Different definition of continuity The Next CEO of Stack OverflowThe measure of the image of a set of measure zeroAbsolutely continuous function admits weak derivativeEquivalent definitions of absolutely continuous functionsDoes absolute continuity of $f$ on $[epsilon,1]$ and continuity at $f=0$ imply absolute continuity on $[0,1]$?Proof that continuous function respects sequential continuityIs $sqrtx, xin [0,1]$ absolutely continuous?Absolutely Continuous function using sums.A question about absolute continuityAbsolute continuity of increasing functions on an intervalEquivalence condition of Absolute Continuity

Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating?

Can you teleport closer to a creature you are Frightened of?

Is it "common practice in Fourier transform spectroscopy to multiply the measured interferogram by an apodizing function"? If so, why?

How to unfasten electrical subpanel attached with ramset

Is a linearly independent set whose span is dense a Schauder basis?

What steps are necessary to read a Modern SSD in Medieval Europe?

Gauss' Posthumous Publications?

What does this strange code stamp on my passport mean?

My boss doesn't want me to have a side project

Could you use a laser beam as a modulated carrier wave for radio signal?

Is it reasonable to ask other researchers to send me their previous grant applications?

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?

Creating a script with console commands

A hang glider, sudden unexpected lift to 25,000 feet altitude, what could do this?

MT "will strike" & LXX "will watch carefully" (Gen 3:15)?

How should I connect my cat5 cable to connectors having an orange-green line?

Read/write a pipe-delimited file line by line with some simple text manipulation

Why does freezing point matter when picking cooler ice packs?

Prodigo = pro + ago?

pgfplots: How to draw a tangent graph below two others?

Car headlights in a world without electricity

Find a path from s to t using as few red nodes as possible

That's an odd coin - I wonder why



Different definition of continuity



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowThe measure of the image of a set of measure zeroAbsolutely continuous function admits weak derivativeEquivalent definitions of absolutely continuous functionsDoes absolute continuity of $f$ on $[epsilon,1]$ and continuity at $f=0$ imply absolute continuity on $[0,1]$?Proof that continuous function respects sequential continuityIs $sqrtx, xin [0,1]$ absolutely continuous?Absolutely Continuous function using sums.A question about absolute continuityAbsolute continuity of increasing functions on an intervalEquivalence condition of Absolute Continuity










1












$begingroup$


Condition: $f:Itomathbb R$ is continuous. For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
implies
$$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon.$$



Is this condition a necessary or sufficient condition of absolution continuity? Note that the order of the logic identifiers has changed.




A function $f: I to mathbbR$ is absolutely continuous on an interval $I$ if for every $epsilon > 0$ there is a $delta > 0$ such that whenever a finite sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$ satisfies
$$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
then
$$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    1












    $begingroup$


    Condition: $f:Itomathbb R$ is continuous. For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
    implies
    $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon.$$



    Is this condition a necessary or sufficient condition of absolution continuity? Note that the order of the logic identifiers has changed.




    A function $f: I to mathbbR$ is absolutely continuous on an interval $I$ if for every $epsilon > 0$ there is a $delta > 0$ such that whenever a finite sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$ satisfies
    $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
    then
    $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$











    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      Condition: $f:Itomathbb R$ is continuous. For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
      implies
      $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon.$$



      Is this condition a necessary or sufficient condition of absolution continuity? Note that the order of the logic identifiers has changed.




      A function $f: I to mathbbR$ is absolutely continuous on an interval $I$ if for every $epsilon > 0$ there is a $delta > 0$ such that whenever a finite sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$ satisfies
      $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
      then
      $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$











      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Condition: $f:Itomathbb R$ is continuous. For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
      implies
      $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon.$$



      Is this condition a necessary or sufficient condition of absolution continuity? Note that the order of the logic identifiers has changed.




      A function $f: I to mathbbR$ is absolutely continuous on an interval $I$ if for every $epsilon > 0$ there is a $delta > 0$ such that whenever a finite sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$ satisfies
      $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
      then
      $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$








      real-analysis calculus limits analysis continuity






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Mar 26 at 1:47







      High GPA

















      asked Mar 25 at 8:19









      High GPAHigh GPA

      1,008421




      1,008421




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Given any function $f:Itomathbb R$ (not necessarily continuous), the condition: For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
          implies
          $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$
          is trivially true.



          Proof: Given any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, just choose $delta = frac12 sum_k |y_k - x_k|$. Then the condition $ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$ will be false and so the implication "$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$
          implies
          $sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$" will be trivially true.



