University Mathematics — Year 3 · Bachelor Year 3
7Complete Spaces: Baire, Ascoli, Stone–Weierstrass
Completeness — every Cauchy sequence converges — is the property that lets analysis produce objects: fixed points of contractions, sums of series, solutions of equations obtained as limits. This chapter assembles the three great existence machines of the metric theory. Baire’s theorem shows that a complete space cannot be a countable union of negligible pieces, and conjures objects (continuous nowhere differentiable functions!) out of pure cardinality-style reasoning. Arzelà–Ascoli identifies the compact subsets of and is analysis’ compactness workhorse — the weekend problem uses it to prove Peano’s existence theorem for differential equations. Stone–Weierstrass shows polynomials, and much else, are dense in : approximation becomes an algebraic verification. Along the way we construct completions and prove the extension theorem for uniformly continuous maps, the daily bread of Chapters 12, 13 and 14.
7.1 Complete spaces, completions, extensions
Definition 7.1
A metric space is complete if every Cauchy sequence converges (Year 2: is complete; with is complete). A closed subset of a complete space is complete; a complete subset of any metric space is closed.
Proof. For the two statements: a Cauchy sequence of the closed converges in , and its limit, adherent to , lies in ; a convergent-in- sequence of a complete is Cauchy, so converges in , and limits are unique. ∎
Theorem 7.2 (Extension of uniformly continuous maps)
Let be dense, complete, and uniformly continuous. Then extends uniquely to a continuous , and is uniformly continuous.
Proof. Uniqueness: two continuous extensions agree on the dense , hence everywhere (the agreement set is closed: preimage of the closed diagonal under ). Existence: for pick , . The sequence is Cauchy: given , uniform continuity provides with , and is Cauchy. Define ; the limit does not depend on the chosen sequence (interlace two of them). extends (constant sequences) and inherits the modulus of continuity: if , approximating both by points of at distance gives in the limit — is uniformly continuous. ∎
Theorem 7.3 (Completion)
Every metric space embeds isometrically as a dense subset of a complete metric space , unique up to isometry fixing pointwise: its completion.
Proof. Existence. Let be the set of Cauchy sequences of , with the pseudo-distance
the limit existing because makes the real sequence Cauchy. Let , identifying sequences at -distance ; descends to a distance. Embed by constant sequences: an isometry, with dense image (a Cauchy sequence is -approximated by the constants built on its own terms: as by Cauchyness). Completeness of : let be Cauchy in ; by density pick with ; then is Cauchy in (triangle inequality through the ’s), defines a point , and (the distance from the constant to the class of is , small for large ).
Uniqueness: two completions contain densely; the identity of , an isometry, is uniformly continuous, so extends to (Theorem 7.2), still an isometry on a dense set hence everywhere; symmetrically in the other direction, and the composites fix the dense : they are the identities. ∎
Theorem 7.4 (Banach fixed point)
Let be complete, nonempty, and a contraction: with . Then has a unique fixed point , and every orbit converges to it, with the explicit rate .
Proof. (Year 2 proved this; we re-record the two-line argument for self-containedness.) The orbit has , hence is Cauchy (geometric series); its limit is fixed (continuity of ), unique since two fixed points satisfy . The rate: sum the geometric tail. ∎
Example 7.5 (Perturbing the identity)
Let be -Lipschitz with . Then is a homeomorphism of onto . Injectivity, with a quantitative modulus:
Surjectivity is the fixed point theorem: solving means , and is a -contraction of the complete — a unique solution exists for every . The displayed inequality makes the inverse Lipschitz with constant : a homeomorphism, with explicit bounds on both moduli. This innocuous-looking statement is the engine inside the inverse function theorem (Chapter 20): near a point where is invertible, is an invertible linear map plus a small Lipschitz perturbation, and today’s example does the rest. It also quantifies numerical robustness: a system perturbed by less than the inverse’s margin remains solvable, with the solution moving by at most times the perturbation.
