Compactly supported continuous function is uniformly continuous
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Let $f:mathbb R rightarrow mathbb R$ be continuous and compactly supported. How can I prove that $f$ is uniformly continuous ? I was trying to prove it by contradiction but get stuck. My attempt was as follows:
Let $E$ be the compact support of $f$. On $E$ we know that $f$ is uniformly continuous. If we assume that $f$ is not uniformly continuous we know
$$
exists epsilon > 0 forall delta > 0 exists x,y in mathbb R: |x-y|<delta wedge |f(x)-f(y)| geq epsilon
$$ Let $delta_n := frac 1n$ and fix this $epsilon > 0$. Compute a $delta > 0$ s.t. $forall x,y in E:|x-y| < delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| <epsilon$. Let $n geq N$ s.t. $frac 1N < delta$. Then we may assume wlog that $x_n in E$ and $y_n in mathbb R setminus E$ wehere $x_n,y_n$ are the points corresponding with $delta_n$. This gives a sequence of points where $|x_n-y_n| rightarrow 0$ and $x_n in E$ and $y_n in mathbb R setminus E$.
I now want to use somehow the continuitiy of $f$. How can I do this ? Is this approach a good one ? Can it be more simple ?
New idea:
I know that $E$ is compact so $(y_n)_{n=0}^infty$ has a convergent subsequence $(y_{n_j})_{j=0}^infty$ whit limit say $y in E$. Now
$$
|x_{n_j}-y| leq |x_{n_j}-y_{n_j}|+|y_{n_j}+y| rightarrow 0
$$ So I can take $x_{n_j}$ close to $y$ to get $|f(x_{n_j})-f(y)| = |f(y)| <frac epsilon 2$ by the continuity. I can also take $y_{n_j}$ close to $y$ to get $|f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| <frac epsilon 2$. We further have
$$
|f(y_{n_j})| leq |f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| + |f(y)|
$$ s.t.
$$
|f(y)| geq |f(y_{n_j})| - |f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| geq frac epsilon 2
$$ because $|f(y_{n_j})| geq epsilon$ per construction. So we have $|f(y)| leq frac epsilon 2$ and $|f(y)| > frac epsilon 2$ which is a contradiction.
New solution: Let $epsilon > 0$. Let $delta_1$ for the uniform continuity on $E$. Further
$$
forall x in E, exists delta_x > 0 forall y in mathbb{R}: |x-y|< delta_x rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| < epsilon
$$ Compute an open finite over of $E$
$$
E subseteq bigcup_{i=1}^N Bleft(x_i,frac{delta_{x_i}}2right)
$$ Write $delta_i := delta_{x_i}$. Let $delta_2 := min_{i=1,cdots,N} frac {delta_i} 2$ and $delta := min(delta_1,delta_2)$.
Assume $|x-y|< delta$. If $x,y in E$ or $x,y notin E$ we are done. Otherwise assume $x in E$ and $y notin E$. Then $x in Bleft(x_i,frac{delta_i}{2}right)$ for some $i$. Further
$$
|y-x_i| leq |y-x|+|x-x_i|leq delta_2 + frac{delta_i}2 leq delta_i
$$ thus $y in B(x_i,delta_i)$ which proves the claim.
analysis continuity compactness uniform-continuity
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Let $f:mathbb R rightarrow mathbb R$ be continuous and compactly supported. How can I prove that $f$ is uniformly continuous ? I was trying to prove it by contradiction but get stuck. My attempt was as follows:
Let $E$ be the compact support of $f$. On $E$ we know that $f$ is uniformly continuous. If we assume that $f$ is not uniformly continuous we know
$$
exists epsilon > 0 forall delta > 0 exists x,y in mathbb R: |x-y|<delta wedge |f(x)-f(y)| geq epsilon
$$ Let $delta_n := frac 1n$ and fix this $epsilon > 0$. Compute a $delta > 0$ s.t. $forall x,y in E:|x-y| < delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| <epsilon$. Let $n geq N$ s.t. $frac 1N < delta$. Then we may assume wlog that $x_n in E$ and $y_n in mathbb R setminus E$ wehere $x_n,y_n$ are the points corresponding with $delta_n$. This gives a sequence of points where $|x_n-y_n| rightarrow 0$ and $x_n in E$ and $y_n in mathbb R setminus E$.
