Mathematics · Book 5 · Bachelor Year 3

University Mathematics — Year 3

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 C(K)\mathcal C(K) 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 C(K)\mathcal C(K): 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: Rn\R^n is complete; C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01) with \norm\cdot_\infty 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 FF converges in XX, and its limit, adherent to FF, lies in FF; a convergent-in-XX sequence of a complete AA is Cauchy, so converges in AA, and limits are unique.

Theorem 7.2 (Extension of uniformly continuous maps)

Let DXD \subseteq X be dense, YY complete, and f ⁣:DYf \colon D \to Y uniformly continuous. Then ff extends uniquely to a continuous fˉ ⁣:XY\bar f \colon X \to Y, and fˉ\bar f is uniformly continuous.

Proof. Uniqueness: two continuous extensions agree on the dense DD, hence everywhere (the agreement set {g=h}\{g = h\} is closed: preimage of the closed diagonal under x(g(x),h(x))x\mapsto(g(x), h(x))). Existence: for xXx \in X pick dnxd_n \to x, dnDd_n \in D. The sequence (f(dn))(f(d_n)) is Cauchy: given ε\varepsilon, uniform continuity provides δ\delta with d(u,v)<δd(f(u),f(v))<εd(u,v) < \delta \Rightarrow d(f(u), f(v)) < \varepsilon, and (dn)(d_n) is Cauchy. Define fˉ(x)=limf(dn)\bar f(x) = \lim f(d_n); the limit does not depend on the chosen sequence (interlace two of them). fˉ\bar f extends ff (constant sequences) and inherits the modulus of continuity: if d(x,x)<δd(x, x') < \delta, approximating both by points of DD at distance <δd(x,x)2< \frac{\delta - d(x,x')}2 gives d(fˉ(x),fˉ(x))εd(\bar f(x), \bar f(x')) \leq \varepsilon in the limit — fˉ\bar f is uniformly continuous.

Theorem 7.3 (Completion)

Every metric space XX embeds isometrically as a dense subset of a complete metric space X^\hat X, unique up to isometry fixing XX pointwise: its completion.

Proof. Existence. Let X\mathcal X be the set of Cauchy sequences of XX, with the pseudo-distance

D((xn),(yn))=limnd(xn,yn),D\bigl((x_n), (y_n)\bigr) = \lim_n d(x_n, y_n),

the limit existing because d(xn,yn)d(xm,ym)d(xn,xm)+d(yn,ym)\abs{d(x_n, y_n) - d(x_m, y_m)} \leq d(x_n, x_m) + d(y_n, y_m) makes the real sequence Cauchy. Let X^=X/\hat X = \mathcal X/{\sim}, identifying sequences at DD-distance 00; DD descends to a distance. Embed XX by constant sequences: an isometry, with dense image (a Cauchy sequence is DD-approximated by the constants built on its own terms: D((xn),(xk)const)=limnd(xn,xk)0D\bigl((x_n), (x_k)_{\rm const}\bigr) = \lim_n d(x_n, x_k) \to 0 as kk \to \infty by Cauchyness). Completeness of X^\hat X: let (ξk)(\xi^k) be Cauchy in X^\hat X; by density pick xkXx_k \in X with D(ξk,xk)2kD(\xi^k, x_k) \leq 2^{-k}; then (xk)(x_k) is Cauchy in XX (triangle inequality through the ξ\xi’s), defines a point ξX^\xi \in \hat X, and D(ξk,ξ)2k+D(xk,ξ)0D(\xi^k, \xi) \leq 2^{-k} + D(x_k, \xi) \to 0 (the distance from the constant xkx_k to the class of (xj)j(x_j)_j is limjd(xk,xj)\lim_j d(x_k, x_j), small for large kk).

Uniqueness: two completions X^1,X^2\hat X_1, \hat X_2 contain XX densely; the identity of XX, an isometry, is uniformly continuous, so extends to X^1X^2\hat X_1 \to \hat X_2 (Theorem 7.2), still an isometry on a dense set hence everywhere; symmetrically in the other direction, and the composites fix the dense XX: they are the identities.

Theorem 7.4 (Banach fixed point)

Let XX be complete, nonempty, and f ⁣:XXf \colon X \to X a contraction: d(f(x),f(y))kd(x,y)d(f(x), f(y)) \leq k\,d(x,y) with k<1k < 1. Then ff has a unique fixed point xx^*, and every orbit converges to it, with the explicit rate d(xn,x)kn1kd(x1,x0)d(x_n, x^*) \leq \frac{k^n}{1-k}\,d(x_1, x_0).

Proof. (Year 2 proved this; we re-record the two-line argument for self-containedness.) The orbit xn+1=f(xn)x_{n+1} = f(x_n) has d(xn+1,xn)knd(x1,x0)d(x_{n+1}, x_n) \leq k^nd(x_1, x_0), hence is Cauchy (geometric series); its limit xx^* is fixed (continuity of ff), unique since two fixed points satisfy dkdd \leq k\,d. The rate: sum the geometric tail.

Example 7.5 (Perturbing the identity)

Let g ⁣:RdRdg \colon \R^d \to \R^d be kk-Lipschitz with k<1k < 1. Then φ=id+g\varphi = \mathrm{id} + g is a homeomorphism of Rd\R^d onto Rd\R^d. Injectivity, with a quantitative modulus:

φ(x)φ(y)xyg(x)g(y)(1k)xy.\norm{\varphi(x) - \varphi(y)} \geq \norm{x - y} - \norm{g(x) - g(y)} \geq (1 - k)\norm{x - y} .

Surjectivity is the fixed point theorem: solving φ(x)=y\varphi(x) = y means x=yg(x)x = y - g(x), and xyg(x)x \mapsto y - g(x) is a kk-contraction of the complete Rd\R^d — a unique solution x=ψ(y)x = \psi(y) exists for every yy. The displayed inequality makes the inverse ψ\psi Lipschitz with constant 11k\frac1{1-k}: 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 DfDf is invertible, ff 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 11k\frac{1}{1-k} 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 X=nFnX = \bigcup_{n}F_n with each FnF_n closed, then some FnF_n has nonempty interior.

Proof. Let (Un)(U_n) be dense opens and B0=B(x0,r0)B_0 = B(x_0, r_0) any open ball; we find a point of Un\bigcap U_n in B0B_0. Inductively: UnU_{n} being dense and open, it meets the open ball Bn1B_{n-1} in an open set, which contains a closed ball Bˉ(xn,rn)\bar B(x_n, r_n) with 0<rnrn1/20 < r_n \leq r_{n-1}/2 and Bˉ(xn,rn)Bn1Un\bar B(x_n, r_n) \subseteq B_{n-1}\cap U_n. The centers form a Cauchy sequence (xmBnx_m \in B_n for mnm \geq n, radii 0\to 0); the limit xx lies in every Bˉ(xn,rn)\bar B(x_n, r_n) (closedness), hence in every UnU_n and in B0B_0. For the second form: if no FnF_n has interior, the Un=XFnU_n = X \setminus F_n are open and dense, and a point of Un\bigcap U_n escapes Fn=X\bigcup F_n = X: 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) R\R is uncountable. (b) Q\Q is not a countable intersection of open subsets of R\R, and a nonempty complete metric space without isolated points is uncountable.

Proof. (a) R=x{x}\R = \bigcup_{x}\{x\} over a countable set would make some singleton have interior. (b) If Q=nVn\Q = \bigcap_n V_n with VnV_n open (necessarily dense, as Q\supseteq \Q), then the sets VnV_n and the complements R{q}\R\setminus\{q\}, qQq \in \Q, form a countable family of dense opens with empty intersection — contradicting Baire. If XX is complete without isolated points and countable, X=xX{x}X = \bigcup_{x \in X}\{x\} 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 [0,1]\intcc01 differentiable at no point. Indeed, the set of fC([0,1])f \in \mathcal C(\intcc01) having a (finite) derivative at even one point is meagre in (C([0,1]),)(\mathcal C(\intcc01), \norm\cdot_\infty).

Proof. For n1n \geq 1 let

Fn={f:x[0,1], h0 with x+h[0,1], f(x+h)f(x)nh}.F_n = \Bigl\{f : \exists x \in \intcc01,\ \forall h \neq 0 \text{ with } x + h \in \intcc01,\ \abs{f(x+h) - f(x)} \leq n\abs h \Bigr\}.

If ff is differentiable at xx, then fFnf \in F_n for some nn: the quotient f(x+h)f(x)/h\abs{f(x+h)-f(x)}/\abs h is bounded for hδ\abs h \leq \delta (differentiability: it tends to f(x)\abs{f'(x)}) and bounded by 2f/δ2\norm f_\infty/\delta for hδ\abs h \geq \delta. So Fn\bigcup F_n contains all somewhere-differentiable functions, and it suffices to show each FnF_n is closed with empty interior.

Closed: let fkff_k \to f uniformly, fkFnf_k \in F_n with witnesses xkxx_k \to x (compactness, after extraction). For hh with x+h[0,1]x + h \in \intcc01: choose hkhh_k \to h with xk+hk[0,1]x_k + h_k \in \intcc01 (e.g. hk=h+xxkh_k = h + x - x_k clipped); then f(x+h)f(x)=limfk(xk+hk)fk(xk)limnhk=nh\abs{f(x + h) - f(x)} = \lim \abs{f_k(x_k + h_k) - f_k(x_k)} \leq \lim n\abs{h_k} = n\abs h, using uniform convergence and continuity of ff at the relevant points: fFnf \in F_n.

Empty interior: given fFnf \in F_n and ε>0\varepsilon > 0, we find gg with gfε\norm{g - f}_\infty \leq \varepsilon and gFng \notin F_n. First approximate ff within ε/2\varepsilon/2 by a piecewise affine φ\varphi (uniform continuity: interpolate on a fine grid), of slopes bounded by some MM. Add a small sawtooth: g=φ+ε2sNg = \varphi + \frac\varepsilon2\,s_N, where sN(x)s_N(x) is the 1N\frac1N-periodic zigzag of amplitude 11 and slope ±2N\pm 2N. At every xx, on one side there is hh arbitrarily small with the sawtooth contributing slope ±2Nε2=±εN\pm 2N\cdot\frac\varepsilon2 = \pm\varepsilon N over [x,x+h][x, x+h]: the difference quotient of gg exceeds εNM>n\varepsilon N - M > n for NN large. So gFng \notin F_n, at any uniform distance ε\leq \varepsilon from ff. Conclusion: Fn\bigcup F_n is meagre; by Baire its complement — made of nowhere differentiable functions — is dense in C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01): such functions exist in abundance.

7.3 Arzelà–Ascoli

Throughout, KK is a compact metric space and C(K)=C(K,Rd)\mathcal C(K) = \mathcal C(K, \R^d), with f=supKf(x)\norm f_\infty = \sup_K \norm{f(x)}: a complete space (uniform limits of continuous are continuous — Year 2).

Definition 7.10

A family FC(K)\mathcal F \subseteq \mathcal C(K) is equicontinuous if for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is δ>0\delta > 0 such that

d(x,y)<δ    f(x)f(y)<εfor all fFd(x, y) < \delta \implies \norm{f(x) - f(y)} < \varepsilon \quad\text{for \emph{all} } f \in \mathcal F

(one δ\delta for the whole family — e.g. any family with a common Lipschitz constant, or a common Hölder modulus), and pointwise bounded if supff(x)<\sup_{f}\norm{f(x)} < \infty for each xx.

Theorem 7.11 (Arzelà–Ascoli)

A subset FC(K)\mathcal F \subseteq \mathcal C(K) 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. (\Leftarrow) Let (fk)(f_k) be a sequence of F\mathcal F. KK compact metric is separable: for each nn, finitely many balls of radius 1n\frac1n cover KK (Theorem 6.16); their centers form a countable dense set D={x1,x2,}D = \{x_1, x_2, \dots\}. By pointwise boundedness and Bolzano–Weierstrass, extract successively subsequences converging at x1x_1, then also at x2x_2, etc., and take the diagonal subsequence (gj)(g_j): it converges at every point of DD. Equicontinuity upgrades this to uniform Cauchy: given ε\varepsilon, take δ\delta as in the definition, cover KK by finitely many balls B(xi,δ)B(x_i, \delta) with xiDx_i \in D (imi \leq m), and pick JJ so large that gj(xi)gj(xi)<ε\norm{g_j(x_i) - g_{j'}(x_i)} < \varepsilon for j,jJj, j' \geq J, imi \leq m. For arbitrary xB(xi,δ)x \in B(x_i, \delta):

gj(x)gj(x)gj(x)gj(xi)+gj(xi)gj(xi)+gj(xi)gj(x)<3ε.\norm{g_j(x) - g_{j'}(x)} \leq \norm{g_j(x) - g_j(x_i)} + \norm{g_j(x_i) - g_{j'}(x_i)} + \norm{g_{j'}(x_i) - g_{j'}(x)} < 3\varepsilon .

So (gj)(g_j) is uniformly Cauchy, and converges in the complete C(K)\mathcal C(K). Thus every sequence of F\mathcal F has a convergent subsequence: Fˉ\bar{\mathcal F} is (sequentially, hence by Theorem 6.16) compact.

(\Rightarrow) If Fˉ\bar{\mathcal F} is compact: pointwise boundedness is clear (evaluation is continuous). For equicontinuity, cover F\mathcal F by finitely many balls B(fi,ε)B(f_i, \varepsilon) of C(K)\mathcal C(K); each fif_i is uniformly continuous (Heine, Corollary 6.17), giving a common δ\delta for imi \leq m; then for fB(fi,ε)f \in B(f_i, \varepsilon) and d(x,y)<δd(x,y) < \delta: f(x)f(y)2ε+fi(x)fi(y)<3ε\norm{f(x)-f(y)} \leq 2\varepsilon + \norm{f_i(x)-f_i(y)} < 3\varepsilon.

Example 7.12

The closed unit ball of C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01) is not compact (fn(x)=xnf_n(x) = x^n has no uniformly convergent subsequence: the pointwise limit is discontinuous), and indeed (xn)(x^n) is not equicontinuous at 11. By contrast {f:f1, Lip(f)1}\{f : \norm f_\infty \leq 1,\ \operatorname{Lip}(f) \leq 1\} is compact: bounded and 11-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 KK be compact and (fn)(f_n) a monotone sequence of continuous real functions converging pointwise to a continuous ff. Then the convergence is uniform.

Proof. Say fnff_n \uparrow f; let gn=ffn0g_n = f - f_n \downarrow 0, continuous. Given ε\varepsilon, the open sets Un={gn<ε}U_n = \{g_n < \varepsilon\} increase and cover KK (pointwise convergence); extract a finite subcover: K=Un0K = U_{n_0} for some n0n_0 (increasing family), i.e. 0gn<ε0 \leq g_n < \varepsilon everywhere for nn0n \geq n_0.

Lemma 7.14

There is a sequence of polynomials unu_n with un(t)tu_n(t) \to \sqrt t uniformly on [0,1]\intcc01.

Proof. Define u0=0u_0 = 0, un+1(t)=un(t)+12(tun(t)2)u_{n+1}(t) = u_n(t) + \frac12\bigl(t - u_n(t)^2\bigr): polynomials. By induction 0un(t)t0 \leq u_n(t) \leq \sqrt t on [0,1]\intcc01: granting it for nn,

tun+1(t)=(tun(t))(112(t+un(t)))0,\sqrt t - u_{n+1}(t) = \bigl(\sqrt t - u_n(t)\bigr) \Bigl(1 - \tfrac12\bigl(\sqrt t + u_n(t)\bigr)\Bigr) \geq 0,

since t+un2\sqrt t + u_n \leq 2; and un+1un0u_{n+1} \geq u_n \geq 0. So (un(t))(u_n(t)) is nondecreasing, bounded by t\sqrt t: it converges pointwise, and the limit (t)\ell(t) satisfies =+12(t2)\ell = \ell + \frac12(t - \ell^2): (t)=t\ell(t) = \sqrt t, continuous. Dini (Lemma 7.13) upgrades to uniform.

Theorem 7.15 (Stone–Weierstrass, real version)

Let KK be a compact (Hausdorff) space and AC(K,R)\mathcal A \subseteq \mathcal C(K, \R) a subalgebra (stable under sums, products, scalar multiples) that contains the constants and separates points (for xyx \neq y, some fAf \in \mathcal A has f(x)f(y)f(x) \neq f(y)). Then A\mathcal A is dense in (C(K,R),)(\mathcal C(K,\R), \norm\cdot_\infty).

Proof. Let Aˉ\bar{\mathcal A} be the closure, again an algebra (products of uniform limits on bounded sets converge).

Step 1: Aˉ\bar{\mathcal A} is a lattice, i.e. stable under max\max and min\min. Since max(f,g)=f+g+fg2\max(f,g) = \frac{f + g + \abs{f-g}}2 and min\min likewise, it suffices that fAˉfAˉf \in \bar{\mathcal A} \Rightarrow \abs f \in \bar{\mathcal A}: with M=f>0M = \norm f_\infty > 0, f=M(f/M)2\abs f = M\sqrt{(f/M)^2}, and Lemma 7.14 gives polynomials unu_n with un((f/M)2)f/Mu_n\bigl((f/M)^2\bigr) \to \abs f/M uniformly; polynomials in members of the algebra (with constant term: constants are there) stay in Aˉ\bar{\mathcal A}.

Step 2: two-point interpolation. For xyx \neq y and a,bRa, b \in \R, some gAg \in \mathcal A has g(x)=ag(x) = a, g(y)=bg(y) = b: take hh separating x,yx, y and set g=a+(ba)hh(x)h(y)h(x)g = a + (b - a)\frac{h - h(x)}{h(y) - h(x)}.

Step 3. Let fC(K)f \in \mathcal C(K), ε>0\varepsilon > 0. For each pair x,yx, y pick gx,yAg_{x,y} \in \mathcal A with gx,y(x)=f(x)g_{x,y}(x) = f(x), gx,y(y)=f(y)g_{x,y}(y) = f(y) (Step 2; for x=yx = y take the constant function gx,x=f(x)g_{x,x} = f(x)). Fix xx: for each yy, the open set Vy={gx,y<f+ε}V_y = \{g_{x,y} < f + \varepsilon\} contains yy; compactness extracts y1,,ymy_1, \dots, y_m with K=VyjK = \bigcup V_{y_j}, and hx=minjgx,yjAˉh_x = \min_j g_{x, y_j} \in \bar{\mathcal A} (Step 1) satisfies hx<f+εh_x < f + \varepsilon everywhere, hx(x)=f(x)h_x(x) = f(x). Now vary xx: Wx={hx>fε}W_x = \{h_x > f - \varepsilon\} is open, contains xx; extract x1,,xlx_1, \dots, x_l covering KK, and h=maxihxiAˉh = \max_i h_{x_i} \in \bar{\mathcal A} satisfies fε<h<f+εf - \varepsilon < h < f + \varepsilon: fhε\norm{f - h}_\infty \leq \varepsilon. Hence fAˉf \in \bar{\mathcal A}.

Corollary 7.16

(a) (Weierstrass) Polynomials are dense in C([a,b],R)\mathcal C(\intcc ab, \R); polynomials in nn variables are dense in C(K,R)\mathcal C(K, \R) for compact KRnK \subseteq \R^n. (b) (Complex version) If AC(K,C)\mathcal A \subseteq \mathcal C(K, \C) is a subalgebra containing constants, separating points, and stable under conjugation, it is dense. (c) (Trigonometric version) Trigonometric polynomials nNcneint\sum_{\abs n \leq N}c_n\eu^{\iu n t} are dense in the space of continuous 2π2\pi-periodic functions with \norm\cdot_\infty.

Proof. (a) Polynomials form an algebra with constants; the coordinate functions separate points of Rn\R^n. (b) The real and imaginary parts f+fˉ2\frac{f + \bar f}2, ffˉ2i\frac{f - \bar f}{2\iu} of members of A\mathcal A form a real algebra ARC(K,R)\mathcal A_\R \subseteq \mathcal C(K, \R) with constants; it separates points (f(x)f(y)f(x) \ne f(y) forces Ref\operatorname{Re}f or Imf\operatorname{Im}f to separate). Apply the real theorem and recombine. (c) View 2π2\pi-periodic functions as C(S1,C)\mathcal C(S^1, \C) (S1=R/2πZS^1 = \R/2\pi\Z, compact: Exercise 6.5); the algebra generated by eit,eit\eu^{\iu t}, \eu^{-\iu t} and constants is stable under conjugation and separates points of the circle (eit\eu^{\iu t} 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 (C(S1),2)(\mathcal C(S^1), \norm\cdot_2) follows a fortiori (2\norm\cdot_2 \leq \norm\cdot_\infty 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 C([0,1],R)\mathcal C(\intcc01, \R) with f1=01f\norm f_1 = \int_0^1\abs f is not complete: the functions fnf_n equal to 00 on [0,12]\intcc0{\frac12}, 11 on [12+1n,1]\intcc{\frac12 + \frac1n}1, affine between, are 1\norm\cdot_1-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 xnk+1xnk2k\norm{x_{n_{k+1}} - x_{n_k}} \leq 2^{-k}.)