7.2 Baire’s theorem
Theorem 7.6 (Baire)
In a complete metric space, a countable intersection of dense open sets is dense. Equivalently: if with each closed, then some has nonempty interior.
Proof. Let be dense opens and any open ball; we find a point of in . Inductively: being dense and open, it meets the open ball in an open set, which contains a closed ball with and . The centers form a Cauchy sequence ( for , radii ); the limit lies in every (closedness), hence in every and in . For the second form: if no has interior, the are open and dense, and a point of escapes : absurd. ∎
Remark 7.7
Vocabulary: a set is nowhere dense if its closure has empty interior, meagre (first category) if it is a countable union of nowhere dense sets. Baire: a complete metric space is not meagre in itself, and the complement of a meagre set is dense. “Meagre” is a notion of smallness orthogonal to measure (Chapter 9 will produce meagre sets of full measure), and Baire arguments prove existence by abundance: to exhibit one object without property P, show the P-objects form a meagre set.
Corollary 7.8
(a) is uncountable. (b) is not a countable intersection of open subsets of , and a nonempty complete metric space without isolated points is uncountable.
Proof. (a) over a countable set would make some singleton have interior. (b) If with open (necessarily dense, as ), then the sets and the complements , , form a countable family of dense opens with empty intersection — contradicting Baire. If is complete without isolated points and countable, exhibits it as a countable union of closed sets with empty interior (no isolated points): Baire again. ∎
Theorem 7.9 (Weierstrass’s monsters exist)
There exist continuous functions on differentiable at no point. Indeed, the set of having a (finite) derivative at even one point is meagre in .
Proof. For let
If is differentiable at , then for some : the quotient is bounded for (differentiability: it tends to ) and bounded by for . So contains all somewhere-differentiable functions, and it suffices to show each is closed with empty interior.
Closed: let uniformly, with witnesses (compactness, after extraction). For with : choose with (e.g. clipped); then , using uniform convergence and continuity of at the relevant points: .
Empty interior: given and , we find with and . First approximate within by a piecewise affine (uniform continuity: interpolate on a fine grid), of slopes bounded by some . Add a small sawtooth: , where is the -periodic zigzag of amplitude and slope . At every , on one side there is arbitrarily small with the sawtooth contributing slope over : the difference quotient of exceeds for large. So , at any uniform distance from . Conclusion: is meagre; by Baire its complement — made of nowhere differentiable functions — is dense in : such functions exist in abundance. ∎
7.3 Arzelà–Ascoli
Throughout, is a compact metric space and , with : a complete space (uniform limits of continuous are continuous — Year 2).
Definition 7.10
A family is equicontinuous if for every there is such that
(one for the whole family — e.g. any family with a common Lipschitz constant, or a common Hölder modulus), and pointwise bounded if for each .
Theorem 7.11 (Arzelà–Ascoli)
A subset is relatively compact (has compact closure) iff it is equicontinuous and pointwise bounded. In particular, every equicontinuous, pointwise bounded sequence has a uniformly convergent subsequence.
Proof. () Let be a sequence of . compact metric is separable: for each , finitely many balls of radius cover (Theorem 6.16); their centers form a countable dense set . By pointwise boundedness and Bolzano–Weierstrass, extract successively subsequences converging at , then also at , etc., and take the diagonal subsequence : it converges at every point of . Equicontinuity upgrades this to uniform Cauchy: given , take as in the definition, cover by finitely many balls with (), and pick so large that for , . For arbitrary :
So is uniformly Cauchy, and converges in the complete . Thus every sequence of has a convergent subsequence: is (sequentially, hence by Theorem 6.16) compact.
() If is compact: pointwise boundedness is clear (evaluation is continuous). For equicontinuity, cover by finitely many balls of ; each is uniformly continuous (Heine, Corollary 6.17), giving a common for ; then for and : . ∎
Example 7.12
The closed unit ball of is not compact ( has no uniformly convergent subsequence: the pointwise limit is discontinuous), and indeed is not equicontinuous at . By contrast is compact: bounded and -Lipschitz-equicontinuous, and closed. Ascoli explains why compactness fails in infinite dimension (Riesz, Year 2) and what to add to restore it: a uniform modulus of continuity.