I now want to use somehow the continuitiy of $f$. How can I do this ? Is this approach a good one ? Can it be more simple ?
New idea:
I know that $E$ is compact so $(y_n)_{n=0}^infty$ has a convergent subsequence $(y_{n_j})_{j=0}^infty$ whit limit say $y in E$. Now
$$
|x_{n_j}-y| leq |x_{n_j}-y_{n_j}|+|y_{n_j}+y| rightarrow 0
$$ So I can take $x_{n_j}$ close to $y$ to get $|f(x_{n_j})-f(y)| = |f(y)| <frac epsilon 2$ by the continuity. I can also take $y_{n_j}$ close to $y$ to get $|f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| <frac epsilon 2$. We further have
$$
|f(y_{n_j})| leq |f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| + |f(y)|
$$ s.t.
$$
|f(y)| geq |f(y_{n_j})| - |f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| geq frac epsilon 2
$$ because $|f(y_{n_j})| geq epsilon$ per construction. So we have $|f(y)| leq frac epsilon 2$ and $|f(y)| > frac epsilon 2$ which is a contradiction.
New solution: Let $epsilon > 0$. Let $delta_1$ for the uniform continuity on $E$. Further
$$
forall x in E, exists delta_x > 0 forall y in mathbb{R}: |x-y|< delta_x rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| < epsilon
$$ Compute an open finite over of $E$
$$
E subseteq bigcup_{i=1}^N Bleft(x_i,frac{delta_{x_i}}2right)
$$ Write $delta_i := delta_{x_i}$. Let $delta_2 := min_{i=1,cdots,N} frac {delta_i} 2$ and $delta := min(delta_1,delta_2)$.
Assume $|x-y|< delta$. If $x,y in E$ or $x,y notin E$ we are done. Otherwise assume $x in E$ and $y notin E$. Then $x in Bleft(x_i,frac{delta_i}{2}right)$ for some $i$. Further
$$
|y-x_i| leq |y-x|+|x-x_i|leq delta_2 + frac{delta_i}2 leq delta_i
$$ thus $y in B(x_i,delta_i)$ which proves the claim.
analysis continuity compactness uniform-continuity
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Let $f:mathbb R rightarrow mathbb R$ be continuous and compactly supported. How can I prove that $f$ is uniformly continuous ? I was trying to prove it by contradiction but get stuck. My attempt was as follows:
Let $E$ be the compact support of $f$. On $E$ we know that $f$ is uniformly continuous. If we assume that $f$ is not uniformly continuous we know
$$
exists epsilon > 0 forall delta > 0 exists x,y in mathbb R: |x-y|<delta wedge |f(x)-f(y)| geq epsilon
$$ Let $delta_n := frac 1n$ and fix this $epsilon > 0$. Compute a $delta > 0$ s.t. $forall x,y in E:|x-y| < delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| <epsilon$. Let $n geq N$ s.t. $frac 1N < delta$. Then we may assume wlog that $x_n in E$ and $y_n in mathbb R setminus E$ wehere $x_n,y_n$ are the points corresponding with $delta_n$. This gives a sequence of points where $|x_n-y_n| rightarrow 0$ and $x_n in E$ and $y_n in mathbb R setminus E$.
I now want to use somehow the continuitiy of $f$. How can I do this ? Is this approach a good one ? Can it be more simple ?
