Recall that a Darboux function f:R→R is one which satisfies the conclusion of the intermediate value theorem (i.e., connected sets are mapped to connected sets). Being Darboux is a weaker condition than continuity. If a theorem about continuous functions only uses the intermediate value theorem, then chances are it also holds for the entire class of Darboux functions. I find it interesting to study which theorems about continuous functions also hold for Darboux functions.
We have the following theorem, which is fairly well known and hinges on the Baire Categoery Theorem.
If f:R→R is continuous and f(nθ)→n∈N, n→∞0 for every θ∈(0,∞), then f(x)→x∈R, x→∞0.
A counterexample if we drop continuity is f(x)=1{exp(n):n∈N}. However, this counterexample isn't Darboux, and I haven't been able to come up with any counterexample which is Darboux. Thus, this leads me to my question.
Can the continuity condition in the theorem stated above be relaxed to Darboux?
In searching for counterexamples of this sort, one approach is playing around with sin1x. An alternative approach is considering highly pathological functions with the property that every nonempty open set is mapped to R (for instance, Conway Base-13, or Brian's example here) and modifying these in such a way that they satisfy the hypotheses of the problem.
Answer
Non-measurable example
By the axiom of choice there is a Q-linear basis of R. This basis has the same cardinality as R so can be indexed as ar for r∈R. Define f by setting f(x)=r if x is of the form a0+qar for some rational q and real r, and set f(x)=0 for x not of this form. Then f is Darboux because the set {a0+qar∣q∈Q} is dense for each r. But for each θ>0, we can only have f(qθ)≠0 for at most one rational q - the reciprocal of the a0 coefficient of θ. In particular f(nθ)→0 as n→∞ with n∈N.
Measurable example
For n≥2 let bn=n!(n−1)!…2!. Each real has a unique "mixed radix" expression as
x=⌊x⌋+∑n≥2xnbn where xn is the unique representative of ⌊bnx⌋ modulo n! lying in {0,1,…,n!−1}. For non-negative x define f(x)=limn→∞1n∑nm=2xm if this limit exists and xn≤1 for all sufficiently large n, and take f(x)=0 otherwise. For negative x define f(x)=f(−x). Note f(x)∈[0,1]. It is straightforward to see that f takes all values in [0,1] in every interval and is hence Darboux.
Now consider a real x>0 with f(x)≠0 and let q<1 be rational. We will show that f(qx)=0. We know there exists N such that xn≤1 for all n>N. Increasing N if necessary we can assume that qN is an integer. We also know that xn=1 for infinitely many n>N - otherwise we would have limn→∞1n∑nm=2xm=0.
Write x=x′/bn−1+1/bn+ϵ/bn+1 where x′ is an integer and 0≤ϵ<2. So qxbn+1=qx′n!(n+1)!+q(n+1)!+qϵ. The first term is a multiple of (n+1)! because qn! is an integer, and the second term q(n+1)! is an integer, and qϵ<2. So (qx)n+1 is either q(n+1)! or q(n+1)!+1 (note this is less than (n+1)!). Since q(n+1)!>1 and there are infinitely many such n, we get f(qx)=0, .
This shows that for each θ>0, the sequence f(nθ) takes at most one non-zero value, and in particular f(nθ)→0.
Remark: this f appears to be a counterexample to https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4673 Theorem 4.1.
No comments:
Post a Comment