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.1.

(a) For mnm \geq n, fnfmf_n - f_m vanishes outside an interval of length 1n\frac1n and is bounded by 11: fnfm11n0\norm{f_n - f_m}_1 \leq \frac1n \to 0: Cauchy. If fnff_n \to f in 1\norm\cdot_1 with ff continuous: for fixed α<12\alpha < \frac12, 0αf=lim0αffn+fnlim(ffn1+0)=0\int_0^{\alpha}\abs f = \lim \int_0^\alpha\abs{f - f_n + f_n} \leq \lim\bigl(\norm{f - f_n}_1 + 0\bigr) = 0 (fn0f_n \equiv 0 there for large nn), so f0f \equiv 0 on [0,12)[0, \frac12) (continuity); likewise f1f \equiv 1 on (12,1](\frac12, 1]: no continuous function does both. So the space is incomplete — the completion is L1L^1, built in Chapter 12.

(b) Let (xn)(x_n) be Cauchy; choose n1<n2<n_1 < n_2 < \cdots with xnk+1xnk2k\norm{x_{n_{k+1}} - x_{n_k}} \leq 2^{-k}. The series k(xnk+1xnk)\sum_k (x_{n_{k+1}} - x_{n_k}) converges absolutely, hence converges; its partial sums are xnk+1xn1x_{n_{k+1}} - x_{n_1}, so (xnk)(x_{n_k}) 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 fn ⁣:RRf_n \colon \R \to \R converges pointwise to ff, the set of continuity points of ff is dense. (For (b): admit or prove that Ωδ={x:oscxf<δ}\Omega_\delta = \{x : \operatorname{osc}_x f < \delta\} is open, and show it is dense using FN={x:fn(x)fm(x)δ/3 n,mN}F_{N} = \{x: \abs{f_n(x) - f_m(x)} \leq \delta/3\ \forall n,m \geq N\}, closed sets covering R\R; work in an arbitrary closed ball to apply Baire.)

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.2.

(a) Suppose EE complete with algebraic basis (en)nN(e_n)_{n\in\N} and let Fn=Vect(e1,,en)F_n = \operatorname{Vect}(e_1, \dots, e_n): closed (finite-dimensional subspaces are complete, hence closed — Year 2), with empty interior: if B(x,r)FnB(x, r) \subseteq F_n, take vFnv \notin F_n; then x+r2vvB(x,r)Fnx + \frac{r}{2\norm v}v \in B(x,r) \setminus F_n, absurd. But E=FnE = \bigcup F_n (every vector is a finite combination): contradicts Baire (Theorem 7.6). The space R[X]\R[X] has the countable basis (Xn)(X^n), so no norm makes it complete.

(b) Fix δ>0\delta > 0 and a nonempty open ball BB; we find in BB a point of Ωδ={x:oscxf<δ}\Omega_\delta = \{x : \operatorname{osc}_xf < \delta\}, where oscxf=infVxdiamf(V)\operatorname{osc}_xf = \inf_{V \ni x}\operatorname{diam} f(V). (Ωδ\Omega_\delta is open: if diamf(V)<δ\operatorname{diam}f(V) < \delta for an open VxV \ni x, every yVy \in V has oscillation <δ< \delta.) The sets

FN={x:fn(x)fm(x)δ3  n,mN}F_N = \bigl\{x : \abs{f_n(x) - f_m(x)} \leq \tfrac\delta3\ \ \forall\, n, m \geq N \bigr\}

are closed (intersections of preimages of closed sets) and cover R\R (pointwise convergence makes (fn(x))(f_n(x)) Cauchy). Applying Baire inside the complete Bˉ\bar B: some FNBˉF_N \cap \bar B contains a ball B=B(x0,ρ)B' = B(x_0, \rho). Letting mm \to \infty: fNfδ3\abs{f_N - f} \leq \frac\delta3 on BB'. By continuity of fNf_N at x0x_0, shrink to Bx0B'' \ni x_0 where fNfN(x0)δ3\abs{f_N - f_N(x_0)} \leq \frac\delta3; then for xBx \in B'',

f(x)f(x0)ffN(x)+fN(x)fN(x0)+fNf(x0)δ:\abs{f(x) - f(x_0)} \leq \abs{f - f_N}(x) + \abs{f_N(x) - f_N(x_0)} + \abs{f_N - f}(x_0) \leq \delta:

diamf(B)2δ\operatorname{diam} f(B'') \leq 2\delta, so x0Ω3δBx_0 \in \Omega_{3\delta} \cap B. Thus each Ωδ\Omega_\delta is open and dense; kΩ1/k\bigcap_k\Omega_{1/k} — the set of continuity points — is dense by Baire.

Exercise 7.3 ★★

(a) Show that f(x)=12(x+ax)f(x) = \frac12\bigl(x + \frac ax\bigr) (a>1a > 1) is a contraction of [a,+)[\sqrt a, +\infty) and identify its fixed point — Heron’s method. Estimate the number of iterations for 101210^{-12}-accuracy starting from x0=ax_0 = a, for a=2a = 2. (b) (Kepler’s equation) For 0e<10 \leq e < 1 and mRm \in \R, show that x=m+esinxx = m + e\sin x has a unique solution, depending continuously on mm.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.3.

(a) f(x)=12(x+ax)f(x) = \frac12(x + \frac ax) maps [a,)[\sqrt a, \infty) to itself (AM–GM: f(x)xax=af(x) \geq \sqrt{x \cdot \frac ax} = \sqrt a), and f(x)=12(1ax2)[0,12)f'(x) = \frac12(1 - \frac a{x^2}) \in [0, \frac12) there: a 12\frac12-Lipschitz contraction of a closed (complete) set. Fixed point: x=f(x)    x2=ax = f(x) \iff x^2 = a: x=ax^* = \sqrt a. Rate (Theorem 7.4): d(xn,a)2n+1d(x1,x0)d(x_n, \sqrt a) \leq 2^{-n+1}\,d(x_1, x_0). For a=2a = 2, x0=2x_0 = 2: d(x1,x0)=12d(x_1, x_0) = \frac12, so n=40n = 40 guarantees 240<10122^{-40} < 10^{-12}. (In reality Newton’s method converges quadratically: a handful of iterations suffice; the contraction estimate is pessimistic but free.)

(b) fm(x)=m+esinxf_m(x) = m + e\sin x is ee-Lipschitz with e<1e < 1 on the complete R\R: unique fixed point x(m)x(m). For two parameters:

x(m)x(m)=fm(x(m))fm(x(m))mm+ex(m)x(m),\abs{x(m) - x(m')} = \abs{f_m(x(m)) - f_{m'}(x(m'))} \leq \abs{m - m'} + e\abs{x(m) - x(m')},

so x(m)x(m)mm1e\abs{x(m) - x(m')} \leq \frac{\abs{m - m'}}{1 - e}: even Lipschitz in mm.

Exercise 7.4 ★★

(a) Let XX be complete and f ⁣:XXf \colon X \to X such that some iterate fpf^p is a contraction. Show that ff has a unique fixed point. Application: the integral operator TT on C([0,a])\mathcal C(\intcc0a), Tf(x)=0xfTf(x) = \int_0^x f, satisfies Tpap/p!\norm{T^p} \leq a^p/p! — deduce that u=g+λTuu = g + \lambda Tu is solvable for every λ\lambda. (b) (Edelstein) Let KK be compact and f ⁣:KKf\colon K \to K with d(f(x),f(y))<d(x,y)d(f(x), f(y)) < d(x, y) for xyx \neq y. Show that ff has a unique fixed point, but that the contraction rate can be lost: on X=[1,+)X = [1, +\infty) (complete, not compact), f(x)=x+1xf(x) = x + \frac1x has no fixed point despite strictly decreasing distances.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.4.

(a) Let xx^* be the unique fixed point of fpf^p. Then fp(f(x))=f(fp(x))=f(x)f^p(f(x^*)) = f(f^p(x^*)) = f(x^*): f(x)f(x^*) is a fixed point of fpf^p, so f(x)=xf(x^*) = x^*. A fixed point of ff is one of fpf^p: uniqueness transfers. For TT: by induction Tpf(x)fxp/p!\abs{T^pf(x)} \leq \norm f_\infty x^p/p! (each integration adds a factor xk\frac xk), so Tpap/p!\norm{T^p} \leq a^p/p!. The map S(u)=g+λTuS(u) = g + \lambda Tu satisfies Sp(u)Sp(v)=λpTp(uv)S^p(u) - S^p(v) = \lambda^pT^p(u - v), of norm λpap/p!uv0\leq \abs\lambda^pa^p/p!\,\norm{u - v} \to 0: some SpS^p is a contraction, and SS has a unique fixed point: the Volterra equation u=g+λTuu = g + \lambda Tu is uniquely solvable for every λ\lambda.

(b) φ(x)=d(x,f(x))\varphi(x) = d(x, f(x)) is continuous on the compact KK: it attains its minimum at some x0x_0. If f(x0)x0f(x_0) \neq x_0, then φ(f(x0))=d(f(x0),f2(x0))<d(x0,f(x0))=minφ\varphi(f(x_0)) = d(f(x_0), f^2(x_0)) < d(x_0, f(x_0)) = \min\varphi: absurd. Uniqueness: two fixed points xyx \ne y would give d(x,y)=d(f(x),f(y))<d(x,y)d(x,y) = d(f(x), f(y)) < d(x,y). Without compactness: f(x)=x+1xf(x) = x + \frac1x on [1,)[1, \infty) satisfies, for x<yx < y, f(y)f(x)=(yx)(11xy)<yxf(y) - f(x) = (y - x)\bigl(1 - \frac1{xy}\bigr) < y - x, yet f(x)>xf(x) > x 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 DXD \subseteq X dense and f ⁣:DYf \colon D \to Y an isometric bijection onto a dense subset of a complete YY, with XX complete. Show that ff extends to an isometric bijection XYX \to Y. Deduce again the uniqueness of completions.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.5.