7.4 Stone–Weierstrass
Lemma 7.13 (Dini)
Let be compact and a monotone sequence of continuous real functions converging pointwise to a continuous . Then the convergence is uniform.
Proof. Say ; let , continuous. Given , the open sets increase and cover (pointwise convergence); extract a finite subcover: for some (increasing family), i.e. everywhere for . ∎
Lemma 7.14
There is a sequence of polynomials with uniformly on .
Proof. Define , : polynomials. By induction on : granting it for ,
since ; and . So is nondecreasing, bounded by : it converges pointwise, and the limit satisfies : , continuous. Dini (Lemma 7.13) upgrades to uniform. ∎
Theorem 7.15 (Stone–Weierstrass, real version)
Let be a compact (Hausdorff) space and a subalgebra (stable under sums, products, scalar multiples) that contains the constants and separates points (for , some has ). Then is dense in .
Proof. Let be the closure, again an algebra (products of uniform limits on bounded sets converge).
Step 1: is a lattice, i.e. stable under and . Since and likewise, it suffices that : with , , and Lemma 7.14 gives polynomials with uniformly; polynomials in members of the algebra (with constant term: constants are there) stay in .
Step 2: two-point interpolation. For and , some has , : take separating and set .
Step 3. Let , . For each pair pick with , (Step 2; for take the constant function ). Fix : for each , the open set contains ; compactness extracts with , and (Step 1) satisfies everywhere, . Now vary : is open, contains ; extract covering , and satisfies : . Hence . ∎
Corollary 7.16
(a) (Weierstrass) Polynomials are dense in ; polynomials in variables are dense in for compact . (b) (Complex version) If is a subalgebra containing constants, separating points, and stable under conjugation, it is dense. (c) (Trigonometric version) Trigonometric polynomials are dense in the space of continuous -periodic functions with .
Proof. (a) Polynomials form an algebra with constants; the coordinate functions separate points of . (b) The real and imaginary parts , of members of form a real algebra with constants; it separates points ( forces or to separate). Apply the real theorem and recombine. (c) View -periodic functions as (, compact: Exercise 6.5); the algebra generated by and constants is stable under conjugation and separates points of the circle ( is injective on it). Apply (b). ∎
Remark 7.17
The trigonometric version repairs, and vastly generalizes, the gap left in Year 2’s Fourier chapter: density of trigonometric polynomials in follows a fortiori ( up to the normalizing constant), which will make the Fourier system an orthonormal basis in Chapter 13, proving Parseval in full generality at last.
7.5 Exercises
Exercise 7.1 ★
(a) Show that with is not complete: the functions equal to on , on , affine between, are -Cauchy with no continuous limit. (b) Show that a normed space in which every absolutely convergent series converges is complete. (Extract from a Cauchy sequence a subsequence with .)
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.1.
(a) For , vanishes outside an interval of length and is bounded by : : Cauchy. If in with continuous: for fixed , ( there for large ), so on (continuity); likewise on : no continuous function does both. So the space is incomplete — the completion is , built in Chapter 12.
(b) Let be Cauchy; choose with . The series converges absolutely, hence converges; its partial sums are , so converges, and a Cauchy sequence with a convergent subsequence converges.
Exercise 7.2 ★
Using Baire: (a) show that a complete normed space has no countable (algebraic) basis — deduce that the space of polynomials is complete for no norm; (b) show that if a sequence of continuous converges pointwise to , the set of continuity points of is dense. (For (b): admit or prove that is open, and show it is dense using , closed sets covering ; work in an arbitrary closed ball to apply Baire.)
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.2.
(a) Suppose complete with algebraic basis and let : closed (finite-dimensional subspaces are complete, hence closed — Year 2), with empty interior: if , take ; then , absurd. But (every vector is a finite combination): contradicts Baire (Theorem 7.6). The space has the countable basis , so no norm makes it complete.
