Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Functional analysis (uniform convergence) watch

1. So I've just proved the Weierstrass M-test; that is, if a series of functions is such that for all , where converges, then converges uniformly on

I'm given that , let and let for . I have to show that converges uniformly on for each .

Now I'm a bit confused here. If I'm supposed to use the Weierstrass M-test on this then each of the should be bounded; but is unbounded on any , for example; and indeed is unbounded on any with .

Showing uniform convergence of the series probably isn't too difficult just using my bare hands; I suppose I'm just being thrown off by the Weierstrass M-test in the first half of the question. So if someone could verify whether or not I'm going mad, I'd appreciate it
2. We can ignore the first R (or 2R if it makes life easier, which it might) terms of the series since that's a finite sum. The rest of the terms don't have the boundedness problem.
3. (Original post by DFranklin)
We can ignore the first R (or 2R if it makes life easier, which it might) terms of the series since that's a finite sum. The rest of the terms don't have the boundedness problem.
Duh, I'm a moron. Thanks
4. Just whilst I'm here, I might as well just check that I did the last part right.

I have to determine whether converges uniformly on . I've said it doesn't:

I've noted that for all and that each is unbounded for and bounded on . Suppose that and . Then I note that is bounded/unbounded on the same regions as .

The series converges uniformly on E iff uniformly on E iff as . If is bounded on for some then choosing any , we must have that is unbounded in a neighbourhood of and so the supremum is infinite. Similarly, if is unbounded on for all then since each is bounded on , the supremum is again infinite. In either case, the supremum certainly doesn't converge to zero, and so doesn't converge uniformly on .

Once again I'm fairly sure this is correct, but is it a bit clumsy? Is there a neater way of saying this?

Thanks to anyone for their help.
5. I think you can do it more painlessly: suppose the sum uniformly converges over the reals, take epsilon = 1. By assumption of unif conv we can find N s.t. n > N => |f_n(x) - f(x)| < 1 for all real x. But f_n+1(n+1.1) > f_n(n+1.1) + 100, and so f(n+1.1) > f_n(n+1.1) + 100. Contradiction.
6. (Original post by DFranklin)
I think you can do it more painlessly: suppose the sum uniformly converges over the reals, take epsilon = 1. By assumption of unif conv we can find N s.t. n > N => |f_n(x) - f(x)| < 1 for all real x. But f_n+1(n+1.1) > f_n(n+1.1) + 100, and so f(n+1.1) > f_n(n+1.1) + 100. Contradiction.
That's certainly less awkward; thanks.

Turn on thread page Beta

### Related university courses

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 8, 2011
The home of Results and Clearing

### 1,431

people online now

### 1,567,000

students helped last year
Today on TSR

### A-level grade boundaries

Hang on, have Edexcel's come out already?

### University open days

1. Bournemouth University
Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
Fri, 17 Aug '18
2. University of Bolton
Fri, 17 Aug '18
3. Bishop Grosseteste University
Fri, 17 Aug '18
Poll
Useful resources

## Make your revision easier

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE