Neugebauer’s theorem

The problem of characterizing when a given function is a derivative has been studied at least since 1911 when Young published a paper recognizing its relevance:

W. H. Young. A note on the property of being a differential coefficient, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., 9 (2), (1911), 360–368.

The paper opens with the following comment (Young refers to derivatives as “differential coefficients”):

Recent research has provided us with a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that a function may be an indefinite integral, in the generalised sense, of another function, and the way has thus been opened to important developments. The corresponding, much more difficult, problem of determining necessary and sufficient conditions that a function may be a differential coefficient, has barely been mooted; indeed, though we know a number of necessary conditions, no set even of sufficient conditions has to my knowledge ever been formulated, except that involved in the obvious statement that a continuous function is a differential coefficient.

It is more or less understood nowadays that no completely satisfactory characterization is possible. We know that derivatives are Darboux continuous (that is, they satisfy the intermediate value property), and are Baire one functions (that is, they are the pointwise limit of a sequence of continuous functions). But this is not enough: For instance, any function $f$ such that $f(x)=\sin(1/x)$ for $x\ne 0$ , and $f(0)\in[-1,1]$ is Darboux continuous and Baire one, but only the function with $f(0)=0$ is a derivative.

Andrew Bruckner has written excellent surveys on derivatives and the characterization problem. See for instance:

Andrew M. Bruckner and John L. Leonard. Derivatives. Amer. Math. Monthly, 73 (4, part II), (1966), 24–56. MR0197632 (33 #5797).

Andrew M. Bruckner. Differentiation of real functions. Second edition. CRM Monograph Series, 5. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1994. xii+195 pp. ISBN: 0-8218-6990-6. MR1274044 (94m:26001).

Andrew M. Bruckner. The problem of characterizing derivatives revisited. Real Anal. Exchange, 21 (1), (1995/96), 112–133. MR1377522 (97g:26004).

Here I want to discuss briefly a characterization obtained by Neugebauer, see

Christoph Johannes Neugebauer. Darboux functions of Baire class one and derivatives. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 13 (6), (1962), 838–843. MR0143850 (26 #1400).

For concreteness, I will restrict discussion to functions $f:[0,1]\to\mathbb R$ , although this makes no real difference. Whenever an interval is mentioned, it is understood to be nondegenerate. For any closed subinterval $I\subseteq [0,1]$ , we write $I^\circ$ for its interior, and $\mathrm{lh}(I)$ for its length. Given a point $x\in[0,1]$ , we write $I\to x$ to indicate that $\mathrm{lh}(I)\to 0$ and $x\in I$ .

Theorem (Neugebauer). A function $f:[0,1]\to\mathbb R$ is a derivative iff to each closed subinterval $I$ of ${}[0,1]$ we can associate a point $x_I\in I^\circ$ in such a way that the following hold:

For all $x\in[0,1]$ , if $I\to x$ , then $f(x_I)\to f(x)$ , and
For all closed subintervals $I,I_1,I_2$ of ${}[0,1]$ , if $I=I_1\cup I_2$ and ${I_1}^\circ\cap {I_2}^\circ=\emptyset$ , then $\mathrm{lh}(I)f(x_I)=\mathrm{lh}(I_1)f(x_{I_1})+\mathrm{lh}(I_2)f(x_{I_2})$ .

The proof is remarkably simple.

Proof. Assume first that $f$ is a derivative, say $f=F'$ . By the mean value theorem, for each interval $I=[a,b]\subseteq[0,1]$ we can find at least one point $c\in(a,b)$ such that $\displaystyle \frac{F(b)-F(a)}{b-a}=f(c)$ . Pick any such $c$ and call it $x_I$ . Condition 2 above is immediate.

To see that condition 1 also holds, fix $x\in[0,1]$ , and note that for $h$ close enough to $0$ with $x+h\in [0,1]$ , we have that

$F(x+h)=F(x)+hf(x)+O(h^2)$ .

It follows that if $h,j\to0^+$ , then

$\displaystyle \frac{F(x+h)-F(x-j)}{(x+h)-(x-j)}=$ $\displaystyle \frac{(F(x+h)-F(x))+(F(x)-F(x-j))}{h+j}=$ $\displaystyle \frac{(h+j)f(x)+O(h^2)+O(j^2)}{h+j}= f(x)+\frac{O((h+j)^2)}{h+j}\to f(x)$ ,

that is, if $I\to x$ , then $f(x_I)\to f(x)$ .