(b) Fix and a nonempty open ball ; we find in a point of , where . ( is open: if for an open , every has oscillation .) The sets
are closed (intersections of preimages of closed sets) and cover (pointwise convergence makes Cauchy). Applying Baire inside the complete : some contains a ball . Letting : on . By continuity of at , shrink to where ; then for ,
, so . Thus each is open and dense; — the set of continuity points — is dense by Baire.
Exercise 7.3 ★★
(a) Show that () is a contraction of and identify its fixed point — Heron’s method. Estimate the number of iterations for -accuracy starting from , for . (b) (Kepler’s equation) For and , show that has a unique solution, depending continuously on .
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.3.
(a) maps to itself (AM–GM: ), and there: a -Lipschitz contraction of a closed (complete) set. Fixed point: : . Rate (Theorem 7.4): . For , : , so guarantees . (In reality Newton’s method converges quadratically: a handful of iterations suffice; the contraction estimate is pessimistic but free.)
(b) is -Lipschitz with on the complete : unique fixed point . For two parameters:
so : even Lipschitz in .
Exercise 7.4 ★★
(a) Let be complete and such that some iterate is a contraction. Show that has a unique fixed point. Application: the integral operator on , , satisfies — deduce that is solvable for every . (b) (Edelstein) Let be compact and with for . Show that has a unique fixed point, but that the contraction rate can be lost: on (complete, not compact), has no fixed point despite strictly decreasing distances.
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.4.
(a) Let be the unique fixed point of . Then : is a fixed point of , so . A fixed point of is one of : uniqueness transfers. For : by induction (each integration adds a factor ), so . The map satisfies , of norm : some is a contraction, and has a unique fixed point: the Volterra equation is uniquely solvable for every .
(b) is continuous on the compact : it attains its minimum at some . If , then : absurd. Uniqueness: two fixed points would give . Without compactness: on satisfies, for , , yet always: no fixed point — strict distance decrease is weaker than a uniform contraction factor.
Exercise 7.5 ★★
(a) Two continuous maps into a Hausdorff space agreeing on a dense subset agree everywhere; where was this used in the chapter? (b) Let dense and an isometric bijection onto a dense subset of a complete , with complete. Show that extends to an isometric bijection . Deduce again the uniqueness of completions.
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.5.
(a) The set is the preimage of the diagonal under , continuous; is closed because is Hausdorff (for , disjoint open neighborhoods give an open box around disjoint from the diagonal, so the complement of is open): so is closed, contains a dense set, equals . Used: uniqueness in Theorem 7.2, hence in the uniqueness of completions.
(b) , an isometry, is uniformly continuous: it extends to (Theorem 7.2), still isometric (the relation holds on a dense set of pairs and both sides are continuous). Likewise extends to . The composite is continuous and fixes the dense : it is (part (a)); symmetrically . So is an isometric bijection. Uniqueness of completions: apply this to sitting densely in two completions.
Exercise 7.6 ★★
Which of the following families are equicontinuous, pointwise bounded, relatively compact in ?
Justify each answer with Ascoli or a counterexample sequence.
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.6.
: pointwise bounded by ; not equicontinuous: at , with , violating any common for . Not relatively compact (Ascoli’s necessity, Theorem 7.11).
: bounded; not equicontinuous at : as for fixed . Not relatively compact — consistently, its pointwise limit is discontinuous, so no subsequence converges uniformly.
: the mean value inequality makes the family -Lipschitz, hence equicontinuous; bounded: relatively compact by Ascoli. (Not compact: it is not closed — uniform limits need not be ; its closure is the -Lipschitz functions of norm .)
: equicontinuous; pointwise bounded (); and closed under uniform limits (the Lipschitz inequality and the value at pass to limits): compact.