New idea:
I know that $E$ is compact so $(y_n)_{n=0}^infty$ has a convergent subsequence $(y_{n_j})_{j=0}^infty$ whit limit say $y in E$. Now
$$
|x_{n_j}-y| leq |x_{n_j}-y_{n_j}|+|y_{n_j}+y| rightarrow 0
$$ So I can take $x_{n_j}$ close to $y$ to get $|f(x_{n_j})-f(y)| = |f(y)| <frac epsilon 2$ by the continuity. I can also take $y_{n_j}$ close to $y$ to get $|f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| <frac epsilon 2$. We further have
$$
|f(y_{n_j})| leq |f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| + |f(y)|
$$ s.t.
$$
|f(y)| geq |f(y_{n_j})| - |f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| geq frac epsilon 2
$$ because $|f(y_{n_j})| geq epsilon$ per construction. So we have $|f(y)| leq frac epsilon 2$ and $|f(y)| > frac epsilon 2$ which is a contradiction.
New solution: Let $epsilon > 0$. Let $delta_1$ for the uniform continuity on $E$. Further
$$
forall x in E, exists delta_x > 0 forall y in mathbb{R}: |x-y|< delta_x rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| < epsilon
$$ Compute an open finite over of $E$
$$
E subseteq bigcup_{i=1}^N Bleft(x_i,frac{delta_{x_i}}2right)
$$ Write $delta_i := delta_{x_i}$. Let $delta_2 := min_{i=1,cdots,N} frac {delta_i} 2$ and $delta := min(delta_1,delta_2)$.
Assume $|x-y|< delta$. If $x,y in E$ or $x,y notin E$ we are done. Otherwise assume $x in E$ and $y notin E$. Then $x in Bleft(x_i,frac{delta_i}{2}right)$ for some $i$. Further
$$
|y-x_i| leq |y-x|+|x-x_i|leq delta_2 + frac{delta_i}2 leq delta_i
$$ thus $y in B(x_i,delta_i)$ which proves the claim.
analysis continuity compactness uniform-continuity
Let $f:mathbb R rightarrow mathbb R$ be continuous and compactly supported. How can I prove that $f$ is uniformly continuous ? I was trying to prove it by contradiction but get stuck. My attempt was as follows:
Let $E$ be the compact support of $f$. On $E$ we know that $f$ is uniformly continuous. If we assume that $f$ is not uniformly continuous we know
$$
exists epsilon > 0 forall delta > 0 exists x,y in mathbb R: |x-y|<delta wedge |f(x)-f(y)| geq epsilon
$$ Let $delta_n := frac 1n$ and fix this $epsilon > 0$. Compute a $delta > 0$ s.t. $forall x,y in E:|x-y| < delta rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| <epsilon$. Let $n geq N$ s.t. $frac 1N < delta$. Then we may assume wlog that $x_n in E$ and $y_n in mathbb R setminus E$ wehere $x_n,y_n$ are the points corresponding with $delta_n$. This gives a sequence of points where $|x_n-y_n| rightarrow 0$ and $x_n in E$ and $y_n in mathbb R setminus E$.
I now want to use somehow the continuitiy of $f$. How can I do this ? Is this approach a good one ? Can it be more simple ?
New idea:
I know that $E$ is compact so $(y_n)_{n=0}^infty$ has a convergent subsequence $(y_{n_j})_{j=0}^infty$ whit limit say $y in E$. Now
$$
|x_{n_j}-y| leq |x_{n_j}-y_{n_j}|+|y_{n_j}+y| rightarrow 0
$$ So I can take $x_{n_j}$ close to $y$ to get $|f(x_{n_j})-f(y)| = |f(y)| <frac epsilon 2$ by the continuity. I can also take $y_{n_j}$ close to $y$ to get $|f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| <frac epsilon 2$. We further have
$$
|f(y_{n_j})| leq |f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| + |f(y)|
$$ s.t.
$$
|f(y)| geq |f(y_{n_j})| - |f(y_{n_j})-f(y)| geq frac epsilon 2
$$ because $|f(y_{n_j})| geq epsilon$ per construction. So we have $|f(y)| leq frac epsilon 2$ and $|f(y)| > frac epsilon 2$ which is a contradiction.