(a) The set A={g=h}A = \{g = h\} is the preimage of the diagonal ΔY\Delta_Y under x(g(x),h(x))x \mapsto (g(x), h(x)), continuous; ΔY\Delta_Y is closed because YY is Hausdorff (for y1y2y_1 \neq y_2, disjoint open neighborhoods give an open box around (y1,y2)(y_1, y_2) disjoint from the diagonal, so the complement of ΔY\Delta_Y is open): so AA is closed, contains a dense set, equals XX. Used: uniqueness in Theorem 7.2, hence in the uniqueness of completions.

(b) ff, an isometry, is uniformly continuous: it extends to F ⁣:XYF\colon X \to Y (Theorem 7.2), still isometric (the relation d(F(x),F(x))=d(x,x)d(F(x), F(x')) = d(x, x') holds on a dense set of pairs and both sides are continuous). Likewise f1 ⁣:f(D)Xf^{-1}\colon f(D) \to X extends to G ⁣:YXG \colon Y \to X. The composite GFG \circ F is continuous and fixes the dense DD: it is idX\mathrm{id}_X (part (a)); symmetrically FG=idYF \circ G = \mathrm{id}_Y. So FF is an isometric bijection. Uniqueness of completions: apply this to D=XD = X sitting densely in two completions.

Exercise 7.6 ★★

Which of the following families are equicontinuous, pointwise bounded, relatively compact in C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01)?

{xsin(nx)}n,{xxn}n,\{x \mapsto \sin(nx)\}_{n},\qquad \{x \mapsto x^n\}_n,
{fC1:f1, f1},{f:Lip(f)1, f(0)=0}.\Bigl\{f \in \mathcal C^1 : \norm f_\infty \leq 1,\ \norm{f'}_\infty \leq 1\Bigr\},\qquad \{f : \operatorname{Lip}(f)\leq 1,\ f(0) = 0\}.

Justify each answer with Ascoli or a counterexample sequence.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.6.

{sin(nx)}\{\sin(nx)\}: pointwise bounded by 11; not equicontinuous: at x=0x = 0, sin(nπ2n)=1\sin(n\cdot\frac{\pi}{2n}) = 1 with π2n0\frac\pi{2n} \to 0, violating any common δ\delta for ε=12\varepsilon = \frac12. Not relatively compact (Ascoli’s necessity, Theorem 7.11).

{xn}\{x^n\}: bounded; not equicontinuous at 11: 1(1δ)n11 - (1 - \delta)^n \to 1 as nn \to \infty for fixed δ\delta. Not relatively compact — consistently, its pointwise limit is discontinuous, so no subsequence converges uniformly.

{f1,f1}\{\norm f_\infty \leq 1, \norm{f'}_\infty \leq 1\}: the mean value inequality makes the family 11-Lipschitz, hence equicontinuous; bounded: relatively compact by Ascoli. (Not compact: it is not closed — uniform limits need not be C1\mathcal C^1; its closure is the 11-Lipschitz functions of norm 1\leq 1.)

{Lip(f)1,f(0)=0}\{\operatorname{Lip}(f) \leq 1, f(0) = 0\}: equicontinuous; pointwise bounded (f(x)x1\abs{f(x)} \leq x \leq 1); and closed under uniform limits (the Lipschitz inequality and the value at 00 pass to limits): compact.

Exercise 7.7 ★★★

(Compact integral operators) Let kC([0,1]2)k \in \mathcal C(\intcc01^2) and, for fC([0,1])f \in \mathcal C(\intcc01), Tf(x)=01k(x,y)f(y) ⁣dyTf(x) = \int_0^1k(x,y)f(y)\,\dd y. (a) Show that TT maps the unit ball of C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01) to an equicontinuous, uniformly bounded set; conclude that TT is a compact operator: images of bounded sets are relatively compact. (b) Deduce that if (fn)(f_n) is bounded, (Tfn)(Tf_n) has a uniformly convergent subsequence, and that TT cannot be a bijection with continuous inverse. (The image of the unit ball would be a compact neighborhood of 00 in C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01): forbidden by Riesz’s theorem from Year 2.)

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.7.

(a) For f1\norm f_\infty \leq 1: Tf(x)k\abs{Tf(x)} \leq \norm k_\infty, and

Tf(x)Tf(x)01k(x,y)k(x,y) ⁣dyωk(xx),\abs{Tf(x) - Tf(x')} \leq \int_0^1\abs{k(x,y) - k(x',y)}\,\dd y \leq \omega_k\bigl(\abs{x - x'}\bigr),

where ωk\omega_k is a modulus of uniform continuity of kk 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: TT is a compact operator.

(b) The subsequence statement is the definition of relative compactness applied to {Tfn}\{Tf_n\}. If TT were bijective with continuous inverse, then T(B(0,1))B(0,ε)T(B(0,1)) \supseteq B(0, \varepsilon) for some ε>0\varepsilon > 0 (T1T^{-1} continuous at 00); the closed ball Bˉ(0,ε)\bar B(0,\varepsilon), a closed subset of the compact T(B(0,1))\overline{T(B(0,1))}, would be compact — impossible in the infinite-dimensional C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01) by Riesz’s theorem (Year 2).

Exercise 7.8 ★★

Prove or disprove, for fn ⁣:[0,1]Rf_n \colon \intcc01 \to \R continuous: (a) fn0f_n \downarrow 0 pointwise \Rightarrow uniformly (Dini — reprove it); (b) same without monotonicity; (c) same with monotonicity but ff discontinuous; (d) same with monotonicity, continuous limit, but on (0,1)\intoo01.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.8.

(a) Dini: see Lemma 7.13 — the covering argument. (b) False: the moving bump fn(x)=max(0,1nx1)f_n(x) = \max(0, 1 - \abs{nx - 1}) tends to 00 pointwise (for x>0x > 0, fn(x)=0f_n(x) = 0 once n>2/xn > 2/x; fn(0)=0f_n(0) = 0) but fn=1\norm{f_n}_\infty = 1. (c) False: fn(x)=xnf_n(x) = x^n decreases to the discontinuous 1{1}\mathbf 1_{\{1\}}; sup[0,1]fnf=sup[0,1)xn=1\sup_{[0,1]}\abs{f_n - f} = \sup_{[0,1)} x^n = 1. (d) False: xn0x^n \downarrow 0 pointwise on the noncompact (0,1)\intoo01, with sup(0,1)xn=1\sup_{(0,1)}x^n = 1. Each hypothesis of Dini is needed.

Exercise 7.9 ★★

(a) (Moments determine) Let fC([0,1])f \in \mathcal C(\intcc01) with 01f(x)xn ⁣dx=0\int_0^1 f(x)\,x^n\,\dd x = 0 for all nNn \in \N. Show f=0f = 0. (Approximate ff uniformly by polynomials and compute f2\int f^2.) (b) Show that the even polynomials are dense in C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01) but not in C([1,1])\mathcal C(\intcc{-1}1); where does Stone–Weierstrass’s hypothesis fail? (c) Is the algebra generated by xeixx \mapsto \eu^{\iu x} alone (without eix\eu^{-\iu x}) dense in C(S1,C)\mathcal C(S^1, \C)? (Consider 02πf(t)eit ⁣dt\int_0^{2\pi}f(t)\,\eu^{\iu t}\dd t.)

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.9.

(a) By linearity 01fP=0\int_0^1 fP = 0 for every polynomial PP. Choose PnfP_n \to f uniformly (Corollary 7.16): 01f2=lim01fPn=0\int_0^1 f^2 = \lim\int_0^1 fP_n = 0, and the continuous f20f^2 \geq 0 with zero integral vanishes identically.

(b) On [0,1]\intcc01: the polynomials in x2x^2 form an algebra with constants, separating points (xx2x \mapsto x^2 is injective on [0,1]\intcc01): dense by Stone–Weierstrass. On [1,1]\intcc{-1}1: x2x^2 takes equal values at ±x\pm x, and so does every polynomial in x2x^2: a uniform limit of such is an even function. If even functions gng_n converged uniformly to the identity, then x=limgn(x)=limgn(x)=xx = \lim g_n(x) = \lim g_n(-x) = -x for all xx: absurd — not dense. The separation hypothesis fails at the pairs {x,x}\{x, -x\}.

(c) No. For ff in the algebra A\mathcal A generated by constants and eit\eu^{\iu t} — linear combinations of eint\eu^{\iu nt}, n0n \geq 0 — one has Λ(f)=02πf(t)eit ⁣dt=0\Lambda(f) = \int_0^{2\pi}f(t)\,\eu^{\iu t}\,\dd t = 0 (each 02πei(n+1)t ⁣dt=0\int_0^{2\pi}\eu^{\iu(n+1)t}\dd t = 0). Λ\Lambda is continuous for \norm\cdot_\infty (Λ(f)2πf\abs{\Lambda(f)}\leq 2\pi\norm f_\infty), so Λ\Lambda vanishes on Aˉ\bar{\mathcal A}; but Λ(eit)=2π0\Lambda(\eu^{-\iu t}) = 2\pi \neq 0: eitAˉ\eu^{-\iu t} \notin \bar{\mathcal A}. (Stone–Weierstrass does not apply: A\mathcal A 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 XX be a complete metric space and FC(X,R)\mathcal F \subseteq \mathcal C(X, \R) a family that is pointwise bounded: supfFf(x)<\sup_{f \in \mathcal F}\abs{f(x)} < \infty for each xx. Show that there is a nonempty open UXU \subseteq X on which F\mathcal F is uniformly bounded: supfsupUf<\sup_{f}\sup_U \abs f < \infty. (Consider Fn={x:f(x)n f}F_n = \{x : \abs{f(x)} \leq n\ \forall f\}.) This is the engine behind Banach–Steinhaus in Chapter 8.

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.10.

Fn=fF{x:f(x)n}F_n = \bigcap_{f \in \mathcal F}\{x : \abs{f(x)} \leq n\} is an intersection of closed sets: closed. Pointwise boundedness gives X=nFnX = \bigcup_n F_n. Baire (Theorem 7.6) provides n0n_0 with U=F˚n0U = \mathring F_{n_0} \neq \varnothing: on UU, fn0\abs f \leq n_0 for every fFf \in \mathcal F simultaneously.