Exercise 7.7 ★★★
(Compact integral operators) Let and, for , . (a) Show that maps the unit ball of to an equicontinuous, uniformly bounded set; conclude that is a compact operator: images of bounded sets are relatively compact. (b) Deduce that if is bounded, has a uniformly convergent subsequence, and that cannot be a bijection with continuous inverse. (The image of the unit ball would be a compact neighborhood of in : forbidden by Riesz’s theorem from Year 2.)
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.7.
(a) For : , and
where is a modulus of uniform continuity of on the compact square (Heine): the image of the unit ball is uniformly bounded and equicontinuous, hence relatively compact (Ascoli). By linearity every bounded set has relatively compact image: is a compact operator.
(b) The subsequence statement is the definition of relative compactness applied to . If were bijective with continuous inverse, then for some ( continuous at ); the closed ball , a closed subset of the compact , would be compact — impossible in the infinite-dimensional by Riesz’s theorem (Year 2).
Exercise 7.8 ★★
Prove or disprove, for continuous: (a) pointwise uniformly (Dini — reprove it); (b) same without monotonicity; (c) same with monotonicity but discontinuous; (d) same with monotonicity, continuous limit, but on .
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.8.
(a) Dini: see Lemma 7.13 — the covering argument. (b) False: the moving bump tends to pointwise (for , once ; ) but . (c) False: decreases to the discontinuous ; . (d) False: pointwise on the noncompact , with . Each hypothesis of Dini is needed.
Exercise 7.9 ★★
(a) (Moments determine) Let with for all . Show . (Approximate uniformly by polynomials and compute .) (b) Show that the even polynomials are dense in but not in ; where does Stone–Weierstrass’s hypothesis fail? (c) Is the algebra generated by alone (without ) dense in ? (Consider .)
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.9.
(a) By linearity for every polynomial . Choose uniformly (Corollary 7.16): , and the continuous with zero integral vanishes identically.
(b) On : the polynomials in form an algebra with constants, separating points ( is injective on ): dense by Stone–Weierstrass. On : takes equal values at , and so does every polynomial in : a uniform limit of such is an even function. If even functions converged uniformly to the identity, then for all : absurd — not dense. The separation hypothesis fails at the pairs .
(c) No. For in the algebra generated by constants and — linear combinations of , — one has (each ). is continuous for (), so vanishes on ; but : . (Stone–Weierstrass does not apply: is not stable under conjugation — and the obstruction is precisely the one that holomorphic function theory will systematize in Chapter 16.)
Exercise 7.10 ★★★
(Uniform boundedness, metric version) Let be a complete metric space and a family that is pointwise bounded: for each . Show that there is a nonempty open on which is uniformly bounded: . (Consider .) This is the engine behind Banach–Steinhaus in Chapter 8.
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.10.
is an intersection of closed sets: closed. Pointwise boundedness gives . Baire (Theorem 7.6) provides with : on , for every simultaneously.
Exercise 7.11 ★★
( needs its own norm) On consider . (a) Show that is complete (a -Cauchy sequence has and uniformly; identify by passing to the limit in ). (b) Show that is not complete: exhibit a uniform limit of functions that is not differentiable (e.g. smooth approximations of ). (c) Deduce from (a), (b) and the open mapping circle of ideas — or directly — that no constant satisfies on : exhibit a sequence witnessing it. Differentiation is unbounded; this is the cliff behind Theorem 7.9.
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.11.
(a) A Cauchy sequence for is uniformly Cauchy together with its derivatives: and uniformly, with continuous. Passing to the limit (uniform convergence allows it under the integral) in gives : is with , and . Complete.
(b) is a uniform limit of functions, e.g. ( by the conjugate-quantity bound), yet : the -norm on is not complete — its completion is .
(c) has and : no exists. (Conceptually: if differentiation were bounded for the sup norm, the two norms of (a)–(b) would be equivalent, making complete — contradicting (b). This unboundedness is exactly why generic continuous functions can fail to be differentiable anywhere, Theorem 7.9.)
