How to prove sin(nx) has no pointwise convergent subsequence without prior knowledge of Lebesgue's Theory?

3.3k Views Asked by At

In Baby Rudin 7.20 example, the author mentions to prove that the function sequence $$f_n(x):=\sin(nx) \qquad0(\leq x\leq 2\pi)$$has no pointwise convergent subsequence would be troublesome without Lebesgue's Theorem.

Is there a proof that doesn't refer to Lebesgue's Theorem, and only requires the knowledge introduced in the first 7 chapter in Rudin?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

1
On BEST ANSWER

Here's an argument my officemate and I came up with that should work (while avoiding Lebesgue theory). Given a subsequence $\sin(n_kx)$, it constructs a sub-subsequence $\sin(n_{k_m}x)$ and a point $y$ such that $\sin(n_{k_m}y)$ fails to converge.


Suppose a subsequence $\sin(n_kx)$ is given. Then, we can find some closed interval $I_1 \subseteq [0, 2\pi]$ such that $\sin(n_1x)$ maps $I_1$ into $[1/2, 1]$. Also, set $n_{k_1} = n_1$.

Having chosen $I_1$, observe that for $k > k_1$ large enough, $\sin(n_k x)$ maps $I_1$ to $[-1,1]$ surjectively. Choose $k_2$ to be the least $k>k_1$ with this property, and let $I_2 \subset I_1$ be an interval that $\sin(n_{k_2}x)$ maps to $[-1, -1/2]$.

In general, suppose we have constructed the index $n_{k_m}$ and interval $I_m$. Then, we let $k_{m+1}$ be the least integer greater that $k_m$ such that $\sin(n_{k_{m+1}}x)$ maps $I_m$ surjectively onto $[-1, 1]$. Then, if $m$ is odd, we choose a subinterval $I_{m+1} \subset I_m$ such that $\sin(n_{k_{m+1}}x)$ maps $I_{m+1}$ into $[-1, -1/2]$, while if $m$ is even, we choose an $I_{m+1}$ which $\sin(n_{k_{m+1}}x$ maps into $[1/2,1]$.

Now, by the nested intervals theorem, $\bigcap_{m=1}^\infty I_m$ is nonempty, so it contains some point $y$. But, by construction, $\sin(n_k y)$ is both at least $1/2$ and at most $-1/2$ infinitely often, so the sequence of functions cannot converge at $y$.