0
$\begingroup$

May you tell me if this reasoning is correct? Thank you so much!

fn(x) = (nx+5)/(6n+7)

Determine for what values of x the sequence converges pointwise.

The limit function f(x) = x/6

D(x)= Absolute value of (fn(x) - f(x))

= Absolute value of ((nx+5)/(6n+7) - x/6)

= Absolute value of (30-7x)/(36n+42)

The limit of D(x) when n goes to infinite is 0, for all values of x.

D(x) is the distance function between fn(x) and f(x).

Thus fn(x) converges uniformly for all values of R, and for that reason it converges pointwise for all R.

  • 0
    You have to speak of uniformly convergent on some AREA but not for points. So e.g. uniformly convergent on $\mathbb{R}$. You above proof with the distance function shows pointwise convergent for every $x \in \mathbb{R}$2017-02-25

1 Answers 1

1

$(f_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is pointwise convergence, your proof is correct. An easier way is the following: $$f_n(x) = \frac{n(x+5/n)}{n(6+7/n)} = \frac{x+5/n}{6+7/n} \to \frac{x}{6} \ \ (n \to \infty)$$ But the sequence is not uniformly convergent: Let $\epsilon > 0$ and $N \in \mathbb{N}$. Then for $x=-36N-42$ and $n \geq N$ we have

$$f_n(x)-f(x) = \frac{30-7(-36N-42)}{36n+42} = \frac{30}{36n+42}+7 > 7$$

Thus for e.g. $\epsilon=1$, the condition "$\forall \epsilon>0 \ \exists N \in \mathbb{N}$ s.t. $|f_n(x)-f(x)| < \epsilon \ \forall x \in \mathbb{R}$" is not true and $f_n$ is not uniformly convergent.

  • 0
    Your ideas are wonderful! May you explain me how to calculate the supremum of D(x)? I am sure that I am confused with that. Thank you for everything!2017-02-25
  • 0
    For $D(x)$ its better to write $D_n(x)$ because it's the distance between two functions and one depends on n. But $\sup_{x \in \mathbb{R}} D_n(x) = \infty$ since you can make the $x$ large and then $D_n(x)$ becomes large (because the $x$ is in the denominator of the above fraction)2017-02-25
  • 0
    Thank you for your amazing help! One new question: why did you write x is in the denominator? A typo? x is the numerator.2017-02-25
  • 0
    Oh yes, that was a typo. Numerator is right ;)2017-02-26