Exercise 7.12 ★★★
(Croft’s lemma) Let be continuous and suppose that for every , as the integer . Show that as . (Fix ; the sets are closed and cover ; Baire in some interval gives and a subinterval ; then the dilates , , cover a whole neighborhood of once .) Where is the hypothesis “for every ” (not just rational ) used?
Solution
Solution of Exercise 7.12.
Fix . Each is an intersection over of preimages of the closed under the continuous : closed. The hypothesis says every lies in some . By Baire applied inside the complete (any ), some is dense in a subinterval; being closed, it contains an interval with . Then for every , the intervals and overlap (), so
and every is with , : . Hence for all : . The full hypothesis is needed because must cover an interval-worth of ’s — with only rational the union of the is countable and Baire gives nothing; indeed there are continuous counterexamples vanishing along all rational rays but not at infinity.
7.6 Problem: Peano’s existence theorem
Problem 7.1
Weekend problem — existence of solutions of without Lipschitz
Cauchy–Lipschitz (Year 2; re-proved in Chapter 19) demands Lipschitz in . Peano (1890): continuity of already yields existence — though not uniqueness. We prove it with Euler polygons and Ascoli. Setting: continuous on the rectangle , , and
Part I — Euler polygons. For , subdivide by () and define piecewise affinely: and, on ,
- Show by induction that is well defined, with on — so the evaluation points stay in . (This is where enters.)
- Show that each is -Lipschitz.
- Deduce from Arzelà–Ascoli (Theorem 7.11) that a subsequence converges uniformly on to some , itself -Lipschitz with .
Part II — The limit solves the equation. Define the defect at non-grid points.
- Show that is uniformly continuous on , and deduce: for every there is such that for and every non-grid , . (On , , and is within distance of .)
Establish the integral form: for all ,
the middle integrand being piecewise continuous.
Pass to the limit along : show uniformly (uniform continuity of again), and conclude
- Deduce that is on and solves , ; extend the construction to (time reversal). This is Peano’s theorem.
Part III — Uniqueness genuinely fails. Consider , , on .
- Check that is continuous but not Lipschitz on any neighborhood of .
Verify that and, for every ,
are all solutions through : a continuum of distinct solutions.
- Where does the Picard iteration argument (Banach fixed point) break down for this ?
Part IV — Limits of the method.
- Show that Peano’s theorem fails in infinite dimension: we admit (or you may take on faith) the classical example of Dieudonné in the space of null sequences; instead, prove the finite-dimensional ingredient that fails there: the closed unit ball of (sup norm) is not compact — exhibit a bounded sequence with no convergent subsequence, and explain which step of Part I breaks.
- Summarize: which hypotheses give existence? existence and uniqueness? State precisely the two theorems (Peano; Cauchy–Lipschitz) side by side.
Part V — Osgood: uniqueness beyond Lipschitz. Let be continuous, nondecreasing, with
and suppose satisfies on .
- Check that qualifies (Lipschitz), that (extended by continuity, for small) qualifies although it is not , and that does not. Compute the integral in each case.
Let solve the equation on with , and . Show, from the integral forms alone, that for :
(Osgood’s theorem) Suppose for some , and let . For , set . Show , , and deduce
Let and derive a contradiction with the divergence of the integral. Conclude: solutions through a common initial condition coincide — uniqueness under Osgood’s condition.
- Draw the consequences: Cauchy–Lipschitz uniqueness is the case ; the equation (extended by at ) has unique solutions although its right side is not Lipschitz at ; and for the convergence of is exactly what lets a solution leave in finite time — match the value of the integral with the escape behaviour of .
Part VI — Rates, schemes, funnels.
(Integral Grönwall lemma) Let be continuous on with for all . Show
(set , note , and differentiate ).
(Euler converges with a rate) Suppose now is -Lipschitz in and -Lipschitz in on . Combining the defect bound of question 4 (made quantitative: ) with question 17, prove
where is the solution: with Lipschitz data the whole sequence converges, with an explicit rate — no subsequences needed. Why does uniqueness upgrade subsequential convergence to full convergence even without this computation?
