Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
89 views3 pages

Advanced Real Analysis Problems

This document proves several properties of exponential functions with a base b that is greater than 1: 1) It proves that (bm)1/n = (bp)1/q if m/n = p/q. This allows defining br as (bm)1/n. 2) It proves that bs+t = bsbt for rational s and t. 3) It proves that br is the supremum of the set B(r) of all bt where t is rational and t ≤ r. This allows defining bx as the supremum of B(x) for any real x. 4) It proves that bx+y = bxby for all real x and y

Uploaded by

theskepticalone
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
89 views3 pages

Advanced Real Analysis Problems

This document proves several properties of exponential functions with a base b that is greater than 1: 1) It proves that (bm)1/n = (bp)1/q if m/n = p/q. This allows defining br as (bm)1/n. 2) It proves that bs+t = bsbt for rational s and t. 3) It proves that br is the supremum of the set B(r) of all bt where t is rational and t ≤ r. This allows defining bx as the supremum of B(x) for any real x. 4) It proves that bx+y = bxby for all real x and y

Uploaded by

theskepticalone
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

1.4 Fix b > 1. Rudin’s Ex.

(a) If m, n, p, q are integers, n > 0, q > 0, and r = m/n = p/q, prove that
(bm )1/n = (bp )1/q .
Hence it makes sense to define br = (bm )1/n .
(b) Prove that bs+t = bs bt if s and t are rational.
(c) If x is real, define B(x) to be the set of all numbers bt , where t is rational and
t ≤ x. Prove that
br = sup B(r)
where r is rational. Hence it makes sense to define
bx = sup B(x)
for every real x.
(d) Prove that bx+y = bx by for all real x and y. Part (d) is very
difficult.
Proof (a) If we can show
 nq  nq
(bm )1/n = (bp )1/q ,

then by Theorem 1.21, we have (bm )1/n = (bp )1/q . Indeed,


 nq h n i q
(bm )1/n = (bm )1/n
= (bm )q = bmq
= bnp = (bp )n
h q i n  nq
= (bp )1/q = (bp )1/q .

(b) For s and t rational, choose integers m, n, p, q, with n > 0, q > 0, such that
p mq+np
s= mn and t = q . Since s + t = nq , we have
 m p nq  mq+np nq h inq
(bs+t )nq = b n +q = b nq = (bmq+np )1/nq = bmq+np
= (bm )q · (bp )n
h n iq h q in
= (bm )1/n · (bp )1/q
h inq
= (bm )1/n · (bp )1/q = (bs · bt )nq .

which implies bs+t = bs · bt , by Theorem 1.21.


(c) By the definition of B(x), if r is rational, then br ∈ B(r). If we can show that br is
an upper bound of B(r), then, by the fact that br ∈ B(r), we conclude br = sup B(r).
Indeed, since b > 1, for any rational t with t ≤ r, by (b), we have
br = bt · br−t ≥ bt · 1r−t = bt .

1
Here we use the fact 1r = 1 for any rational r. This fact is because 1n = 1 implies
11/n = 1 by Theorem 1.21, and 1m/n = (1m )1/n = 11/n = 1 for integers m, n, with
n > 0.
(d) Step 1: Put

B(x) = {br : r ≤ x, r rational}, Bo (x) = {br : r < x, r rational}.

By the definition, bx = sup B(x). Now we show that bx = sup Bo (x).


In fact, if x is irrational, it is obvious that Bo (x) = B(x), which implies bx =
sup Bo (x). If x is rational, since Bo (x) ⊂ B(x), we know that sup Bo (x) ≤ sup B(x) =
bx . On the other hand, for any positive integer n, bx−1/n = bx b−1/n by (b). Since
bx−1/n ∈ Bo (x), we have

sup Bo (x) ≥ sup{bx−1/n : n ∈ N} = bx sup{b−1/n : n ∈ N}.

Hence, if we can prove sup{b−1/n : n ∈ N} = 1, then we have sup Bo (x) ≥ bx , so that


sup Bo (x) = bx .
Indeed, since b1/n b−1/n = b0 = 1, we have b−1/n = (b1/n )−1 . By (b1/n )n = b > 1, we
have b1/n > 1, so b−1/n < 1. That is, 1 is an upper bound of {b−1/n : n ∈ N}. For
any 0 <  < 1, define δ > 0 by 1 −  = (1 + δ)−1 . Since (1 − )n = [(1 + δ)−1 ]n =
[(1 + δ)n ]−1 ≤ (1 + nδ)−1 < b for sufficiently large n by the Archimedean property,
we know that 1 −  < b−1/n . That means 1 −  cannot be an upper bound of
{b−1/n : n ∈ N}. Hence, sup{b−1/n : n ∈ N} = 1.
Step 2: We shall show bx+y = bx by .
First, by the definition of B(x), since

{(s, t) ∈ Q2 : s ≤ x, t ≤ y} ⊂ {(s, t) ∈ Q2 : s + y ≤ x + y},

we have
bx by = sup (bs · bt ) ≤ sup bs+t = bx+y .
s≤x,t≤y s+t≤x+y
s, t rational s, t rational

It remains to show that the reversed inequality holds. In fact, by Step 1, it is


sufficient to show that bx by is an upper bound of Bo (x + y). Let r < x + y be a
rational number, then there are rational numbers s and t, such that r < s + t, s < x,
t < y. Thus, A similar argument
br < bs+t = bs bt ≤ bx by , does not work for
B(x + y).
which means bx+y = sup Bo (x + y) ≤ bx by .
1.6 Under what conditions does equality hold in the Schwarz inequality? Rudin’s Ex. 15
|aj |2 , B = |bj |2 , C =
P P P
Proof Write A = aj b̄j . If b1 = · · · = bn = 0, then
B = 0 and the Schwarz inequality is trivial. Otherwise B > 0, from elementary

2
calculations, we give
X X
|Baj − Cbj |2 = (Baj − Cbj )(Bāj − C̄ b̄j )
X X X X
= B2 |aj |2 − B C̄ aj b̄j − BC āj bj + |C|2 |bj |2
= B 2 A − B|C|2
= B(AB − |C|)2 ,

Hence, if the Schwarz inequality holds, that is, AB = |C|2 , then there are two
complex numbers λ and µ, not both zero, such that

λaj = µbj , j = 1, 2, . . . .

In the case that b1 = · · · = bn = 0, we simply take λ = 0 and µ arbitrary.


On the other hand, suppose there are two complex numbers λ and µ, not both zero,
such that
λaj = µbj , j = 1, 2, . . . .
Without loss of generality, we assume λ 6= 0. Then, by writing aj = γbj , we have
2 2 2
n n n
X X 2
X
= |γ|2 |bj |2


a b̄
j j
=
γ|b |
j
j=1 j=1 j=1
  
Xn Xn
= |γ|2  |bj |2   |bj |2 
j=1 j=1
  
Xn Xn
=  |bj |2   |γbj |2 
j=1 j=1
  
Xn n
X
=  |aj |2   |bj |2  .
j=1 j=1

The Schwarz inequality holds.


Hence, we conclude that the Schwarz inequality holds if and only if there are two
complex numbers λ and µ, not both zero, such that

λaj = µbj , j = 1, 2, . . . .

You might also like