Exercise 7.11 ★★

(C1\mathcal C^1 needs its own norm) On E=C1([0,1],R)E = \mathcal C^1(\intcc01, \R) consider fC1=f+f\norm f_{\mathcal C^1} = \norm f_\infty + \norm{f'}_\infty. (a) Show that (E,C1)(E, \norm\cdot_{\mathcal C^1}) is complete (a C1\mathcal C^1-Cauchy sequence has fnff_n \to f and fngf_n' \to g uniformly; identify g=fg = f' by passing to the limit in fn(x)=fn(0)+0xfnf_n(x) = f_n(0) + \int_0^xf_n'). (b) Show that (E,)(E, \norm\cdot_\infty) is not complete: exhibit a uniform limit of C1\mathcal C^1 functions that is not differentiable (e.g. smooth approximations of x12\abs{x - \tfrac12}). (c) Deduce from (a), (b) and the open mapping circle of ideas — or directly — that no constant CC satisfies fCf\norm{f'}_\infty \leq C\,\norm f_\infty on EE: 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 C1\norm\cdot_{\mathcal C^1} is uniformly Cauchy together with its derivatives: fnff_n \to f and fngf_n' \to g uniformly, with f,gf, g continuous. Passing to the limit (uniform convergence allows it under the integral) in fn(x)=fn(0)+0xfn(t) ⁣dtf_n(x) = f_n(0) + \int_0^xf_n'(t)\,\dd t gives f(x)=f(0)+0xgf(x) = f(0) + \int_0^xg: ff is C1\mathcal C^1 with f=gf' = g, and fnfC10\norm{f_n - f}_{\mathcal C^1} \to 0. Complete.

(b) h(x)=x12h(x) = \abs{x - \frac12} is a uniform limit of C1\mathcal C^1 functions, e.g. hn(x)=(x12)2+1nh_n(x) = \sqrt{(x - \frac12)^2 + \frac1n} (hnh1n\abs{h_n - h} \leq \frac1{\sqrt n} by the conjugate-quantity bound), yet hEh \notin E: the sup\sup-norm on EE is not complete — its completion is C([0,1])\mathcal C(\intcc01).

(c) fn(x)=sin(2πnx)f_n(x) = \sin(2\pi nx) has fn=1\norm{f_n}_\infty = 1 and fn=2πn\norm{f_n'}_\infty = 2\pi n \to \infty: no CC exists. (Conceptually: if differentiation were bounded for the sup norm, the two norms of (a)–(b) would be equivalent, making (E,)(E, \norm\cdot_\infty) 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 f ⁣:(0,)Rf\colon\intoo0\infty\to\R be continuous and suppose that for every x>0x > 0, f(nx)0f(nx) \to 0 as the integer nn \to \infty. Show that f(t)0f(t) \to 0 as t+t \to +\infty. (Fix ε>0\varepsilon > 0; the sets FN={x>0:f(nx)ε  nN}F_N = \{x > 0 : \abs{f(nx)} \leq \varepsilon\ \ \forall n \geq N\} are closed and cover (0,)\intoo0\infty; Baire in some interval [a,b]\intcc ab gives NN and a subinterval [a,b]FN\intcc{a'}{b'} \subseteq F_N; then the dilates [na,nb]\bigl[na', nb'\bigr], nNn \geq N, cover a whole neighborhood of ++\infty once n(ba)an(b' - a') \geq a'.) Where is the hypothesis “for every xx” (not just rational xx) used?

Solution

Solution of Exercise 7.12.

Fix ε>0\varepsilon > 0. Each FNF_N is an intersection over nNn \geq N of preimages of the closed [ε,ε]\intcc{-\varepsilon} \varepsilon under the continuous xf(nx)x \mapsto f(nx): closed. The hypothesis says every x>0x > 0 lies in some FNF_N. By Baire applied inside the complete [a,b]\intcc ab (any 0<a<b0 < a < b), some FNF_N is dense in a subinterval; being closed, it contains an interval [a,b]\intcc{a'}{b'} with 0<a<b0 < a' < b'. Then for every nmax(N,aba)n \geq \max(N, \frac{a'}{b' - a'}), the intervals [na,nb]\intcc{na'}{nb'} and [(n+1)a,(n+1)b]\intcc{(n+1)a'}{(n+1)b'} overlap (nb(n+1)anb' \geq (n+1)a'), so

nn0[na,nb][n0a,+),\bigcup_{n \geq n_0}\intcc{na'}{nb'} \supseteq \intco{n_0a'}{+\infty},

and every tn0at \geq n_0a' is t=nxt = nx with nNn \geq N, x[a,b]FNx \in \intcc{a'}{b'} \subseteq F_N: f(t)ε\abs{f(t)} \leq \varepsilon. Hence lim suptfε\limsup_{t\to\infty}\abs f \leq \varepsilon for all ε\varepsilon: f0f \to 0. The full hypothesis is needed because FNF_N must cover an interval-worth of xx’s — with only rational xx the union of the FNF_N 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 x=f(t,x)x' = f(t, x) without Lipschitz

Cauchy–Lipschitz (Year 2; re-proved in Chapter 19) demands ff Lipschitz in xx. Peano (1890): continuity of ff already yields existence — though not uniqueness. We prove it with Euler polygons and Ascoli. Setting: f ⁣:RRdf \colon R \to \R^d continuous on the rectangle R=[t0a,t0+a]×Bˉ(x0,b)R×RdR = \intcc{t_0 - a}{t_0 + a}\times \bar B(x_0, b) \subseteq \R\times\R^d, M=supRfM = \sup_R\norm f, and

T=min(a, b/M)(if M=0 the problem is trivial).T = \min\bigl(a,\ b/M\bigr) \qquad (\text{if } M = 0 \text{ the problem is trivial}).

Part I — Euler polygons. For n1n \geq 1, subdivide [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0 + T] by tk=t0+kT/nt_k = t_0 + kT/n (0kn0 \leq k \leq n) and define φn\varphi_n piecewise affinely: φn(t0)=x0\varphi_n(t_0) = x_0 and, on [tk,tk+1][t_k, t_{k+1}],

φn(t)=φn(tk)+(ttk)f(tk,φn(tk)).\varphi_n(t) = \varphi_n(t_k) + (t - t_k)\,f\bigl(t_k, \varphi_n(t_k)\bigr).
  1. Show by induction that φn\varphi_n is well defined, with φn(t)x0M(tt0)b\norm{\varphi_n(t) - x_0} \leq M(t - t_0) \leq b on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0 + T] — so the evaluation points stay in RR. (This is where Tb/MT \leq b/M enters.)
  2. Show that each φn\varphi_n is MM-Lipschitz.
  3. Deduce from Arzelà–Ascoli (Theorem 7.11) that a subsequence (φnj)(\varphi_{n_j}) converges uniformly on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0 + T] to some φ\varphi, itself MM-Lipschitz with φ(t0)=x0\varphi(t_0) = x_0.

Part II — The limit solves the equation. Define the defect Δn(t)=φn(t)f(t,φn(t))\Delta_n(t) = \varphi_n'(t) - f\bigl(t, \varphi_n(t)\bigr) at non-grid points.

  1. Show that ff is uniformly continuous on RR, and deduce: for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is n0n_0 such that for nn0n \geq n_0 and every non-grid tt, Δn(t)ε\norm{\Delta_n(t)} \leq \varepsilon. (On (tk,tk+1)(t_k, t_{k+1}), φn(t)=f(tk,φn(tk))\varphi_n'(t) = f(t_k, \varphi_n(t_k)), and (t,φn(t))(t, \varphi_n(t)) is within distance (1+M)T/n(1 + M)\,T/n of (tk,φn(tk))(t_k, \varphi_n(t_k)).)
  2. Establish the integral form: for all tt,

    φn(t)=x0+t0tf(s,φn(s)) ⁣ds+t0tΔn(s) ⁣ds,\varphi_n(t) = x_0 + \int_{t_0}^{t} f\bigl(s, \varphi_n(s)\bigr)\dd s + \int_{t_0}^t \Delta_n(s)\,\dd s,

    the middle integrand being piecewise continuous.

  3. Pass to the limit along (nj)(n_j): show f(s,φnj(s))f(s,φ(s))f(s, \varphi_{n_j}(s)) \to f(s, \varphi(s)) uniformly (uniform continuity of ff again), and conclude

    φ(t)=x0+t0tf(s,φ(s)) ⁣ds.\varphi(t) = x_0 + \int_{t_0}^t f\bigl(s, \varphi(s)\bigr)\dd s .
  4. Deduce that φ\varphi is C1\mathcal C^1 on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0 + T] and solves x=f(t,x)x' = f(t, x), x(t0)=x0x(t_0) = x_0; extend the construction to [t0T,t0][t_0 - T, t_0] (time reversal). This is Peano’s theorem.

Part III — Uniqueness genuinely fails. Consider x=2xx' = 2\sqrt{\abs x}, x(0)=0x(0) = 0, on R\R.

  1. Check that f(x)=2xf(x) = 2\sqrt{\abs x} is continuous but not Lipschitz on any neighborhood of 00.
  2. Verify that x0x \equiv 0 and, for every c0c \geq 0,

    xc(t)={0tc,(tc)2tc,x_c(t) = \begin{cases} 0 & t \leq c,\\ (t - c)^2 & t \geq c,\end{cases}

    are all solutions through (0,0)(0,0): a continuum of distinct solutions.

  3. Where does the Picard iteration argument (Banach fixed point) break down for this ff?

Part IV — Limits of the method.

  1. 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 c0c_0 of null sequences; instead, prove the finite-dimensional ingredient that fails there: the closed unit ball of c0c_0 (sup norm) is not compact — exhibit a bounded sequence with no convergent subsequence, and explain which step of Part I breaks.
  2. 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 ω ⁣:(0,)(0,)\omega\colon\intoo0\infty\to\intoo0\infty be continuous, nondecreasing, with

01 ⁣drω(r)=+(divergence at 0),\int_0^1\frac{\dd r}{\omega(r)} = +\infty \qquad(\text{divergence at } 0),

and suppose ff satisfies f(t,x)f(t,y)ω(xy)\norm{f(t, x) - f(t, y)} \leq \omega\bigl(\norm{x - y}\bigr) on RR.