- (The scheme chooses) For , : show that every Euler polygon is identically zero, so the scheme converges to the solution ; but started at it converges (as , then ) to , a different solution through the origin. Non-uniqueness resurfaces as sensitivity of the numerical scheme to perturbations.
- Show that the set of all solutions of , on (values in ) is nonempty (Part II), uniformly -Lipschitz, and closed in ; conclude by Ascoli that is compact. (Kneser’s theorem adds that is connected; we shall not prove it.)
- Verify Kneser’s phenomenon on the example: for , , on , show with (for any solution, let and integrate on ), that is continuous from (one-point compactification, i.e. glued as limit) to , and conclude that is indeed compact and connected — a segment-shaped funnel.
- (Reachable sets) Deduce from question 20 that for each fixed , the reachable set is compact; compute it for the example of question 21 and check it is also connected: — every intermediate state is attained by some solution.
Part VII — Complements: dependence, optimality, and a scheme computed by hand.
(Continuous dependence) Suppose is -Lipschitz in on , and let be two solutions with initial values at . Adapting the proof of question 17 to the inequality , show
and check on that the bound is attained: Grönwall is sharp. Deduce again uniqueness (), and that the flow map is Lipschitz, with constant , wherever it is defined.
(Osgood is optimal) Conversely, let be continuous, nondecreasing, positive on , with as but
and extend by . Show that is an increasing bijection from onto , that its inverse solves with , and that , extended by for , is a solution of through distinct from (for , bound by ). Conclude: the divergence hypothesis of question 15 is not a convenience but the exact frontier of uniqueness; recover Part III from , .
(Euler computed by hand) For , on : show that the Euler polygon satisfies . Prove the expansion
so the error at is : question 18’s rate, with the exact constant. Check numerically for : against , an error to compare with .
Solution
Solution of Problem 7.1.
1. Induction on : if , the point lies in , so the slope is defined, of norm ; then for , .
2. Each affine piece has slope of norm ; a piecewise affine function with slopes bounded by is -Lipschitz (chain through the grid points).
3. The family is pointwise bounded (values in ) and equicontinuous (common Lipschitz constant ): Ascoli (Theorem 7.11) extracts uniformly on . The bounds pass to the limit: is -Lipschitz, .
4. is compact and continuous: uniformly continuous (Heine, Corollary 6.17); let be a modulus. For non-grid : , and the two evaluation points of differ by in time and in space. For with : .
5. On each , is affine, so , the derivative being the constant slope; summing over pieces (and cutting the last one at ): . Writing (piecewise continuous integrands, finitely many jumps) gives the display.
6. Given : for large, , so for all : uniform convergence of the integrands, and uniformly in . Also (question 4). Passing to the limit in question 5’s identity: .
7. The integrand is continuous, so the right side is in with derivative : solves the Cauchy problem on . For the left half, set , continuous on the reflected rectangle with the same bound ; a solution of , on yields solving the original equation on ; the two halves glue to a solution (both one-sided derivatives at equal ). — Peano’s theorem: a continuous admits a local solution through every initial condition.
8. Continuity is clear. Lipschitz near fails: , and is false for .
9. For : solves. For : . At the one-sided derivatives are both : is and solves globally, with for every — together with , a continuum of solutions through the origin.
10. Picard’s iteration sets up and needs with on a suitable ball — which follows from a Lipschitz bound on , transferred under the integral. Here admits no Lipschitz bound near , and no choice of interval or ball repairs it. And indeed no proof of uniqueness could succeed: uniqueness is false (question 9).
11. In , the unit vectors satisfy for : no subsequence is Cauchy, so the closed unit ball is not compact. The step that breaks is the extraction (question 3): Ascoli for requires the values to live in a space where bounded sets are relatively compact — true in (Bolzano–Weierstrass), false in ; pointwise extraction is no longer available (indeed Dieudonné’s example has no local solution at all).
