Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js
Skip to main content

Equicontinuity on a Compact Metric Set implies Uniform Equicontinuity

Equicontinuity: A collection F of real-valued functions on a metric space X is equicontinuous at the point xX provided for every ϵ>0,  δ>0 such that  fF and yX d(x,y)<δ|f(x)f(y)|<ϵThe collection F is said to be equicontinuous on X provided it is equicontinuous at every point in X

Uniform EquicontinuityA equicontinuous collection F of real-valued functions on a metric space X is uniformly equicontinuous if for every ϵ>0,  δ>0 such that  fF and x,yX d(x,y)<δ|f(x)f(y)|<ϵ


Just like we know that a continuous function on a compact set is uniformly continuous here we are showing that for a collection of functions the same ϵδ pair works.


Now coming to the proof, since F is equicontinuous for every ϵ>0,  δ>0 such that  fF and yX d(x,y)<δ|f(x)f(y)|<ϵHence if we fix ϵ for every xX we get a δx such that for all yBδx(x) |f(x)f(y)|<ϵ. Now these {Bδx2(x)} covers X. Since X is compact it has a finite subcover Bδ12(x1),Bδ22(x2),,Bδn2(xn)Now takeδ=12min{δii{1,2,,n}}Now if d(x,y)<δ suppose xBδi2(xi) then yBδi(xi) because  d(xi,y)d(xi,x)+d(x,y)<δi2+δδi2+δi2=δi Hence d(x,y)<δ|f(x)f(y)|<ϵSince this is true for any fF, for every ϵ>0,  δ>0 such that  fF and x,yX d(x,y)<δ|f(x)f(y)|<ϵTherefore F is uniformly equicontinuous. 

Cite this page: Get the BibTeX

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hierarchy Theorems (Time, Space, Alternation)

There are many hierarchy theorems based on Time, Space, Nondeterminism, Randomization etc. Time Hierarchy Theorem (Version 1) : If f,g are time-constructible functions satisfying f(n)logf(n)=o(g(n)), then DTIME(f(n))DTIME(g(n)) Proof:  Consider the following Turing machine D: "On input x, run for f(|x|)log(f(|x|)) steps the Universal TM U to simulate the execution of Mx on x. If U outputs some bit b{0,1} in this time, then output the opposite answer (i.e., output 1b ). Else output 0.” Here Mx is the machine represented by the string x.      By definition, D halts within f(n)log(f(n)) steps and hence the language L decided by D is in DTIME(g(n)). Claim:  L DTIME (f(n)) Proof:  For contradiction's sake, assume that there is some TM M and constant c such that TM M, given any input x{0,1}, halts within cf(|x|) steps and outputs D(x)....

Cook - Levin Theorem

Around 1971, Cook and Levin independently discovered the notion of NPcompleteness and gave examples of combinatorial NPcomplete problems whose definition seems to have nothing to do with Turing machines. Soon after, Karp showed that NPcompleteness occurs widely and many problems of practical interest are NPcomplete. To date, thousands of computational problems in a variety of disciplines have been shown to be NPcomplete. SAT is the language of all satisfiable CNF formulae. Cook-Levin Theorem : SAT is NPcomplete Before we go into the proof first we need to define some things Configuration of a Turing Machine: A configuration of a Turing Machine at any point of time t is basically the snapshot of the turning machine at that time. It is an ordered pair of the head position, current state, and tape content. Any configuration is initialized and ended with a special symbol, let # mark its ending. Then the contents of the tape at the left of ...

Function Automata: A Technique to Solve Finite State Automata Problems

Here I will describe a strategy or technique to solve some finite state automata problems. This strategy was first taught to us by my Theory of Computation Professor. The term 'Function Automata' is given to me since we use function-like structures in this.     Suppose you are given a language that is a regular set L. So there exists a DFA for L, LD=(Q,Σ,δ,q1,F) where Q is the set of states, Σ is the set of alphabets, δ is the transition function, S is the starting state and f is the set of final states. Now let Q={q1,q2,,qn where nN. Now we will do a kind of subset construction but every new state will have n states of Q but they can repeat. So (q1,q1,,q1n times) is a state of the new automata. Now, what is the meaning of these new states? Let f=(qk1,qk2,,qkn) be a new state where qki's are not necessary to be diff...