Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
Next revision
|
Previous revision
|
math104-s21:s:antonthan [2021/05/07 00:21] 45.48.153.5 [Headline] |
math104-s21:s:antonthan [2022/01/11 18:30] (current) 24.253.46.239 ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation |
Problems from https://ywfan-math.github.io/104s21_final_practice.pdf. | Problems from https://ywfan-math.github.io/104s21_final_practice.pdf. |
| |
| Solutions here vary in how detailed they are; they could be full solutions or only guiding steps. |
==== Problem 1 ==== | ==== Problem 1 ==== |
=== (a) === | === (a) === |
=== (a) === | === (a) === |
| |
We show that Cauchy condition on B(X) implies that the sequence converges (uniformly) to a function f(x), which can be found through pointwise convergence. We can then use the uniform convergence to show that f(x) is bounded (and obviously, defined on every point in X), so it is an element of B(X). So, every Cauchy sequence converges in B(X), so the metric space is complete. | We show that Cauchy condition on B(X) is the definition of being uniformly Cauchy. Uniformly Cauchy implies uniform convergence, and our convergent function is bounded, so B(X) is complete. |
| |
=== (b) === | === (b) === |
| |
Therefore, the set of continuous functions is closed. | Therefore, the set of continuous functions is closed. |
| |
| Easier way: consider that a set is closed iff it contains all its limit points, and consider a sequence of continuous functions that uniformly converges. |
| |
=== (c) === | === (c) === |
==== Problem 14 ==== | ==== Problem 14 ==== |
| |
| We consider the function g(x)=f(x)−f(x+T/2), which is continuous. Show that g(0)=−g(T/2), and then use IVT. |
| ==== Problem 15 ==== |
| |
==== Headline ==== | Following the hint, $f'(0) = a_1 + 2a_2 + \ldots + na_n$. We then show that assuming $|f'(0)| > 1$ leads to a contradiction of the original inequality. We can use the limit definition of the derivative for this. |
| ==== Problem 16 ==== |
| False. |
| |
| Let $A = \{1/\sqrt{p} \vert p \text{ is prime}\}.Definef(x) = 1whenx \in A,andf(x)=0$ otherwise. |
| |
| Clearly, if we take $y_n = 1/\sqrt{p_n}$, where pn is the nth prime, limyn=0, yet limf(yn)=1, so limx→0f(x)=0. |
| |
| We just have to prove that f satisfies the original function requirement. We do this by showing the sequence xn=r/n contains at most one element in A for all real r. Proceed by contradiction, and say {xn} contains ya and yb for distinct a,b. Then for some m,n (note that r=0): |
| ya=r/m,yb=r/n |
| ya/yb=n/m |
| \sqrt{p_b/p_a} = n/m |
| LHS is irrational, and RHS is rational, so contradiction. Since xn contains only 1 element in A, limf(xn)=0 for all real r. We are done. |
| ==== Problem 17 ==== |
| |
| Consider f(x)eg(x), which is continuous and differentiable on the same intervals. We take its derivative and apply MVT, and we are done. |
| ==== Problem 18 ==== |
| |
| === (a) === |
| |
| Let partition $P_n = \{0, 1/n, 2/n, \ldots, n/n\}$. Note that mesh(Pn)=1/n and L(f,Pn)≤Rn≤U(f,Pn). |
| |
| The idea now is to use Ross 32.7. Let ϵ>0, and since f is integrable, there exists a δ>0 that satisfies mesh(P)<δ⟹U(f,P)−L(f,P)<ϵ for all partitions P. We choose n large enough such that mesh(Pn)<δ, so that we get the inequalities: U(f,Pn)−ϵ<Rn≤U(f,Pn and L(f,Pn)≤Rn<L(f,Pn)+ϵ. This gives us: |
| |
| U(f)≤nsup(U(f,Pn))=limRn=ninf(L(f,Pn))≤L(f) |
| |
| Since we also have L(f)=U(f) by integrability, limRn=∫01f(x)dx, as desired. |
| |
| === (b) === |
| |
| Indicator function for rationals. |
===== Question List ===== | ===== Question List ===== |
**1. How do you use the rational root theorem to prove that something is irrational?** | **1. How do you use the rational root theorem to prove that something is irrational?** |
| |
===== ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ===== | ===== ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ඞ ===== |
{{ :math104:s:amongus.mp4 |}} | {{ math104-s21:s:amongus.mp4 |}} |