          So this conditionis not sufficient for absolute continuity or even continuity.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, I also saw this after you gave the detailed explanation in the other question
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 28 at 22:25


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, they are equivalent. Suppose you choose $delta$ according to the usual definition of absolute continuity with $epsilon$ repalced by $epsilon /2$. If $(a_k.b_k)$ is a disjoint sequence of interval with total length less than $delta$ then $sumlimits_k=1^N |f(b_k)-f(a_k)| < epsilon /2$ for each $N$. Let $N to infty$ to complete the proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Many thanks for your teaching! So you proved that the definition "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textfinite subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$" is equivalent to "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textcountable subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". However, my first condition means "$forall textcountable subintervals(forallepsilonexistsdelta textwe have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". Not sure my understanding is correct, though.
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 25 at 22:05












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3161508%2fdifferent-definition-of-continuity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          Given any function $f:Itomathbb R$ (not necessarily continuous), the condition: For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
          implies
          $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$
          is trivially true.



          Proof: Given any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, just choose $delta = frac12 sum_k |y_k - x_k|$. Then the condition $ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$ will be false and so the implication "$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$
          implies
          $sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$" will be trivially true.



          So this conditionis not sufficient for absolute continuity or even continuity.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, I also saw this after you gave the detailed explanation in the other question
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 28 at 22:25















          1












          $begingroup$

          Given any function $f:Itomathbb R$ (not necessarily continuous), the condition: For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
          implies
          $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$
          is trivially true.



          Proof: Given any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, just choose $delta = frac12 sum_k |y_k - x_k|$. Then the condition $ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$ will be false and so the implication "$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$
          implies
          $sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$" will be trivially true.



          So this conditionis not sufficient for absolute continuity or even continuity.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, I also saw this after you gave the detailed explanation in the other question
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 28 at 22:25













          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Given any function $f:Itomathbb R$ (not necessarily continuous), the condition: For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
          implies
          $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$
          is trivially true.



          Proof: Given any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, just choose $delta = frac12 sum_k |y_k - x_k|$. Then the condition $ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$ will be false and so the implication "$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$
          implies
          $sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$" will be trivially true.



          So this conditionis not sufficient for absolute continuity or even continuity.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Given any function $f:Itomathbb R$ (not necessarily continuous), the condition: For any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, we have $forallepsilonexistsdelta$ such that $$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$$
          implies
          $$sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$$
          is trivially true.



          Proof: Given any countable sequence of pairwise disjoint sub-intervals $(x_k, y_k)$ of $I$, just choose $delta = frac12 sum_k |y_k - x_k|$. Then the condition $ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$ will be false and so the implication "$ sum_k |y_k - x_k| < delta$
          implies
          $sum_k |f(y_k) - f(x_k)| < epsilon$" will be trivially true.



          So this conditionis not sufficient for absolute continuity or even continuity.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 28 at 10:31









          RamiroRamiro

          7,32421535




          7,32421535







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, I also saw this after you gave the detailed explanation in the other question
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 28 at 22:25












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, I also saw this after you gave the detailed explanation in the other question
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 28 at 22:25







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Yes, I also saw this after you gave the detailed explanation in the other question
          $endgroup$
          – High GPA
          Mar 28 at 22:25




          $begingroup$
          Yes, I also saw this after you gave the detailed explanation in the other question
          $endgroup$
          – High GPA
          Mar 28 at 22:25











          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, they are equivalent. Suppose you choose $delta$ according to the usual definition of absolute continuity with $epsilon$ repalced by $epsilon /2$. If $(a_k.b_k)$ is a disjoint sequence of interval with total length less than $delta$ then $sumlimits_k=1^N |f(b_k)-f(a_k)| < epsilon /2$ for each $N$. Let $N to infty$ to complete the proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Many thanks for your teaching! So you proved that the definition "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textfinite subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$" is equivalent to "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textcountable subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". However, my first condition means "$forall textcountable subintervals(forallepsilonexistsdelta textwe have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". Not sure my understanding is correct, though.
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 25 at 22:05
















