Use of MVT in this proof

184 Views Asked by At

I cannot seem to understand the use of mean value theorem in the proof of this theorem:

$\mathbf{Theorem}$. Let$(a,b)$ be a bounded interval and suppose that $f_n$ is a sequence of functions which converges at some $x_0 \in (a,b)$. If each $f_n$ is differentiable on $(a,b)$, and $f'_n$ converges uniformly on $(a,b)$ as $n \to \infty$, then $f_n$ converges uniformly on $(a,b)$ and $$\lim_{n\to\infty} f'_n(x)=(\lim_{n\to\infty}f_n(x))'$$ for each $x\in(a,b)$.

Here is how they started the proof:

Proof: Fix $c\in (a,b)$ and define $$g_n(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}& \frac{f_n(x)-f_n(c)}{x-c} & x\neq c \\ f'_n(c) & x=c\\ \end{array} \right. $$for $n\in\mathbb{N}$. We claim that for any $c\in(a,b)$, the sequence $g_n$ converges uniformly on $(a,b)$. Let $\epsilon>0,n,m\in\mathbf{N}$, and $x\in(a,b)$ with $x\neq c.$ By the Mean Value Theorem, there is a $\lambda $ between $x$ and $c$ such that $$g_n(x)-g_m(x)=\frac{f_n(x)-f_m(x)-(f_n(c)-f_m(c))}{x-c}=f' _n(\lambda)-f' _m(\lambda)$$ Now, why is this the case? I thought MVT is used for functions evaluated at different points. In this case, they are using different functions evaluated at the same point. I fail to draw its connection with the Mean Value Theorem. Can someone explain how MVT is used in this case? What function(s) are they even trying to use MVT on?

2

There are 2 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

They apply Cauchy's mean value theorem to the functions $\;f(x)=f_n(x)-f_m(x)$ and $g(x)=x$.

This version asserts this:

If two functions $f$ and $g$ are continuous on the closed interval $[a,b]$ and differentiable in the open interval $(a,b)$, there exists $c\in(a,b)$ such that $$\bigl(f(b)-f(a) \bigr)g'(c)=\bigl(g(b)-g(a) \bigr)f'(c). $$

If $g(a)\ne g(b)$ and $g'(c)\ne 0$, this implies $$\frac{f(b)-f(a)}{g(b)-g(a)} =\frac{f'(c)}{g'(c)}.$$

0
On

I get it now. $$g_n(x)-g_m(x)=\frac{f_n(x)-f_m(x)-(f_n(c)-f_m(c))}{x-c}=f' _n(\lambda)-f' _m(\lambda)$$ The first equality is trivial because it follows by definition. It has nothing to do with the MVT.

The second equality uses MVT on the function $f_n(x)-f_m(x)$ at points $x=x,x=c$. We don't need Cauchy's MVT either.