Thursday, 1 March 2018

real analysis - f(nx)to0 as nto+infty



Let f:R+R+ be a continuous function, and let I be a subset of R+ such that the following property holds:




For any xI, f(nx)0 as n+.





Intuitively, if I is 'big' enough, f necessarily tends to 0 at infinity, but it happens to not always be the case. I am investigating whether it can be said, for various I, if




f(x)0 as x+.







As a first example, consider I=[0,1]. Set ε>0, and consider the closed sets Fn={xIf(kx)<ε,kn}. Their union is [0,1], and thus, thanks to the property of Baire, one of them has non-empty interior, i.e. [a,b]Fn for a certain n. It follows that for all kn and x[ka,kb], f(x)<ε. But since b>a, k=n[ka,kb] contains a half-line, and lim supxf(x)ε. Since the reasoning holds for any ε>0, we conclude that f does, indeed, tend to 0 at infinity. The same proof actually works for all I with non-empty interior.




The result is false in higher dimensions when I contains a neighbourhood of the origin, as a simple counter-example can be constructed using a parabola.



What happens when IR is smaller? Consider the following sets:




  1. I is any measurable set with empty interior, but with Lebesgue measure >0. In that case, one of the aforementioned Fn has positive Lebesgue measure.


  2. I=(0,1)C, where C is the Cantor set (or another uncountable set). Then, one of the Fn has to be uncountable aswell,


  3. I={1/k,kN} or I=(0,1)Q, both of these being equivalent. I provided an answer below for this one, and actually for any countable set; such a function f does not necessarily converge to 0.





In any of these cases, can anything be said about the behaviour of f at infinity?



Bonus question: what is the minimum condition for I (if there is one) so that f has to converge to 0?






I thought about mimicking the proof of the first example when I has empty interior but positive Lebesgue measure. If there exists an integer n and a non-trivial interval [a,b] such that |Fn[a,b]|=ba, then fε on a set that is dense on a half-line, and thus, using continuity, tends to 0. Sadly, such an interval may not exist, since the closure of Fn could very well be of empty interior, like a generalized Cantor set.


Answer



At the first I remark that your proof works for all non-meager I (that is which are not a countable union of nowhere dense sets). From the other hand, let I be a meager subset of R+. Choose a sequence {Fn} of closed nowhere dense sets such that Fn[1/n;n] for each n and Fn{0}I. The family F={mFn:mn2} is locally finite, so a set F=F is closed. Since the set F is meager, by Baire theorem, it does not contain a half-line. This means there exists a sequence S={xn}R+{0} which goes to infinity. Thus the set S is closed. Since the closed sets F{0} and S are disjoint and the space R+ is normal, there exists a continuous function f:R+R+ such that f(F{0})=0 and f(S)=1. Therefore there exists arbitrary large x such that f(x)=1, but for each xI f(nx) eventually gets 0.


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find limh0sin(ha)h without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...