Conversely, suppose that conditions 1 and 2 hold. For each closed interval $I\subseteq[0,1]$ , let $x_I\in I^\circ$ be as required. Define $F$ so that

$F(0)=0$

and, for $0<x\le 1$ , let $I=[0,x]$ , and set

$F(x)=f(x_I)\mathrm{lh}(I)=xf(x_I)$ .

One easily verifies (from condition 2) that if $0\le a<b\le 1$ and $I=[a,b]$ , then $F(b)-F(a)=(b-a)f(x_I)$ . It follows from condition 1 that

$\displaystyle \frac{F(x+h)-F(x)}{h}\to f(x)$

as $h\to 0$ , that is, $f=F'$ . This completes the proof. $\Box$

In the same paper, Neugebauer also shows that if $f:[0,1]\to\mathbb R$ is a Darboux continuous Baire one function, then to each closed subinterval $I\subseteq [0,1]$ we can associate a point $x_I\in I^\circ$ in such a way that condition 1 above holds. That is, it is precisely the possibility of strengthening condition 1 with condition 2 that distinguishes derivatives among the Darboux continuous Baire one functions.

A technical remark is in order. As written, the proof above seems to make blatant use of the axiom of choice: Given a differentiable function $F$ with $F'=f$ , for each $I=[a,b]$ we need to pick an $x_I\in(a,b)$ with $\displaystyle {F(b)-F(a)}{b-a}=f(x_I)$ . It seems useful to know that this can be done definably (indeed, in a Borel fashion) so that no appeal to choice is actually required.

There are two ways of verifying this. The first, general, approach, is to note that for any $a<b$ , if $c=(F(b)-F(a))/(b-a)$ , the set $\{x\in(a,b)\mid f(x)=c\}$ is Borel (in fact, $G_\delta$ ). The result follows (albeit with a $\mathbf{\Pi}^1_1$ function) from the Lusin-Sierpiński uniformization theorem. In fact, I suspect we can obtain a Borel uniformization here on general grounds, since the sections are $G_\delta$ and “uniformly defined”. See for instance the appendix to:

George A. Elliott, Ilijas Farah, Vern Paulsen, Christian Rosendal, Andrew S. Toms, and Asger Törnquist. The isomorphism relation for separable $C^*$ -algebras. Math. Res. Lett., 20 (6), (2013), 1071–1080. MR3228621.

The second, elementary, approach is specific to the situation at hand but does not require knowledge of descriptive set theory. It was indicated by TonyK on Math.Stackexchange, see here. The idea is to recall that the mean value theorem is proved as a corollary of Rolle’s theorem: Given a continuous $F:[a,b]\to\mathbb R$ that is differentiable in $(a,b)$ , define $g(x)=F(x)-y(x)$ , where $y$ is the line that goes through the points $(a,F(a))$ and $(b,F(b))$ . We see that $g'(x)=0$ iff $\displaystyle F'(x)=\frac{F(b)-F(a)}{b-a}$ , and that $g(a)=g(b)=0$ .

It follows that we are done if, given a continuous $g:[a,b]\to\mathbb R$ that is differentiable in $(a,b)$ and satisfies $g(a)=g(b)=0$ , we can definably pick a point $c\in(a,b)$ with $g'(c)=0$ . The following procedure attains this:

Let $c$ be the supremum of the set of points $x\in(a,b)$ where $g$ attains its (global) maximum, provided that this set is non-empty. If this is the case, note that (by continuity), the function $g$ also attains its maximum at the point $c$ and therefore, if $c<b$ , then $g'(c)=0$ . This works, unless the global maximum of $g$ is attained at $a$ and $b$ . In that case:
Let $c$ be the supremum of the set of points $x\in(a,b)$ where $g$ attains its (global) minimum, provided that this set is non-empty. This works, unless $g$ also attains its minimum at $a$ and $b$ . But this means that $g$ is constant (identically equal to $0$ ). In that case:
Let $c=(a+b)/2$ .

(Essentially, what we are doing here is to replace the $G_\delta$ sections with closed subsets, in a uniform fashion.)

