Math 2.0

statement proposition

Epsilon-delta uniform continuity

Statement

Let (X,dX)(X, d_X) and (Y,dY)(Y, d_Y) be metric spaces and let f ⁣:X→Yf \colon X \to Y be a function. Then the following two conditions are equivalent:

  1. For each real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 such that dY(f(x),f(y))<εd_Y(f(x), f(y)) < \varepsilon for all x,y∈Xx, y \in X with dX(x,y)<δd_X(x, y) < \delta.
  2. For all sequences (xn)(x_n) and (yn)(y_n) in XX with dX(xn,yn)→0d_X(x_n, y_n) \to 0, also dY(f(xn),f(yn))→0d_Y(f(x_n), f(y_n)) \to 0.

The map ff is uniformly continuous when it satisfies these conditions.

Remarks

Condition 1 is the epsilon-delta definition of uniform continuity. Here δ\delta depends only on ε\varepsilon, not on the points. Each uniformly continuous map is continuous. The converse fails: x↦x2x \mapsto x^2 on R\mathbb{R} is continuous but not uniformly continuous. Take xn=n+1/nx_n = n + 1/n and yn=ny_n = n; then xn2−yn2>2x_n^2 - y_n^2 > 2. On a compact space, each continuous map to a metric space is uniformly continuous: this is the Heine–Cantor theorem. Each Lipschitz map is uniformly continuous.

Explanations

L1 human

For a uniformly continuous map, one input tolerance δ\delta works in the whole space. The map x↦x2x \mapsto x^2 gets steeper and steeper, so near large xx you need a smaller and smaller δ\delta, and no single δ\delta works.

What this node needs for W1
  • an inventory row: the row of the inventory that the node accounts for (0 of 1)

The writing levels say how complete the text of a node is. They do not measure its truth.

What depends on this

5 nodes use this node, directly or through other nodes.

Sources

  1. Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_continuity, Definition of uniform continuity
  2. Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_continuity, Other characterizations