  1. Check that ω(r)=Lr\omega(r) = Lr qualifies (Lipschitz), that ω(r)=rlog1r\omega(r) = r\log\frac1r (extended by continuity, for rr small) qualifies although it is not O(r)O(r), and that ω(r)=2r\omega(r) = 2\sqrt r does not. Compute the integral in each case.
  2. Let x1,x2x_1, x_2 solve the equation on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0 + T] with x1(t0)=x2(t0)x_1(t_0) = x_2(t_0), and δ(t)=x1(t)x2(t)\delta(t) = \norm{x_1(t) - x_2(t)}. Show, from the integral forms alone, that for t0stt_0 \leq s \leq t:

    δ(t)δ(s)+stω(δ(v)) ⁣dv.\delta(t) \leq \delta(s) + \int_s^t\omega\bigl(\delta(v)\bigr)\dd v .
  3. (Osgood’s theorem) Suppose δ(t1)>0\delta(t_1) > 0 for some t1t_1, and let τ=sup{tt1:δ(t)=0}\tau = \sup\{t \leq t_1 : \delta(t) = 0\}. For s(τ,t1)s \in \intoo\tau{t_1}, set u(t)=δ(s)+stω(δ(v)) ⁣dvu(t) = \delta(s) + \int_s^t\omega(\delta(v))\,\dd v. Show δu\delta \leq u, u=ω(δ)ω(u)u' = \omega(\delta) \leq \omega(u), and deduce

    δ(s)u(t1) ⁣drω(r)t1st1τ.\int_{\delta(s)}^{u(t_1)}\frac{\dd r}{\omega(r)} \leq t_1 - s \leq t_1 - \tau .

    Let sτs \downarrow \tau and derive a contradiction with the divergence of the integral. Conclude: solutions through a common initial condition coincide — uniqueness under Osgood’s condition.

  4. Draw the consequences: Cauchy–Lipschitz uniqueness is the case ω(r)=Lr\omega(r) = Lr; the equation x=xlog1xx' = x\log\frac1{\abs x} (extended by 00 at 00) has unique solutions although its right side is not Lipschitz at 00; and for x=2xx' = 2\sqrt{\abs x} the convergence of 0 ⁣dr2r\int_0\frac{\dd r}{2\sqrt r} is exactly what lets a solution leave 00 in finite time — match the value of the integral 0h2 ⁣dr2r=h\int_0^{h^2}\frac{\dd r}{2\sqrt r} = h with the escape behaviour of xcx_c.

Part VI — Rates, schemes, funnels.

  1. (Integral Grönwall lemma) Let e,η0e, \eta \geq 0 be continuous on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0+T] with e(t)t0t(Le(s)+η(s)) ⁣dse(t) \leq \int_{t_0} ^t\bigl(L\,e(s) + \eta(s)\bigr)\dd s for all tt. Show

    e(t)supηL(eL(tt0)1)e(t) \leq \frac{\sup\eta}{L}\bigl(\eu^{L(t - t_0)} - 1\bigr)

    (set G(t)=t0t(Le+η)G(t) = \int_{t_0}^t(Le + \eta), note GLG+supηG' \leq LG + \sup\eta, and differentiate eLtG(t)\eu^{-Lt}G(t)).

  2. (Euler converges with a rate) Suppose now ff is LL-Lipschitz in xx and LL'-Lipschitz in tt on RR. Combining the defect bound of question 4 (made quantitative: Δn(L+LM)T/n\norm{\Delta_n} \leq (L' + LM)T/n) with question 17, prove

    sup[t0,t0+T]φnφ    (L+LM)TneLT1L=O(1n),\sup_{[t_0, t_0+T]}\norm{\varphi_n - \varphi} \;\leq\; \frac{(L' + LM)\,T}{n}\cdot \frac{\eu^{LT} - 1}{L} = O\Bigl(\frac1n\Bigr),

    where φ\varphi 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?

  3. (The scheme chooses) For x=2xx' = 2\sqrt{\abs x}, x(0)=0x(0) = 0: show that every Euler polygon is identically zero, so the scheme converges to the solution x0x \equiv 0; but started at x(0)=ε>0x(0) = \varepsilon > 0 it converges (as nn \to \infty, then ε0\varepsilon \to 0) to tt2t \mapsto t^2, a different solution through the origin. Non-uniqueness resurfaces as sensitivity of the numerical scheme to perturbations.
  4. Show that the set S\mathcal S of all solutions of x=f(t,x)x' = f(t,x), x(t0)=x0x(t_0) = x_0 on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0+T] (values in Bˉ(x0,b)\bar B(x_0, b)) is nonempty (Part II), uniformly MM-Lipschitz, and closed in (C([t0,t0+T],Rd),)\bigl(\mathcal C([t_0, t_0+T], \R^d), \norm\cdot_\infty\bigr); conclude by Ascoli that S\mathcal S is compact. (Kneser’s theorem adds that S\mathcal S is connected; we shall not prove it.)
  5. Verify Kneser’s phenomenon on the example: for x=2xx' = 2\sqrt{\abs x}, x(0)=0x(0) = 0, on [0,1][0, 1], show S={xc:c[0,]}\mathcal S = \{x_c : c \in \intcc0\infty\} with x0x_\infty \equiv 0 (for any solution, let c=sup{t:x(t)=0}c = \sup\{t : x(t) = 0\} and integrate (x)=1(\sqrt x)' = 1 on {x>0}\{x > 0\}), that cxcc \mapsto x_c is continuous from [0,]\intcc0\infty (one-point compactification, i.e. c=c = \infty glued as limit) to C([0,1])\mathcal C([0,1]), and conclude that S\mathcal S is indeed compact and connected — a segment-shaped funnel.
  6. (Reachable sets) Deduce from question 20 that for each fixed tt, the reachable set S(t)={x(t):xS}\mathcal S(t) = \{x(t) : x \in \mathcal S\} is compact; compute it for the example of question 21 and check it is also connected: S(t)=[0,t2]\mathcal S(t) = \intcc0{t^2} — every intermediate state is attained by some solution.

Part VII — Complements: dependence, optimality, and a scheme computed by hand.

  1. (Continuous dependence) Suppose ff is LL-Lipschitz in xx on RR, and let x,yx, y be two solutions with initial values x0,y0x_0, y_0 at t0t_0. Adapting the proof of question 17 to the inequality e(t)x0y0+t0tLe(s) ⁣dse(t) \leq \norm{x_0 - y_0} + \int_{t_0}^tL\,e(s)\dd s, show

    x(t)y(t)x0y0eL(tt0),\norm{x(t) - y(t)} \leq \norm{x_0 - y_0}\, \eu^{L(t - t_0)},

    and check on x=Lxx' = Lx that the bound is attained: Grönwall is sharp. Deduce again uniqueness (x0=y0x_0 = y_0), and that the flow map x0x(t;x0)x_0 \mapsto x(t; x_0) is Lipschitz, with constant eLT\eu^{LT}, wherever it is defined.

  2. (Osgood is optimal) Conversely, let ω\omega be continuous, nondecreasing, positive on (0,)\intoo0\infty, with ω(r)0\omega(r) \to 0 as r0+r \to 0^+ but

    01 ⁣drω(r)<+,\int_0^1\frac{\dd r}{\omega(r)} < +\infty,

    and extend f(x)=ω(x)f(x) = \omega(\abs x) by f(0)=0f(0) = 0. Show that Ω(x)=0x ⁣drω(r)\Omega(x) = \int_0^x\frac{\dd r}{\omega(r)} is an increasing bijection from (0,1]\intoc0{1} onto (0,Ω(1)]\intoc0{\Omega(1)}, that its inverse gg solves g=ω(g)g' = \omega(g) with g(0+)=0g(0^+) = 0, and that gg, extended by 00 for t0t \leq 0, is a C1\mathcal C^1 solution of x=f(x)x' = f(x) through (0,0)(0, 0) distinct from x0x \equiv 0 (for g(0)=0g'(0) = 0, bound g(t)t\frac{g(t)}t by ω(g(t))\omega(g(t))). Conclude: the divergence hypothesis of question 15 is not a convenience but the exact frontier of uniqueness; recover Part III from ω(r)=2r\omega(r) = 2\sqrt r, Ω(x)=x\Omega(x) = \sqrt x.

  3. (Euler computed by hand) For x=xx' = x, x(0)=1x(0) = 1 on [0,1][0, 1]: show that the Euler polygon satisfies φn(1)=(1+1n)n\varphi_n(1) = \bigl(1 + \frac1n\bigr)^n. Prove the expansion

    (1+1n)n=e(112n+O(1n2)),\Bigl(1 + \frac1n\Bigr)^{n} = \eu\Bigl(1 - \frac1{2n} + O\Bigl(\frac1{n^2}\Bigr) \Bigr),

    so the error at t=1t = 1 is e2n+O(n2)\frac{\eu}{2n} + O(n^{-2}): question 18’s O(1n)O(\frac1n) rate, with the exact constant. Check numerically for n=10n = 10: 1.110=2.593741.1^{10} = 2.59374 against e2.71828\eu \approx 2.71828, an error 0.124540.12454 to compare with e200.13591\frac{\eu}{20} \approx 0.13591.

Solution

Solution of Problem 7.1.

1. Induction on kk: if φn(tk)x0M(tkt0)MTb\norm{\varphi_n(t_k) - x_0} \leq M(t_k - t_0) \leq MT \leq b, the point (tk,φn(tk))(t_k, \varphi_n(t_k)) lies in RR, so the slope f(tk,φn(tk))f(t_k, \varphi_n(t_k)) is defined, of norm M\leq M; then for t[tk,tk+1]t \in [t_k, t_{k+1}], φn(t)x0φn(tk)x0+M(ttk)M(tt0)MTb\norm{\varphi_n(t) - x_0} \leq \norm{\varphi_n(t_k) - x_0} + M(t - t_k) \leq M(t - t_0) \leq MT \leq b.

2. Each affine piece has slope of norm M\leq M; a piecewise affine function with slopes bounded by MM is MM-Lipschitz (chain through the grid points).

3. The family (φn)(\varphi_n) is pointwise bounded (values in Bˉ(x0,b)\bar B(x_0, b)) and equicontinuous (common Lipschitz constant MM): Ascoli (Theorem 7.11) extracts φnjφ\varphi_{n_j} \to \varphi uniformly on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0 + T]. The bounds pass to the limit: φ\varphi is MM-Lipschitz, φ(t0)=x0\varphi(t_0) = x_0.

4. RR is compact and ff continuous: uniformly continuous (Heine, Corollary 6.17); let δ(ε)\delta(\varepsilon) be a modulus. For non-grid t(tk,tk+1)t \in (t_k, t_{k+1}): φn(t)=f(tk,φn(tk))\varphi_n'(t) = f(t_k, \varphi_n(t_k)), and the two evaluation points of ff differ by ttkT/n\abs{t - t_k} \leq T/n in time and φn(t)φn(tk)MT/n\norm{\varphi_n(t) - \varphi_n(t_k)} \leq MT/n in space. For nn0n \geq n_0 with (1+M)T/n0<δ(ε)(1 + M)T/n_0 < \delta(\varepsilon): Δn(t)ε\norm{\Delta_n(t)} \leq \varepsilon.