[It was in order to discuss these remarks that I talked recently at the Set Theory seminar here at Boise on the uniformization theorem. Thanks to Sam Coskey for his interest on this topic.]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Categories

Mathoverflow

Relative Densities September 12, 2013

Throughout the question, we only consider primes of the form $3k+1$. A reference for cubic reciprocity is Ireland & Rosen's A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory. How can I count the relative density of those $p$ (of the form $3k+1$) such that the equation $2=3x^3$ has no solutions modulo $p$? Really, even pointers on how to say anything […]

Andrés E. Caicedo

Answer by Andrés E. Caicedo for Solutions to the Continuum Hypothesis May 18, 2010

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

Andrés E. Caicedo

Answer by Andrés E. Caicedo for Are there any non-linear solutions of Cauchy's equation ($f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)$) without assuming the Axiom of Choice? March 6, 2011

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

Andrés E. Caicedo

David Gale's subset take-away game October 12, 2010

I learned of this problem through Su Gao, who heard of it years ago while a post-doc at Caltech. David Gale introduced this game in the 70s, I believe. I am only aware of two references in print: Richard K. Guy. Unsolved problems in combinatorial games. In Games of No Chance, (R. J. Nowakowski ed.) MSRI Publications 29, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. […]

Andrés E. Caicedo

A translation of the Cantor set contained in the irrationals February 22, 2014

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

Andrés E. Caicedo

Math.StackExchange

Answer by Andrés E. Caicedo for Well-ordering of the reals in ZF with constructibility? April 19, 2018

$L$ has such a nice canonical structure that one can use it to define a global well-ordering. That is, there is a formula $\phi(u,v)$ that (provably in $\mathsf{ZFC}$) well-orders all of $L$, so that its restriction to any specific set $A$ is a set well-ordering of $A$. The well-ordering $\varphi$ you are asking about can be obtained as the restriction to $\ […]

Andrés E. Caicedo

Answer by Andrés E. Caicedo for Assuming ZF and the axiom of constructibility, $\alpha > \omega, V_\alpha = L_\alpha \iff \alpha = \aleph_\alpha$ February 28, 2018

Define the sequence of beth numbers by $\beth_0=\aleph_0$, $\beth_{\alpha+1}=2^{\beth_\alpha}$ and $\beth_\lambda=\sup_{\beta

Andrés E. Caicedo

Answer by Andrés E. Caicedo for On the definition of Inductive set. Equivalences February 18, 2018

The two concepts are different. For example, $\omega$, the first infinite ordinal, is the standard example of an inductive set according to the first definition, but is not inductive in the second sense. In fact, no set can be inductive in both senses (any such putative set would contain all ordinals). In the context of set theory, the usual use of the term […]

Andrés E. Caicedo

Answer by Andrés E. Caicedo for Find a contradiction to: If $t^n < (\sup \{t \in \mathbb{R}_{>0}: t^n < x\})^n$ then $t^n < x$ when this supremum is greater than $x$. February 16, 2018

I will show that for any positive integers $n,\ell,k$ there is an $M$ so large that for all positive integers $i$, if $i/M\le \ell$, then the difference $$ \left(\frac iM\right)^n-\left(\frac{i-1}M\right)^n $$ is less than $1/k$. Let's prove this first, and then argue that the result follows from it. Note that $$ (i+1)^n-i^n=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\binom nk i^ […]

Andrés E. Caicedo

Answer by Andrés E. Caicedo for Prove by induction that $n^2>7n+1$ for all $n \ge 8$ February 15, 2018

I think it is cleaner to argue without induction. If $n$ is a positive integer and $n\ge 8$, then $7n$ is both less than $n^2$ and a multiple of $n$, so at most $n^2-n$ and therefore $7n+1$ is at most $n^2-n+1

Andrés E. Caicedo

	116c- Homework 7 \| A… on 116c- Lecture 18
	116c- Lecture 17 \| A… on 116c: Mathematical Logic (Set…
	116c- Lecture 18 \| A… on 116c- Homework 7
	116c- Lecture 19 \| A… on 116c- Lecture 13
	580 -Partition calcu… on 580 -III. Partition calcu…
	580 -Partition calcu… on 580 -Partition calculus (…
	Nosferatu \| A kind o… on The cabinet of Doctor Cal…
	Monica Agana –… on 414/514 The theorems of Rieman…
	The Dalek invasion o… on The Dalek invasion of Boi…
	andrescaicedo on Help!
	Asaf Karagila on On anti-foundation and coding…
	andrescaicedo on On anti-foundation and coding…
	Asaf Karagila on On anti-foundation and coding…
	On anti-foundation a… on Interpretations
	andrescaicedo on MSC2020

A kind of library