New solution: Let $epsilon > 0$. Let $delta_1$ for the uniform continuity on $E$. Further
$$
forall x in E, exists delta_x > 0 forall y in mathbb{R}: |x-y|< delta_x rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| < epsilon
$$ Compute an open finite over of $E$
$$
E subseteq bigcup_{i=1}^N Bleft(x_i,frac{delta_{x_i}}2right)
$$ Write $delta_i := delta_{x_i}$. Let $delta_2 := min_{i=1,cdots,N} frac {delta_i} 2$ and $delta := min(delta_1,delta_2)$.
Assume $|x-y|< delta$. If $x,y in E$ or $x,y notin E$ we are done. Otherwise assume $x in E$ and $y notin E$. Then $x in Bleft(x_i,frac{delta_i}{2}right)$ for some $i$. Further
$$
|y-x_i| leq |y-x|+|x-x_i|leq delta_2 + frac{delta_i}2 leq delta_i
$$ thus $y in B(x_i,delta_i)$ which proves the claim.
analysis continuity compactness uniform-continuity
analysis continuity compactness uniform-continuity
edited Nov 21 at 5:19
Kei
297
297
asked Jul 17 '13 at 12:45
Epsilon
3,46332238
3,46332238
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Let us first see what is continuity. Given a positive $epsilon$, continuity of $f$ means that at each $x$, we can find a small $delta$ such that $x'in (x-delta,x+delta)$ implies $f(x')in (f(x)-epsilon,f(x)+epsilon)$. So around each $x$, we have a small open set that is mapped very close to $f(x)$. Also note that points in the same small open set are mapped to points close to each other, since they are both mapped to points close to $f(x)$. But the problem here is that this radius of the open sets $delta$ depends on the point $x$.
Now compactness means you can find a finite collection of such small open sets that they cover the support of the function, and this is good enough for us. Because among these finitely many open sets, you can determine the smallest radius, say $r$. If the distance between $x$ and $x'$ are less than $1/10r$, then you know they must lie in the same open set, then $f(x)$ and $f(x')$ must be close. Now this $r$ does not depend on $x$, you have uniform continuity.
How does it follow that functions that vanish at infinity are uniformly continuous?
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:47
Actually this can be answered easily if it is true that a sequence of uniformly continuous functions that converge uniformly to a continuous function, then that function necessarily uniformly continuous.
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:52
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $K$ be the support of $f$. Define
$$ M: K times [0,1]to {mathbb R}$$
by letting
$$M(x,delta) = max_{|y-x|le delta} |f(y)-f(x)|.$$
Observe
$$ |M(x,delta)- M(x',delta')| le |M(x,delta) - M(x,delta')| + |M(x,delta')-M(x',delta')|,$$
and a quick calculation shows that $M$ is continous. Let ${bar M}(delta) = max_{x} M(x,delta)=M(x_delta,delta)$, due to compactness. Note that $delta to{bar M}(delta)$ is nondecreasing. We show it tends to $0$ as $deltasearrow 0$. If $delta_n searrow 0$ we have a subsequence $x_{delta_{n_k}}to x_0in K$ and therefore by continuity, ${bar M}(delta_{n_k}) = M(x_{delta_{n_k}},delta_{n_k}) to M(x_0,0)=0$.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Let us first see what is continuity. Given a positive $epsilon$, continuity of $f$ means that at each $x$, we can find a small $delta$ such that $x'in (x-delta,x+delta)$ implies $f(x')in (f(x)-epsilon,f(x)+epsilon)$. So around each $x$, we have a small open set that is mapped very close to $f(x)$. Also note that points in the same small open set are mapped to points close to each other, since they are both mapped to points close to $f(x)$. But the problem here is that this radius of the open sets $delta$ depends on the point $x$.
Now compactness means you can find a finite collection of such small open sets that they cover the support of the function, and this is good enough for us. Because among these finitely many open sets, you can determine the smallest radius, say $r$. If the distance between $x$ and $x'$ are less than $1/10r$, then you know they must lie in the same open set, then $f(x)$ and $f(x')$ must be close. Now this $r$ does not depend on $x$, you have uniform continuity.