12. Peano: continuous on a neighborhood of in there exists a solution of , , on some . Cauchy–Lipschitz (Chapter 19): if moreover is locally Lipschitz in the -variable, the solution is unique (any two agree on their common interval) — existence and uniqueness. The pair separates the two theorems.
13. : : qualifies. (near ): as : qualifies — yet : not Lipschitz. : : fails.
14. Subtract the two integral forms:
take norms and use the Osgood modulus: .
15. is well defined () with (continuity) and on . Fix . Then is , , on (question 14), and ( nondecreasing, ). Divide and integrate:
Although depends on , the bound holds for every , so the left side is at least , which tends to as (then , and the integral diverges at ): the bounded right side is contradicted. Hence : uniqueness.
16. Lipschitz is : uniqueness recovered. For : the right side satisfies the Osgood modulus near (mean value inequality on , whose derivative is unbounded — Lipschitz fails, Osgood holds): unique solutions; note is one, so no other solution can touch . For : — the “Osgood budget” for climbing from to height is exactly the time , and indeed : the solution spends time doing precisely what the convergent integral permits. Divergence of the integral is the impossibility of leaving in finite time; convergence is the escape route.
17. is with (hypothesis ). Then : the bracket decreases, so , i.e. .
18. Quantitative defect: on , with and , so . Subtracting the integral identities for (question 5) and and using the Lipschitz bound:
and question 17 with gives the stated bound, being unique by Cauchy–Lipschitz (or Osgood). Even without rates: every subsequence of the equibounded, equi-Lipschitz has a sub-subsequence converging (Ascoli + Part II) to a solution, which uniqueness forces to be : a sequence all of whose subsequences have subsubsequences with the same limit converges.
19. From : the slope gives ; induction: , converging to the zero solution. From : on with the function is Lipschitz, so question 18 applies and Euler converges to the unique solution through , namely (check: ). As , uniformly on : the double limit lands on , not on . An arbitrarily small perturbation of the initial datum redirects the scheme from one solution to another: non-uniqueness read as numerical instability.
20. Nonempty: Part II. Every solution satisfies : is uniformly -Lipschitz and uniformly bounded (values in ). Closed: if uniformly, pass to the limit in (the integrands converge uniformly by uniform continuity of on the compact ): . Ascoli: is a closed, bounded, equicontinuous subset of : compact.
21. Any solution is nondecreasing () with , hence . Let (possibly if , in which case ). For : (monotonicity plus definition of ), and there , so (continuity at ): . Continuity of : for , (the map is -Lipschitz uniformly in ), and since on for every , the family reduces to (with ). So is the image of the compact connected under the continuous map : compact and connected. The funnel of solutions is a continuous segment running from (immediate escape) down to (eternal rest).
22. The evaluation , , is continuous (), so is a continuous image of a compact: compact — and of a connected set: connected. For the example: sweeps, as runs through , all values from (at ) down to (at ), continuously: . At each instant, the funnel’s cross-section is a full segment: between resting and maximal escape, every compromise is realized by an actual solution.
23. Subtracting the integral forms and its analogue for , and setting , :
Then and , so and ; hence . Sharpness: for , the solutions through and are and , whose distance is exactly . With , : Cauchy–Lipschitz uniqueness, re-derived in two lines. And for fixed , : the flow is Lipschitz in the initial condition — deterministic dependence, at a controlled exponential price.
24. On , is well defined (the integral converges at by hypothesis), with : an increasing bijection onto , with as . Its inverse is with
Extend by on : continuity is clear, and at , for ,
( nondecreasing, increasing, ): , and holds on both sides of . So and are two distinct solutions through : when converges, uniqueness fails — question 15’s divergence is exactly the frontier. For : , , and time translations give the whole family of Part III.
25. With step : , so after steps. Expansion:
and exponentiating, . The error at is therefore : the of question 18, here with its exact constant . Numerically, : (, , , times ), and , against the asymptotic prediction : agreement to within the correction, whose leading term here lowers the prediction toward the observed value.