$ without changing $P_0$. On the other hand, I would say let $P$ and $P_0$ be refined together so that $|P_0| to 0$ and $|P| to 0$. It's not a critical point. I think its better to prove additivity of total variation directly from the definition as I showed, but your approach will work. It just is a well-known fact that can be stated up front to facilitate the important part of the proof.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:11
1
@user398843: "I tried to show $V[a,z_1] - V[a,z_0] to 0$ as $|z_0 -z_1| to 0$". That is what it means to be continuous which is what you are trying to prove. You simply said its true because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points. You did not prove it -- so I showed you how.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:15
1
So take partition $P = (z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = z_1)$ where $z_1$ is close enough to $z_0$ such that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < epsilon$ for $k = 1,ldots ,n$. Then $S_P = sum_{k=1}^n |f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < nepsilon$. Does that mean $V[z_0,z_1] < nepsilon$ with $n$ fixed? Not necessarily since $V[z_0,z_1] = sup_P S_P$ and that sup is taken over many partitions with more than $n$ points . We would need that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| to 0$ faster than $1/n$ and we are not given much about $f$ other than continuity.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:58
Thank you for the clear explanation. I appreciate it. And I think I should have clarified some notations. By definition of the norm of partition, $|P|$ is defined as the length of a longest subinterval of $P$: $|P|=max_i(x_i-x_{i-1})$, where $P={x_0,x_1,...,x_m}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$. I might be correct to say that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 4:56
Thank you for the clear explanation. I appreciate it. And I think I should have clarified some notations. By definition of the norm of partition, $|P|$ is defined as the length of a longest subinterval of $P$: $|P|=max_i(x_i-x_{i-1})$, where $P={x_0,x_1,...,x_m}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$. I might be correct to say that $|bar{P}| to 0$ implies $|P_0| to 0$?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 4:56
Could you tell me which part do you refer to by "This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details."?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 5:07
Could you tell me which part do you refer to by "This is the crux of the proof that the total variation is continuous, and you have simply made an assertion without supplying any details."?
– user398843
Nov 19 '18 at 5:07
1
1
Say $a =0$,$z_0 = 1$ and $z_1 =2$. Take $P_0 = (0,1)$ and $P_1 = (0,1/2,3/2,2)$. Then $bar{P} = (0,1/2,1,3/2,2)$. You could refine $P_1$ and hence, $bar{P}$ without changing $P_0$. On the other hand, I would say let $P$ and $P_0$ be refined together so that $|P_0| to 0$ and $|P| to 0$. It's not a critical point. I think its better to prove additivity of total variation directly from the definition as I showed, but your approach will work. It just is a well-known fact that can be stated up front to facilitate the important part of the proof.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:11
Say $a =0$,$z_0 = 1$ and $z_1 =2$. Take $P_0 = (0,1)$ and $P_1 = (0,1/2,3/2,2)$. Then $bar{P} = (0,1/2,1,3/2,2)$. You could refine $P_1$ and hence, $bar{P}$ without changing $P_0$. On the other hand, I would say let $P$ and $P_0$ be refined together so that $|P_0| to 0$ and $|P| to 0$. It's not a critical point. I think its better to prove additivity of total variation directly from the definition as I showed, but your approach will work. It just is a well-known fact that can be stated up front to facilitate the important part of the proof.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:11
1
1
@user398843: "I tried to show $V[a,z_1] - V[a,z_0] to 0$ as $|z_0 -z_1| to 0$". That is what it means to be continuous which is what you are trying to prove. You simply said its true because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points. You did not prove it -- so I showed you how.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:15
@user398843: "I tried to show $V[a,z_1] - V[a,z_0] to 0$ as $|z_0 -z_1| to 0$". That is what it means to be continuous which is what you are trying to prove. You simply said its true because $f$ is uniformly continuous and a partition has a finite number of points. You did not prove it -- so I showed you how.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:15
1
1
So take partition $P = (z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = z_1)$ where $z_1$ is close enough to $z_0$ such that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < epsilon$ for $k = 1,ldots ,n$. Then $S_P = sum_{k=1}^n |f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < nepsilon$. Does that mean $V[z_0,z_1] < nepsilon$ with $n$ fixed? Not necessarily since $V[z_0,z_1] = sup_P S_P$ and that sup is taken over many partitions with more than $n$ points . We would need that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| to 0$ faster than $1/n$ and we are not given much about $f$ other than continuity.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:58
So take partition $P = (z_0 = x_0 < x_1 < ldots < x_n = z_1)$ where $z_1$ is close enough to $z_0$ such that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < epsilon$ for $k = 1,ldots ,n$. Then $S_P = sum_{k=1}^n |f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1}| < nepsilon$. Does that mean $V[z_0,z_1] < nepsilon$ with $n$ fixed? Not necessarily since $V[z_0,z_1] = sup_P S_P$ and that sup is taken over many partitions with more than $n$ points . We would need that $|f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})| to 0$ faster than $1/n$ and we are not given much about $f$ other than continuity.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 5:58
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3004390%2ff-is-continuous-and-of-bounded-variation-on-a-b-then-va-x-is-continuo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
You have the general idea right but some details are wrong and some are missing.
– RRL
Nov 19 '18 at 3:07