414/514 Homework 2 – Monotone and Baire one functions

This set is due in three weeks, on Monday, November 3, at the beginning of lecture.

1. Let be increasing. We know that and exist for all , and that has at most countably many points of discontinuity, say For each let be the intervals and . Some of these intervals may be empty, but for each at least one of them is not. (Here we follow the convention that and .) Let denote the length of the interval , and say that an interval precedes a point iff .

Verify that and, more generally, for any ,

precedes precedes .

Define a function by setting . Show that is increasing and continuous.

Now, for each , define so that , , and for all . Show that each is increasing, and its only discontinuity points are .

Prove that uniformly.

Use this to provide a (new) proof that increasing functions are in Baire class one.

2. Solve exercise 3.Q in the van Rooij-Schikhof book: If is such that for all , we have that and exist, then is the uniform limit of a sequence of step functions. The approach suggested in the book is the following:

Show that it suffices to argue that for every there is a step function such that for all .

To do this, consider the set there is a step function on such that for all .

Show that is non-empty. Show that if and , then also . This shows that is an interval or , with . Show that in fact the second possibility occurs, that is, . For this, the assumption that exists is useful. Finally, show that . For this, use now the assumption that exists.

3.(This problem is optional.) Find a counterexample to the following statement: If is the pointwise limit of a sequence of functions , then there is a dense subset where the convergence is in fact uniform. What if and the functions are continuous? Can you find a (reasonable) weakening of the statement that is true?

4. (This is example 1.1 in Andrew Bruckner’s Differentiation of real functions, CRM monograph series, AMS, 1994. MR1274044(94m:26001).) We want to define a function . Let be the Cantor set in . Whenever is one of the components of the complement of , we define for . For not covered by this case, we define . Verify that is a Darboux continuous function, and that it is discontinuous at every point of .

Verify that is not of Baire class one, but that there is a Baire class one function that coincides with except at (some of) the endpoints of intervals as above.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 10th, 2014 at 12:45 pm and is filed under 414/514: Analysis I. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to 414/514 Homework 2 – Monotone and Baire one functions

I have corrected the definition of the function in problem 1. Thanks to Jeremy Siegert for noticing the typo in the original version, and for noting that an should be .

Thanks to Stuart Nygard for noticing a further typo in question 2 (some should have been s). Fixed now.

In problem 1 we are supposed to show that each is discontinuous on the points . There is no based on how we indexed ‘s points of discontinuity, but it looks as though is discontinuous at . Should it be that each is discontinuous on ?

You assume $\omega_\alpha\subseteq M$ and $X\in M$ so that $X$ belongs to the transitive collapse of $M$ (because if $\pi$ is the collapsing map, $\pi(X)=\pi[X]=X$. You assume $|M|=\aleph_\alpha$ so that the transitive collapse of $M$ has size $\aleph_\alpha$. Since you also have that this transitive collapse is of the form $L_\beta$ for some $\beta$, it fol […]

Perhaps the following may clarify the comments: for any ordinal $\delta$, there is a Boolean-valued extension of the universe of sets where $2^{\aleph_0}>\aleph_\delta$ holds. If you rather talk of models than Boolean-valued extensions, what this says is that we can force while preserving all ordinals, and in fact all initial ordinals, and make the contin […]

I do not know of any active set theorists who think large cardinals are inconsistent. At least, within the realm of cardinals we have seriously studied. [Reinhardt suggested an ultimate axiom of the form "there is a non-trivial elementary embedding $j:V\to V$". Though some serious set theorists found it of possible interest immediately following it […]

There is a fantastic (and not too well-known) result of Shelah stating that $L({\mathcal P}(\lambda))$ is a model of choice whenever $\lambda$ is a singular strong limit of uncountable cofinality. This is a consequence of a more general theorem that can be found in 4.6/6.7 of "Set Theory without choice: not everything on cofinality is possible", Ar […]

In set theory, definitely the notion of a Woodin cardinal. First, it is not an entirely straightforward notion to guess. Significant large cardinals were up to that point defined as critical points of certain elementary embeddings. This is not the case here: Woodin cardinals need not be measurable. If $\kappa$ is Woodin, then $V_\kappa$ is a model of set the […]

The precise consistency strength of the global failure of the generalized continuum hypothesis is somewhat technical to state. As far as I know, it has not been published, but I think we have a decent understanding of what the correct statement should be. The most relevant paper towards this result is MR2224051 (2007d:03082). Gitik, Moti Merimovich, Carmi. P […]

There are integrable functions that are not derivatives: Any function that is continuous except at a single point, where it has a jump discontinuity, is an example. (Derivatives have the intermediate value property.) More interestingly, we can ask whether the existence of an antiderivative ensures integrability. The answer depends on what integral you are co […]

$0^¶$ is the sharp for an inner model with a strong cardinal in the same sense that $0^\dagger$ is the sharp for an inner model with a measurable cardinal. In terms of mice, this is the first mouse containing two overlapping extenders. The effect of this is that, by iterating its top measure throughout the ordinals, you extend the bottom extender in a variet […]

Clearly $\omega^\omega\le(\omega+n)^\omega$. Also, $(\omega+n)^\omega\le (\omega^2)^\omega=\omega^{(2\cdot \omega)}=\omega^\omega$, and the equality follows. If you do not feel comfortable with the move from $(\omega^2)^\omega$ to $\omega^{(2\cdot \omega)}$, simply note the left-hand side is $\omega\cdot\omega\cdot\omega\cdot\dots$, where there are $2\cdot\o […]

A function $f:\mathbb N\to\mathbb R$ is $2^{O(n)}$ if and only if there is a constant $C$ such that for all $n$ large enough we have $f(n)\le 2^{Cn}$. We can think of the $O$ notation as decribing a family of functions. So, $2^{O(n)}$ would be the family of functions satisfying the requirements just indicated. In contrast, a function $f$ is $O(2^n)$ if and o […]

I have corrected the definition of the function in problem 1. Thanks to Jeremy Siegert for noticing the typo in the original version, and for noting that an should be .

Thanks to Stuart Nygard for noticing a further typo in question 2 (some should have been s). Fixed now.

In problem 1 we are supposed to show that each is discontinuous on the points . There is no based on how we indexed ‘s points of discontinuity, but it looks as though is discontinuous at . Should it be that each is discontinuous on ?

Yes, exactly.