TheoremBase

Proof

Throughout, ∣x−y∣|x-y| is the Euclidean distance on Rk\mathbb{R}^{k}, by claim 2 of the elementary properties of the Euclidean norm, and we use the triangle inequality of claim 6 of that lemma without further comment. Let C\mathcal{C} denote the set of maps [a,b]→Rk[a,b]\to\mathbb{R}^{k} with continuous components, equipped with the supremum metric d∞d_{\infty}, as in the completeness lemma for continuous vector-valued functions; by claim 1 of that lemma d∞d_{\infty} is finite and is a metric on C\mathcal{C}, and by claim 2 the metric space (C,d∞)(\mathcal{C},d_{\infty}) is complete. Note first that M≥0M\ge0, since ∣f1(a)∣≤M|f_{1}(a)|\le M and norms are nonnegative.

Step 1: every fnf_{n} lies in C\mathcal{C}. Fix nn and t0∈[a,b]t_{0}\in[a,b], and let ε>0\varepsilon>0. Hypothesis (ii) supplies δ>0\delta>0 such that ∣fm(s)−fm(t)∣<ε|f_{m}(s)-f_{m}(t)|<\varepsilon for every mm and all s,t∈[a,b]s,t\in[a,b] with ∣s−t∣<δ|s-t|<\delta; in particular ∣fn(t)−fn(t0)∣<ε|f_{n}(t)-f_{n}(t_{0})|<\varepsilon whenever ∣t−t0∣<δ|t-t_{0}|<\delta. By claim 4 of Elementary Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n, ∣fni(t)−fni(t0)∣≤∣fn(t)−fn(t0)∣<ε|f_{n}^{i}(t)-f_{n}^{i}(t_{0})|\le|f_{n}(t)-f_{n}(t_{0})|<\varepsilon for each component index ii, so every component fnif_{n}^{i} is continuous on [a,b][a,b]. Hence fn∈Cf_{n}\in\mathcal{C}.

Step 2: a countable set of dyadic points. For a natural number m≥1m\ge1 put

Qm={a+(b−a)p 2−m  :  p=0,1,…,2m}⊆[a,b],Q_{m}=\bigl\{a+(b-a)p\,2^{-m}\;:\;p=0,1,\dots,2^{m}\bigr\}\subseteq[a,b],

a finite set, and let Q=⋃m≥1QmQ=\bigcup_{m\ge1}Q_{m}. Since p 2−m=(2p)2−(m+1)p\,2^{-m}=(2p)2^{-(m+1)} we have Qm⊆Qm+1Q_{m}\subseteq Q_{m+1}. Consecutive points of QmQ_{m} differ by (b−a)2−m(b-a)2^{-m}, so

for every t∈[a,b] there is q∈Qm with ∣t−q∣≤(b−a)2−m,(∗)\text{for every }t\in[a,b]\text{ there is }q\in Q_{m}\text{ with }|t-q|\le(b-a)2^{-m},\tag{$*$}

because tt lies in one of the 2m2^{m} intervals [a+(b−a)p2−m, a+(b−a)(p+1)2−m][a+(b-a)p2^{-m},\,a+(b-a)(p+1)2^{-m}] that cover [a,b][a,b], and one may take qq to be that interval's left endpoint. Listing the elements of Q1Q_{1} in increasing order, then those of Q2∖Q1Q_{2}\setminus Q_{1} in increasing order, then those of Q3∖Q2Q_{3}\setminus Q_{2}, and so on, produces a sequence (qr)r∈N(q_{r})_{r\in\mathbb{N}} whose set of terms is QQ; each QmQ_{m} being finite, for every mm there is a natural number RmR_{m} with Qm⊆{q1,…,qRm}Q_{m}\subseteq\{q_{1},\dots,q_{R_{m}}\}.

Step 3: diagonal extraction. Let Bˉ\bar{B} be the closed ball in Rk\mathbb{R}^{k} of centre the origin and radius MM; by hypothesis (i), fn(t)∈Bˉf_{n}(t)\in\bar{B} for all nn and tt. By the compactness of closed Euclidean balls together with the fact that a compact subset of a metric space is sequentially compact, Bˉ\bar{B} is a sequentially compact subset of Rk\mathbb{R}^{k}: every sequence of points of Bˉ\bar{B} has a subsequence converging to a point of Bˉ\bar{B}.