          2












          $begingroup$

          Yes, they are equivalent. Suppose you choose $delta$ according to the usual definition of absolute continuity with $epsilon$ repalced by $epsilon /2$. If $(a_k.b_k)$ is a disjoint sequence of interval with total length less than $delta$ then $sumlimits_k=1^N |f(b_k)-f(a_k)| < epsilon /2$ for each $N$. Let $N to infty$ to complete the proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Many thanks for your teaching! So you proved that the definition "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textfinite subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$" is equivalent to "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textcountable subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". However, my first condition means "$forall textcountable subintervals(forallepsilonexistsdelta textwe have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". Not sure my understanding is correct, though.
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 25 at 22:05














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Yes, they are equivalent. Suppose you choose $delta$ according to the usual definition of absolute continuity with $epsilon$ repalced by $epsilon /2$. If $(a_k.b_k)$ is a disjoint sequence of interval with total length less than $delta$ then $sumlimits_k=1^N |f(b_k)-f(a_k)| < epsilon /2$ for each $N$. Let $N to infty$ to complete the proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Yes, they are equivalent. Suppose you choose $delta$ according to the usual definition of absolute continuity with $epsilon$ repalced by $epsilon /2$. If $(a_k.b_k)$ is a disjoint sequence of interval with total length less than $delta$ then $sumlimits_k=1^N |f(b_k)-f(a_k)| < epsilon /2$ for each $N$. Let $N to infty$ to complete the proof.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 25 at 8:24









          Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

          71.5k53170




          71.5k53170











          • $begingroup$
            Many thanks for your teaching! So you proved that the definition "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textfinite subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$" is equivalent to "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textcountable subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". However, my first condition means "$forall textcountable subintervals(forallepsilonexistsdelta textwe have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". Not sure my understanding is correct, though.
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 25 at 22:05

















          • $begingroup$
            Many thanks for your teaching! So you proved that the definition "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textfinite subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$" is equivalent to "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textcountable subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". However, my first condition means "$forall textcountable subintervals(forallepsilonexistsdelta textwe have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". Not sure my understanding is correct, though.
            $endgroup$
            – High GPA
            Mar 25 at 22:05
















          $begingroup$
          Many thanks for your teaching! So you proved that the definition "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textfinite subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$" is equivalent to "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textcountable subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". However, my first condition means "$forall textcountable subintervals(forallepsilonexistsdelta textwe have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". Not sure my understanding is correct, though.
          $endgroup$
          – High GPA
          Mar 25 at 22:05





          $begingroup$
          Many thanks for your teaching! So you proved that the definition "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textfinite subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$" is equivalent to "$forallepsilonexistsdelta(forall textcountable subintervals we have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". However, my first condition means "$forall textcountable subintervals(forallepsilonexistsdelta textwe have (sum|y_k-x_k|<delta Rightarrow sum|f(y_k)-f(x_k)|<epsilon))$". Not sure my understanding is correct, though.
          $endgroup$
          – High GPA
          Mar 25 at 22:05


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3161508%2fdifferent-definition-of-continuity%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Triangular numbers and gcdProving sum of a set is $0 pmod n$ if $n$ is odd, or $fracn2 pmod n$ if $n$ is even?Is greatest common divisor of two numbers really their smallest linear combination?GCD, LCM RelationshipProve a set of nonnegative integers with greatest common divisor 1 and closed under addition has all but finite many nonnegative integers.all pairs of a and b in an equation containing gcdTriangular Numbers Modulo $k$ - Hit All Values?Understanding the Existence and Uniqueness of the GCDGCD and LCM with logical symbolsThe greatest common divisor of two positive integers less than 100 is equal to 3. Their least common multiple is twelve times one of the integers.Suppose that for all integers $x$, $x|a$ and $x|b$ if and only if $x|c$. Then $c = gcd(a,b)$Which is the gcd of 2 numbers which are multiplied and the result is 600000?

          Ingelân Ynhâld Etymology | Geografy | Skiednis | Polityk en bestjoer | Ekonomy | Demografy | Kultuer | Klimaat | Sjoch ek | Keppelings om utens | Boarnen, noaten en referinsjes Navigaasjemenuwww.gov.ukOffisjele webside fan it regear fan it Feriene KeninkrykOffisjele webside fan it Britske FerkearsburoNederlânsktalige ynformaasje fan it Britske FerkearsburoOffisjele webside fan English Heritage, de organisaasje dy't him ynset foar it behâld fan it Ingelske kultuergoedYnwennertallen fan alle Britske stêden út 'e folkstelling fan 2011Notes en References, op dizze sideEngland

          Հադիս Բովանդակություն Անվանում և նշանակություն | Դասակարգում | Աղբյուրներ | Նավարկման ցանկ