How does it follow that functions that vanish at infinity are uniformly continuous?
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:47
Actually this can be answered easily if it is true that a sequence of uniformly continuous functions that converge uniformly to a continuous function, then that function necessarily uniformly continuous.
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:52
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Let us first see what is continuity. Given a positive $epsilon$, continuity of $f$ means that at each $x$, we can find a small $delta$ such that $x'in (x-delta,x+delta)$ implies $f(x')in (f(x)-epsilon,f(x)+epsilon)$. So around each $x$, we have a small open set that is mapped very close to $f(x)$. Also note that points in the same small open set are mapped to points close to each other, since they are both mapped to points close to $f(x)$. But the problem here is that this radius of the open sets $delta$ depends on the point $x$.
Now compactness means you can find a finite collection of such small open sets that they cover the support of the function, and this is good enough for us. Because among these finitely many open sets, you can determine the smallest radius, say $r$. If the distance between $x$ and $x'$ are less than $1/10r$, then you know they must lie in the same open set, then $f(x)$ and $f(x')$ must be close. Now this $r$ does not depend on $x$, you have uniform continuity.
How does it follow that functions that vanish at infinity are uniformly continuous?
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:47
Actually this can be answered easily if it is true that a sequence of uniformly continuous functions that converge uniformly to a continuous function, then that function necessarily uniformly continuous.
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:52
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Let us first see what is continuity. Given a positive $epsilon$, continuity of $f$ means that at each $x$, we can find a small $delta$ such that $x'in (x-delta,x+delta)$ implies $f(x')in (f(x)-epsilon,f(x)+epsilon)$. So around each $x$, we have a small open set that is mapped very close to $f(x)$. Also note that points in the same small open set are mapped to points close to each other, since they are both mapped to points close to $f(x)$. But the problem here is that this radius of the open sets $delta$ depends on the point $x$.
Now compactness means you can find a finite collection of such small open sets that they cover the support of the function, and this is good enough for us. Because among these finitely many open sets, you can determine the smallest radius, say $r$. If the distance between $x$ and $x'$ are less than $1/10r$, then you know they must lie in the same open set, then $f(x)$ and $f(x')$ must be close. Now this $r$ does not depend on $x$, you have uniform continuity.
Let us first see what is continuity. Given a positive $epsilon$, continuity of $f$ means that at each $x$, we can find a small $delta$ such that $x'in (x-delta,x+delta)$ implies $f(x')in (f(x)-epsilon,f(x)+epsilon)$. So around each $x$, we have a small open set that is mapped very close to $f(x)$. Also note that points in the same small open set are mapped to points close to each other, since they are both mapped to points close to $f(x)$. But the problem here is that this radius of the open sets $delta$ depends on the point $x$.
Now compactness means you can find a finite collection of such small open sets that they cover the support of the function, and this is good enough for us. Because among these finitely many open sets, you can determine the smallest radius, say $r$. If the distance between $x$ and $x'$ are less than $1/10r$, then you know they must lie in the same open set, then $f(x)$ and $f(x')$ must be close. Now this $r$ does not depend on $x$, you have uniform continuity.
answered Jul 17 '13 at 13:19
Hui Yu
6,95022569
6,95022569
How does it follow that functions that vanish at infinity are uniformly continuous?
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:47
Actually this can be answered easily if it is true that a sequence of uniformly continuous functions that converge uniformly to a continuous function, then that function necessarily uniformly continuous.
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:52
add a comment |
How does it follow that functions that vanish at infinity are uniformly continuous?
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:47
Actually this can be answered easily if it is true that a sequence of uniformly continuous functions that converge uniformly to a continuous function, then that function necessarily uniformly continuous.
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:52
How does it follow that functions that vanish at infinity are uniformly continuous?
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:47
How does it follow that functions that vanish at infinity are uniformly continuous?
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:47
Actually this can be answered easily if it is true that a sequence of uniformly continuous functions that converge uniformly to a continuous function, then that function necessarily uniformly continuous.