5. On each [tk,tk+1][t_k, t_{k+1}], φn\varphi_n is affine, so φn(tk+1)φn(tk)=tktk+1φn(s) ⁣ds\varphi_n(t_{k+1}) - \varphi_n(t_k) = \int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} \varphi_n'(s)\dd s, the derivative being the constant slope; summing over pieces (and cutting the last one at tt): φn(t)=x0+t0tφn(s) ⁣ds\varphi_n(t) = x_0 + \int_{t_0}^t\varphi_n'(s)\,\dd s. Writing φn=f(s,φn(s))+Δn(s)\varphi_n' = f(s, \varphi_n(s)) + \Delta_n(s) (piecewise continuous integrands, finitely many jumps) gives the display.

6. Given ε\varepsilon: for jj large, φnjφ<δ(ε)\norm{\varphi_{n_j} - \varphi}_\infty < \delta(\varepsilon), so f(s,φnj(s))f(s,φ(s))ε\norm{f(s, \varphi_{n_j}(s)) - f(s, \varphi(s))} \leq \varepsilon for all ss: uniform convergence of the integrands, and t0tf(s,φnj(s)) ⁣dst0tf(s,φ(s)) ⁣ds\int_{t_0}^t f(s,\varphi_{n_j}(s))\dd s \to \int_{t_0}^tf(s, \varphi(s))\dd s uniformly in tt. Also t0tΔnjTsupΔnj0\norm{\int_{t_0}^t\Delta_{n_j}} \leq T\sup\norm{\Delta_{n_j}} \to 0 (question 4). Passing to the limit in question 5’s identity: φ(t)=x0+t0tf(s,φ(s)) ⁣ds\varphi(t) = x_0 + \int_{t_0}^tf(s, \varphi(s))\,\dd s.

7. The integrand sf(s,φ(s))s \mapsto f(s, \varphi(s)) is continuous, so the right side is C1\mathcal C^1 in tt with derivative f(t,φ(t))f(t, \varphi(t)): φ\varphi solves the Cauchy problem on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0 + T]. For the left half, set g(t,x)=f(2t0t,x)g(t, x) = -f(2t_0 - t, x), continuous on the reflected rectangle with the same bound MM; a solution ψ\psi of y=g(t,y)y' = g(t,y), y(t0)=x0y(t_0) = x_0 on [t0,t0+T][t_0, t_0 + T] yields φ(t)=ψ(2t0t)\varphi(t) = \psi(2t_0 - t) solving the original equation on [t0T,t0][t_0 - T, t_0]; the two halves glue to a C1\mathcal C^1 solution (both one-sided derivatives at t0t_0 equal f(t0,x0)f(t_0, x_0)). — Peano’s theorem: a continuous ff admits a local solution through every initial condition.

8. Continuity is clear. Lipschitz near 00 fails: f(h)f(0)=2h\abs{f(h) - f(0)} = 2\sqrt h, and 2hLh2\sqrt h \leq L h is false for h<4/L2h < 4/L^2.

9. For tct \leq c: xc0x_c \equiv 0 solves. For tct \geq c: xc(t)=2(tc)=2(tc)2=2xcx_c'(t) = 2(t - c) = 2\sqrt{(t-c)^2} = 2\sqrt{\abs{x_c}}. At t=ct = c the one-sided derivatives are both 00: xcx_c is C1\mathcal C^1 and solves globally, with xc(0)=0x_c(0) = 0 for every c0c \geq 0 — together with x0x \equiv 0, a continuum of solutions through the origin.

10. Picard’s iteration sets up Φ(x)(t)=x0+0tf(x(s)) ⁣ds\Phi(x)(t) = x_0 + \int_0^t f(x(s))\dd s and needs Φ(x)Φ(y)kxy\norm{\Phi(x) - \Phi(y)} \leq k\norm{x - y} with k<1k < 1 on a suitable ball — which follows from a Lipschitz bound on ff, transferred under the integral. Here \sqrt\cdot admits no Lipschitz bound near 00, and no choice of interval or ball repairs it. And indeed no proof of uniqueness could succeed: uniqueness is false (question 9).

11. In c0c_0, the unit vectors en=(0,,0,1,0,)e_n = (0, \dots, 0, 1, 0, \dots) satisfy enem=1\norm{e_n - e_m}_\infty = 1 for nmn \neq m: no subsequence is Cauchy, so the closed unit ball is not compact. The step that breaks is the extraction (question 3): Ascoli for C([t0,t0+T],E)\mathcal C([t_0, t_0+T], E) requires the values to live in a space where bounded sets are relatively compact — true in Rd\R^d (Bolzano–Weierstrass), false in c0c_0; pointwise extraction is no longer available (indeed Dieudonné’s example has no local solution at all).

12. Peano: ff continuous on a neighborhood of (t0,x0)(t_0, x_0) in R×Rd\R\times\R^d \Rightarrow there exists a C1\mathcal C^1 solution of x=f(t,x)x' = f(t,x), x(t0)=x0x(t_0) = x_0, on some [t0T,t0+T][t_0 - T, t_0 + T]. Cauchy–Lipschitz (Chapter 19): if moreover ff is locally Lipschitz in the xx-variable, the solution is unique (any two agree on their common interval) — existence and uniqueness. The pair (x=2x, x(0)=0)(x' = 2\sqrt{\abs x},\ x(0) = 0) separates the two theorems.

13. ω(r)=Lr\omega(r) = Lr: 01 ⁣drLr=+\int_0^1\frac{\dd r}{Lr} = +\infty: qualifies. ω(r)=rlog1r\omega(r) = r\log\frac1r (near 00):  ⁣drrlog(1/r)=[loglog1r]+\int\frac{\dd r}{r\log(1/r)} = \bigl[-\log\log\frac1r\bigr] \to +\infty as r0r \to 0: qualifies — yet ω(r)/r=log1r\omega(r)/r = \log\frac1r \to \infty: not Lipschitz. ω(r)=2r\omega(r) = 2\sqrt r: 01 ⁣dr2r=[r]01=1<\int_0^1\frac{\dd r}{2\sqrt r} = \bigl[\sqrt r\bigr]_0^1 = 1 < \infty: fails.

14. Subtract the two integral forms:

x1(t)x2(t)=x1(s)x2(s)+st(f(v,x1(v))f(v,x2(v))) ⁣dv,x_1(t) - x_2(t) = x_1(s) - x_2(s) + \int_s^t\bigl(f(v, x_1(v)) - f(v, x_2(v))\bigr)\dd v,

take norms and use the Osgood modulus: δ(t)δ(s)+stω(δ(v)) ⁣dv\delta(t) \leq \delta(s) + \int_s^t\omega(\delta(v))\,\dd v.

15. τ\tau is well defined (δ(t0)=0\delta(t_0) = 0) with δ(τ)=0\delta(\tau) = 0 (continuity) and δ>0\delta > 0 on (τ,t1]\intoc\tau{t_1}. Fix s(τ,t1)s \in \intoo\tau{t_1}. Then uu is C1\mathcal C^1, u(s)=δ(s)>0u(s) = \delta(s) > 0, uδu \geq \delta on [s,t1][s, t_1] (question 14), and u=ω(δ)ω(u)u' = \omega(\delta) \leq \omega(u) (ω\omega nondecreasing, u>0u > 0). Divide and integrate:

δ(s)u(t1) ⁣drω(r)=st1u(v)ω(u(v)) ⁣dvt1st1τ.\int_{\delta(s)}^{u(t_1)}\frac{\dd r}{\omega(r)} = \int_s^{t_1}\frac{u'(v)}{\omega(u(v))}\,\dd v \leq t_1 - s \leq t_1 - \tau .

Although uu depends on ss, the bound u(t1)δ(t1)u(t_1) \geq \delta(t_1) holds for every ss, so the left side is at least δ(s)δ(t1) ⁣drω(r)\int_{\delta(s)}^{\delta(t_1)}\frac{\dd r}{\omega(r)}, which tends to ++\infty as sτs \downarrow \tau (then δ(s)δ(τ)=0\delta(s) \to \delta(\tau) = 0, and the integral diverges at 00): the bounded right side is contradicted. Hence δ0\delta \equiv 0: uniqueness.

16. Lipschitz is ω=Lr\omega = Lr: uniqueness recovered. For x=xlog1xx' = x\log\frac1{\abs x}: the right side satisfies the Osgood modulus ω(r)=rlog1r\omega(r) = r\log\frac1r near 00 (mean value inequality on xxlog1xx \mapsto x\log\frac1x, whose derivative log1x1\log\frac1x - 1 is unbounded — Lipschitz fails, Osgood holds): unique solutions; note x0x \equiv 0 is one, so no other solution can touch 00. For ω(r)=2r\omega(r) = 2\sqrt r: 0h2 ⁣dr2r=h\int_0^{h^2}\frac{\dd r}{2\sqrt r} = h — the “Osgood budget” for climbing from 00 to height h2h^2 is exactly the time hh, and indeed xc(c+h)=h2x_c(c + h) = h^2: the solution spends time hh doing precisely what the convergent integral permits. Divergence of the integral is the impossibility of leaving 00 in finite time; convergence is the escape route.

17. G(t)=t0t(Le(s)+η(s)) ⁣dsG(t) = \int_{t_0}^t(Le(s) + \eta(s))\dd s is C1\mathcal C^1 with G=Le+ηLG+supηG' = Le + \eta \leq LG + \sup\eta (hypothesis eGe \leq G). Then (eLt(G+supηL))=eLt(GLGsupη)0\bigl(\eu^{-Lt}(G + \tfrac{\sup\eta}L)\bigr)' = \eu^{-Lt}(G' - LG - \sup\eta) \leq 0: the bracket decreases, so G(t)+supηLeL(tt0)(G(t0)+supηL)=eL(tt0)supηLG(t) + \frac{\sup\eta}L \leq \eu^{L(t - t_0)}\bigl(G(t_0) + \frac{\sup\eta}L\bigr) = \eu^{L(t-t_0)}\frac{\sup\eta}L, i.e. e(t)G(t)supηL(eL(tt0)1)e(t) \leq G(t) \leq \frac{\sup\eta}L(\eu^{L(t-t_0)} - 1).