We construct strictly increasing maps σr:N→N\sigma_{r}:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N} for r∈Nr\in\mathbb{N}, each a subsequence selector refining the previous one. Applying sequential compactness of Bˉ\bar{B} to the sequence (fn(q1))n∈N\bigl(f_{n}(q_{1})\bigr)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} yields a strictly increasing σ1\sigma_{1} such that (fσ1(n)(q1))n\bigl(f_{\sigma_{1}(n)}(q_{1})\bigr)_{n} converges. If σr\sigma_{r} has been constructed, apply sequential compactness to (fσr(n)(qr+1))n\bigl(f_{\sigma_{r}(n)}(q_{r+1})\bigr)_{n} to obtain a strictly increasing τ:N→N\tau:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N} with (fσr(τ(n))(qr+1))n\bigl(f_{\sigma_{r}(\tau(n))}(q_{r+1})\bigr)_{n} convergent, and set σr+1=σr∘τ\sigma_{r+1}=\sigma_{r}\circ\tau, again strictly increasing. We record the nesting explicitly. For all s≤rs\le r there is a strictly increasing θs,r:N→N\theta_{s,r}:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N} with σr=σs∘θs,r\sigma_{r}=\sigma_{s}\circ\theta_{s,r}. This follows by induction on rr for fixed ss: for r=sr=s take θs,s\theta_{s,s} to be the identity, and if σr=σs∘θs,r\sigma_{r}=\sigma_{s}\circ\theta_{s,r} then σr+1=σr∘τ=σs∘(θs,r∘τ)\sigma_{r+1}=\sigma_{r}\circ\tau=\sigma_{s}\circ(\theta_{s,r}\circ\tau), where τ\tau is the selector used at that construction step and θs,r∘τ\theta_{s,r}\circ\tau is strictly increasing as a composition of strictly increasing maps. Consequently, for s≤rs\le r, the sequence (fσr(n)(qs))n\bigl(f_{\sigma_{r}(n)}(q_{s})\bigr)_{n} is a subsequence of a subsequence, hence a subsequence, of (fσs(n)(qs))n\bigl(f_{\sigma_{s}(n)}(q_{s})\bigr)_{n}, which converges by construction; so it converges too, by the fact that a subsequence of a convergent sequence has the same limit.

Define nj=σj(j)n_{j}=\sigma_{j}(j). Since σj+1\sigma_{j+1} selects a subsequence of the one selected by σj\sigma_{j}, there is a strictly increasing ρ\rho with σj+1=σj∘ρ\sigma_{j+1}=\sigma_{j}\circ\rho, and ρ(j+1)≥j+1\rho(j+1)\ge j+1 by the growth bound for strictly increasing sequences of natural numbers; as σj\sigma_{j} is strictly increasing this gives nj+1=σj(ρ(j+1))≥σj(j+1)>σj(j)=njn_{j+1}=\sigma_{j}(\rho(j+1))\ge\sigma_{j}(j+1)>\sigma_{j}(j)=n_{j}. So (fnj)j∈N(f_{n_{j}})_{j\in\mathbb{N}} is a subsequence of (fn)n∈N(f_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}. Fix rr. For j≥rj\ge r we have nj=σj(j)=σr(θr,j(j))n_{j}=\sigma_{j}(j)=\sigma_{r}\bigl(\theta_{r,j}(j)\bigr), so njn_{j} is the θr,j(j)\theta_{r,j}(j)-th term of the sequence selected by σr\sigma_{r}. The index map j↦θr,j(j)j\mapsto\theta_{r,j}(j) is strictly increasing on {j∈N:j≥r}\{j\in\mathbb{N}:j\ge r\}: if j′>j≥rj'>j\ge r then σr(θr,j′(j′))=nj′>nj=σr(θr,j(j))\sigma_{r}(\theta_{r,j'}(j'))=n_{j'}>n_{j}=\sigma_{r}(\theta_{r,j}(j)) by the strict increase of (nj)j(n_{j})_{j} just established, and σr\sigma_{r} is strictly increasing, hence injective and order-reflecting, so θr,j′(j′)>θr,j(j)\theta_{r,j'}(j')>\theta_{r,j}(j). Therefore (fnj(qr))j≥r\bigl(f_{n_{j}}(q_{r})\bigr)_{j\ge r} is a subsequence of the convergent sequence (fσr(n)(qr))n\bigl(f_{\sigma_{r}(n)}(q_{r})\bigr)_{n} and therefore converges; adjoining the finitely many terms with j<rj<r does not affect this, so (fnj(qr))j∈N\bigl(f_{n_{j}}(q_{r})\bigr)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} converges for every rr.

Step 4: the subsequence is Cauchy for d∞d_{\infty}. Let ε>0\varepsilon>0. By hypothesis (ii) choose δ>0\delta>0 such that ∣fn(s)−fn(t)∣<ε/3|f_{n}(s)-f_{n}(t)|<\varepsilon/3 for every nn and all s,t∈[a,b]s,t\in[a,b] with ∣s−t∣<δ|s-t|<\delta. Choose a natural number m≥1m\ge1 with (b−a)2−m<δ(b-a)2^{-m}<\delta. Every sequence (fnj(q))j\bigl(f_{n_{j}}(q)\bigr)_{j} with q∈Qmq\in Q_{m} converges by Step 3 and is therefore Cauchy; as QmQ_{m} is finite, there is JJ such that

∣fnj(q)−fnl(q)∣<ε/3for all j,l≥J and all q∈Qm.\bigl|f_{n_{j}}(q)-f_{n_{l}}(q)\bigr|<\varepsilon/3\qquad\text{for all }j,l\ge J\text{ and all }q\in Q_{m}.

Now let t∈[a,b]t\in[a,b] and j,l≥Jj,l\ge J. By (∗)(*) pick q∈Qmq\in Q_{m} with ∣t−q∣≤(b−a)2−m<δ|t-q|\le(b-a)2^{-m}<\delta. Then

∣fnj(t)−fnl(t)∣≤∣fnj(t)−fnj(q)∣+∣fnj(q)−fnl(q)∣+∣fnl(q)−fnl(t)∣<ε.\bigl|f_{n_{j}}(t)-f_{n_{l}}(t)\bigr|\le\bigl|f_{n_{j}}(t)-f_{n_{j}}(q)\bigr|+\bigl|f_{n_{j}}(q)-f_{n_{l}}(q)\bigr|+\bigl|f_{n_{l}}(q)-f_{n_{l}}(t)\bigr|<\varepsilon .

Since tt was arbitrary, d∞(fnj,fnl)≤εd_{\infty}(f_{n_{j}},f_{n_{l}})\le\varepsilon for all j,l≥Jj,l\ge J. As ε>0\varepsilon>0 was arbitrary, (fnj)j(f_{n_{j}})_{j} is a Cauchy sequence in (C,d∞)(\mathcal{C},d_{\infty}).

Step 5: the limit and its properties. By completeness of (C,d∞)(\mathcal{C},d_{\infty}) there is f∈Cf\in\mathcal{C} with d∞(fnj,f)→0d_{\infty}(f_{n_{j}},f)\to0; that is, ff has continuous components and sup⁡t∈[a,b]∣fnj(t)−f(t)∣→0\sup_{t\in[a,b]}|f_{n_{j}}(t)-f(t)|\to0, which is the asserted convergence, the supremum being finite by claim 1 of Completeness of the Space of Continuous Vector-Valued Functions under the Supremum Metric.

For the bound, fix t∈[a,b]t\in[a,b] and let η>0\eta>0. Choosing jj with d∞(fnj,f)<ηd_{\infty}(f_{n_{j}},f)<\eta gives

∣f(t)∣≤∣f(t)−fnj(t)∣+∣fnj(t)∣<η+M.|f(t)|\le|f(t)-f_{n_{j}}(t)|+|f_{n_{j}}(t)|<\eta+M .

Since η>0\eta>0 was arbitrary, ∣f(t)∣≤M|f(t)|\le M.

Finally let ε>0\varepsilon>0 and let δ>0\delta>0 be as in the uniform equicontinuity of the family for this ε\varepsilon, and let s,t∈[a,b]s,t\in[a,b] satisfy ∣s−t∣<δ|s-t|<\delta. For every jj,

∣f(s)−f(t)∣≤∣f(s)−fnj(s)∣+∣fnj(s)−fnj(t)∣+∣fnj(t)−f(t)∣<2 d∞(fnj,f)+ε.|f(s)-f(t)|\le|f(s)-f_{n_{j}}(s)|+|f_{n_{j}}(s)-f_{n_{j}}(t)|+|f_{n_{j}}(t)-f(t)|<2\,d_{\infty}(f_{n_{j}},f)+\varepsilon .

Given η>0\eta>0, choosing jj with d∞(fnj,f)<η/2d_{\infty}(f_{n_{j}},f)<\eta/2 gives ∣f(s)−f(t)∣<ε+η|f(s)-f(t)|<\varepsilon+\eta; as η>0\eta>0 was arbitrary, ∣f(s)−f(t)∣≤ε|f(s)-f(t)|\le\varepsilon.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…