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:52
Actually this can be answered easily if it is true that a sequence of uniformly continuous functions that converge uniformly to a continuous function, then that function necessarily uniformly continuous.
– Chris Cave
Feb 10 '15 at 11:52
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $K$ be the support of $f$. Define
$$ M: K times [0,1]to {mathbb R}$$
by letting
$$M(x,delta) = max_{|y-x|le delta} |f(y)-f(x)|.$$
Observe
$$ |M(x,delta)- M(x',delta')| le |M(x,delta) - M(x,delta')| + |M(x,delta')-M(x',delta')|,$$
and a quick calculation shows that $M$ is continous. Let ${bar M}(delta) = max_{x} M(x,delta)=M(x_delta,delta)$, due to compactness. Note that $delta to{bar M}(delta)$ is nondecreasing. We show it tends to $0$ as $deltasearrow 0$. If $delta_n searrow 0$ we have a subsequence $x_{delta_{n_k}}to x_0in K$ and therefore by continuity, ${bar M}(delta_{n_k}) = M(x_{delta_{n_k}},delta_{n_k}) to M(x_0,0)=0$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $K$ be the support of $f$. Define
$$ M: K times [0,1]to {mathbb R}$$
by letting
$$M(x,delta) = max_{|y-x|le delta} |f(y)-f(x)|.$$
Observe
$$ |M(x,delta)- M(x',delta')| le |M(x,delta) - M(x,delta')| + |M(x,delta')-M(x',delta')|,$$
and a quick calculation shows that $M$ is continous. Let ${bar M}(delta) = max_{x} M(x,delta)=M(x_delta,delta)$, due to compactness. Note that $delta to{bar M}(delta)$ is nondecreasing. We show it tends to $0$ as $deltasearrow 0$. If $delta_n searrow 0$ we have a subsequence $x_{delta_{n_k}}to x_0in K$ and therefore by continuity, ${bar M}(delta_{n_k}) = M(x_{delta_{n_k}},delta_{n_k}) to M(x_0,0)=0$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Let $K$ be the support of $f$. Define
$$ M: K times [0,1]to {mathbb R}$$
by letting
$$M(x,delta) = max_{|y-x|le delta} |f(y)-f(x)|.$$
Observe
$$ |M(x,delta)- M(x',delta')| le |M(x,delta) - M(x,delta')| + |M(x,delta')-M(x',delta')|,$$
and a quick calculation shows that $M$ is continous. Let ${bar M}(delta) = max_{x} M(x,delta)=M(x_delta,delta)$, due to compactness. Note that $delta to{bar M}(delta)$ is nondecreasing. We show it tends to $0$ as $deltasearrow 0$. If $delta_n searrow 0$ we have a subsequence $x_{delta_{n_k}}to x_0in K$ and therefore by continuity, ${bar M}(delta_{n_k}) = M(x_{delta_{n_k}},delta_{n_k}) to M(x_0,0)=0$.
Let $K$ be the support of $f$. Define
$$ M: K times [0,1]to {mathbb R}$$
by letting
$$M(x,delta) = max_{|y-x|le delta} |f(y)-f(x)|.$$
Observe
$$ |M(x,delta)- M(x',delta')| le |M(x,delta) - M(x,delta')| + |M(x,delta')-M(x',delta')|,$$
and a quick calculation shows that $M$ is continous. Let ${bar M}(delta) = max_{x} M(x,delta)=M(x_delta,delta)$, due to compactness. Note that $delta to{bar M}(delta)$ is nondecreasing. We show it tends to $0$ as $deltasearrow 0$. If $delta_n searrow 0$ we have a subsequence $x_{delta_{n_k}}to x_0in K$ and therefore by continuity, ${bar M}(delta_{n_k}) = M(x_{delta_{n_k}},delta_{n_k}) to M(x_0,0)=0$.
answered Nov 21 at 5:51
Fnacool
4,956511
4,956511
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f445735%2fcompactly-supported-continuous-function-is-uniformly-continuous%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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