18. Quantitative defect: on (tk,tk+1)(t_k, t_{k+1}), Δn(t)=f(tk,φn(tk))f(t,φn(t))\Delta_n(t) = f(t_k, \varphi_n(t_k)) - f(t, \varphi_n(t)) with ttkT/n\abs{t - t_k} \leq T/n and φn(t)φn(tk)MT/n\norm{\varphi_n(t) - \varphi_n(t_k)} \leq MT/n, so ΔnLT/n+LMT/n\norm{\Delta_n} \leq L'T/n + LMT/n. Subtracting the integral identities for φn\varphi_n (question 5) and φ\varphi and using the Lipschitz bound:

φn(t)φ(t)t0tLφnφ(s) ⁣ds+t0tΔn(s) ⁣ds,\norm{\varphi_n(t) - \varphi(t)} \leq \int_{t_0}^t L\,\norm{\varphi_n - \varphi}(s)\,\dd s + \int_{t_0}^t\norm{\Delta_n(s)}\,\dd s,

and question 17 with η=Δn\eta = \norm{\Delta_n} gives the stated O(1/n)O(1/n) bound, φ\varphi being unique by Cauchy–Lipschitz (or Osgood). Even without rates: every subsequence of the equibounded, equi-Lipschitz (φn)(\varphi_n) has a sub-subsequence converging (Ascoli + Part II) to a solution, which uniqueness forces to be φ\varphi: a sequence all of whose subsequences have subsubsequences with the same limit converges.

19. From φn(tk)=0\varphi_n(t_k) = 0: the slope 20=02\sqrt0 = 0 gives φn(tk+1)=0\varphi_n(t_{k+1}) = 0; induction: φn0\varphi_n \equiv 0, converging to the zero solution. From ε>0\varepsilon > 0: on [ε,)[\varepsilon', \infty) with ε<ε\varepsilon' < \varepsilon the function 2x2\sqrt x is Lipschitz, so question 18 applies and Euler converges to the unique solution through (0,ε)(0, \varepsilon), namely x(t)=(t+ε)2x(t) = (t + \sqrt\varepsilon)^2 (check: x=2(t+ε)=2xx' = 2(t + \sqrt \varepsilon) = 2\sqrt x). As ε0\varepsilon \to 0, (t+ε)2t2(t + \sqrt\varepsilon)^2 \to t^2 uniformly on [0,1][0,1]: the double limit lands on x0(t)=t2x_0(t) = t^2, not on 00. 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 x=f(t,x)M\norm{x'} = \norm{f(t, x)} \leq M: S\mathcal S is uniformly MM-Lipschitz and uniformly bounded (values in Bˉ(x0,b)\bar B(x_0, b)). Closed: if xnSxx_n \in \mathcal S \to x uniformly, pass to the limit in xn(t)=x0+t0tf(s,xn(s)) ⁣dsx_n(t) = x_0 + \int_{t_0}^tf(s, x_n(s))\dd s (the integrands converge uniformly by uniform continuity of ff on the compact RR): xSx \in \mathcal S. Ascoli: S\mathcal S is a closed, bounded, equicontinuous subset of C([t0,t0+T],Rd)\mathcal C([t_0, t_0+T], \R^d): compact.

21. Any solution is nondecreasing (x=2x0x' = 2\sqrt{\abs x} \geq 0) with x(0)=0x(0) = 0, hence x0x \geq 0. Let c=sup{t[0,1]:x(t)=0}c = \sup\{t \in [0,1] : x(t) = 0\} (possibly c=c = \infty if x0x \equiv 0, in which case x=xx = x_\infty). For t>ct > c: x>0x > 0 (monotonicity plus definition of cc), and there (x)=x2x=1(\sqrt x)' = \frac{x'}{2\sqrt x} = 1, so x(t)=tc\sqrt{x(t)} = t - c (continuity at cc): x=xcx = x_c. Continuity of cxcc \mapsto x_c: for c,c[0,1]c, c' \in [0, 1], sup[0,1](tc)+2(tc)+22cc\sup_{[0,1]}\abs{(t - c)_+^2 - (t - c')_+^2} \leq 2\abs{c - c'} (the map c(tc)+2c \mapsto (t-c)_+^2 is 22-Lipschitz uniformly in t[0,1]t \in [0,1]), and since xc0x_c \equiv 0 on [0,1][0,1] for every c1c \geq 1, the family reduces to S={xc:c[0,1]}\mathcal S = \{x_c : c \in [0,1]\} (with x1=0=xx_1 = 0 = x_\infty). So S\mathcal S is the image of the compact connected [0,1][0,1] under the continuous map cxcc \mapsto x_c: compact and connected. The funnel of solutions is a continuous segment running from t2t^2 (immediate escape) down to 00 (eternal rest).

22. The evaluation evt ⁣:C([0,1])R\operatorname{ev}_t\colon \mathcal C([0,1]) \to \R, xx(t)x \mapsto x(t), is continuous (x(t)y(t)xy\abs{x(t) - y(t)} \leq \norm{x - y}_\infty), so S(t)=evt(S)\mathcal S(t) = \operatorname{ev}_t(\mathcal S) is a continuous image of a compact: compact — and of a connected set: connected. For the example: xc(t)=(tc)+2x_c(t) = (t - c)_+^2 sweeps, as cc runs through [0,1][0, 1], all values from t2t^2 (at c=0c = 0) down to 00 (at ctc \geq t), continuously: S(t)=[0,t2]\mathcal S(t) = \intcc0{t^2}. 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 x(t)=x0+t0tf(s,x(s)) ⁣dsx(t) = x_0 + \int_{t_0}^tf(s, x(s))\dd s and its analogue for yy, and setting e(t)=x(t)y(t)e(t) = \norm{x(t) - y(t)}, d=x0y0d = \norm{x_0 - y_0}:

e(t)d+t0tLe(s) ⁣ds=G(t).e(t) \leq d + \int_{t_0}^tL\,e(s)\dd s = G(t).

Then G(t0)=dG(t_0) = d and G=LeLGG' = Le \leq LG, so (eL(tt0)G)0\bigl(\eu^{-L(t - t_0)}G\bigr)' \leq 0 and G(t)deL(tt0)G(t) \leq d\,\eu^{L(t - t_0)}; hence e(t)deL(tt0)e(t) \leq d\,\eu^{L(t-t_0)}. Sharpness: for x=Lxx' = Lx, the solutions through x0x_0 and y0y_0 are x0eL(tt0)x_0\eu^{L(t - t_0)} and y0eL(tt0)y_0\eu^{L(t-t_0)}, whose distance is exactly deL(tt0)d\,\eu^{L(t-t_0)}. With d=0d = 0, e0e \equiv 0: Cauchy–Lipschitz uniqueness, re-derived in two lines. And for fixed t[t0,t0+T]t \in [t_0, t_0 + T], x(t;x0)x(t;y0)eLTx0y0\norm{x(t; x_0) - x(t; y_0)} \leq \eu^{LT}\norm{x_0 - y_0}: the flow is Lipschitz in the initial condition — deterministic dependence, at a controlled exponential price.

24. On (0,1]\intoc01, Ω\Omega is well defined (the integral converges at 00 by hypothesis), C1\mathcal C^1 with Ω=1ω>0\Omega' = \frac1\omega > 0: an increasing bijection onto (0,Ω(1)]\intoc0{\Omega(1)}, with Ω(x)0\Omega(x) \to 0 as x0+x \to 0^+. Its inverse g ⁣:(0,Ω(1)](0,1]g \colon \intoc0{\Omega(1)} \to \intoc01 is C1\mathcal C^1 with

g(t)=1Ω(g(t))=ω(g(t))>0,g(t)t0+0.g'(t) = \frac1{\Omega'(g(t))} = \omega\bigl(g(t)\bigr) > 0, \qquad g(t) \xrightarrow[t \to 0^+]{} 0 .

Extend gg by 00 on t0t \leq 0: continuity is clear, and at t=0t = 0, for t>0t > 0,

g(t)t=1t0tg(s) ⁣ds=1t0tω(g(s)) ⁣dsω(g(t))t0+0\frac{g(t)}t = \frac1t\int_0^tg'(s)\dd s = \frac1t\int_0^t\omega\bigl(g(s)\bigr)\dd s \leq \omega\bigl(g(t)\bigr) \xrightarrow[t\to0^+]{} 0

(ω\omega nondecreasing, gg increasing, ω(0+)=0\omega(0^+) = 0): g(0)=0=f(g(0))g'(0) = 0 = f(g(0)), and g=f(g)g' = f(g) holds on both sides of 00. So x0x \equiv 0 and gg are two distinct C1\mathcal C^1 solutions through (0,0)(0, 0): when 0 ⁣drω(r)\int_0\frac{\dd r} {\omega(r)} converges, uniqueness fails — question 15’s divergence is exactly the frontier. For ω(r)=2r\omega(r) = 2\sqrt r: Ω(x)=0x ⁣dr2r=x\Omega(x) = \int_0^x\frac{\dd r}{2\sqrt r} = \sqrt x, g(t)=t2g(t) = t^2, and time translations give the whole family xcx_c of Part III.

25. With step h=1nh = \frac1n: φn(tk+1)=φn(tk)+hφn(tk)=(1+h)φn(tk)\varphi_n(t_{k+1}) = \varphi_n(t_k) + h\,\varphi_n(t_k) = (1 + h)\varphi_n(t_k), so φn(1)=(1+1n)n\varphi_n(1) = (1 + \frac1n)^n after nn steps. Expansion:

nlog(1+1n)=n(1n12n2+O(1n3))=112n+O(1n2),n\log\Bigl(1 + \frac1n\Bigr) = n\Bigl(\frac1n - \frac1{2n^2} + O\Bigl(\frac1{n^3}\Bigr) \Bigr) = 1 - \frac1{2n} + O\Bigl(\frac1{n^2}\Bigr),

and exponentiating, (1+1n)n=ee1/(2n)+O(n2)=e(112n+O(n2))(1 + \frac1n)^n = \eu\,\eu^{-1/(2n) + O(n^{-2})} = \eu\bigl(1 - \frac1{2n} + O(n^{-2})\bigr). The error at t=1t = 1 is therefore eφn(1)=e2n+O(n2)\eu - \varphi_n(1) = \frac{\eu}{2n} + O(n^{-2}): the O(1n)O(\frac1n) of question 18, here with its exact constant e2\frac\eu2. Numerically, n=10n = 10: 1.110=2.59374246011.1^{10} = 2.5937424601 (1.12=1.211.1^2 = 1.21, 1.14=1.46411.1^4 = 1.4641, 1.18=2.143588811.1^8 = 2.14358881, times 1.211.21), and e2.593740.12454\eu - 2.59374 \approx 0.12454, against the asymptotic prediction e200.13591\frac{\eu}{20} \approx 0.13591: agreement to within the O(n2)O(n^{-2}) correction, whose leading term here lowers the prediction toward the observed value.