5

Let $f:[0,1] \to \mathbb{R}$ be a function of bounded variation and let

$$ V_0^1(f) = \sup \{ \ \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} |f(x_i)-f(x_{i+1})| : 0<x_1 < \cdots < x_N < 1 \ \} $$

be its total variation where the supremum runs over all partitions of $[0,1]$.

Can we caculate the $V_0^1(f)$ using uniform partitions? That means we set $$ x_i = \frac{i-1}{N-1}, \ \ i=1, \dots,N $$ and $$ v_N = \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} |f(x_i)-f(x_{i+1})|. $$ Does the sequnce $(v_N)_N$ converges to $V_0^1(f)$ (maybe under stronger conditions such as continuity of $f$) ?

Muzi
  • 1,285
  • 9
  • 26

2 Answers2

6

If $f$ is continuous then $\lim_{N \to \infty} v_N = V_0^1(f)$. If $f$ is not continuous then this is not necessarily true.

For proof, let $f:[a,b] \to \mathbb{R}$ be of bounded variation with total variation $V_a^b(f)$ and for an arbitrary partition $P$ with points $a= x_0 < x_1 < \ldots < x_n = b$, denote the variation with respect to the partition as

$$V(f,P) = \sum_{k=1}^n |\,f(x_k) - f(x_{k-1})\,|$$

Relating to your notation, if $P_N$ is a uniform partition then $V(f,P_N) = v_N.$

For any $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a partition $P'$ with points $a= x_0' < x_1'< \ldots < x_m' = b$ such that

$$V_a^b(f) - \frac{\epsilon}{2} < V(f,P') \leqslant V_a^b(f)$$

Since $f$ is uniformly continuous on the compact interval $[a,b]$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that if $|x-y| < \delta$ , then $|f(x) - f(y)| < \epsilon/ (4m)$.

Take another partition $P''$ with points $a= x''_0 < x''_1 < \ldots < x''_n = b$ and with partition norm $\|P''\| < \delta$, i.e. $\max_{1 \leqslant k \leqslant n} |x_k - x_{k-1}| < \delta$. Let $P = P'\cup P''$ be the common refinement. We then have $\|P \| < \delta$ and

$$V(f,P') \leqslant V(f,P),\quad V(f,P'') \leqslant V(f,P)$$

The partition $P$ is formed by adding $m$ points from $P'$ to $P''$. Some of these may coincide with points of $P''$, but at most $m$ new points could be introduced. As a consequence we have

$$\tag{*}V(f,P'') \geqslant V(f,P) - \frac{\epsilon}{2}$$

To see why, notice that if the point $x_k'$ from $P'$ falls between $x_j''$ and $x_{j+1}''$, then the contribution to the variation of the refined partition increases from $|f(x_{j+1}'') - f(x_j'')|$ to $|f(x_{j+1}'') - f(x_k')| + |f(x_k') - f(x_j'')|$ since the second quantity exceeds the first by the triangle inequality. However, since $\|P\| < \delta$ the increase is at most $$|f(x_{j+1}'') - f(x_k')| + |f(x_k') - f(x_j'')| -|f(x_{j+1}'') - f(x_j'')| \\\leqslant |f(x_{j+1}'') - f(x_k')| + |f(x_k') - f(x_j'')| \leqslant 2 \frac{\epsilon}{4m},$$

As this can occur at most for $m$ points, the inequality (*) follows.

Thus,

$$V_a^b(f) \geqslant V(f,P'') \geqslant V(f,P) - \frac{\epsilon}{2} \geqslant V(f,P') - \frac{\epsilon}{2} \geqslant V_a^b(f) - \epsilon. $$

This proves that $V(f,P'') \to V_a^b(f)$ as $\|P''\| \to 0$.

RRL
  • 90,707
  • I know i am kinda late, but can someone further explain why one has $|P|<\delta$ from letting $P=P^{\prime} \cup P^{\prime \prime}$ ? I tried to do some calculations, but i just cant figure out why ): – Lucas Jan 09 '21 at 04:06
  • Also, i could not fully understand why the following expression $$\left|f\left(x_{j}^{\prime \prime}\right)-f\left(x_{k}^{\prime}\right)\right|+\left|f\left(x_{k}^{\prime}\right)-f\left(x_{j}^{\prime \prime}\right)\right|-\left|f\left(x_{j+1}^{\prime \prime}\right)-f\left(x_{j}^{\prime \prime}\right)\right|$$ holds as a consequence of $|P|<\delta$ – Lucas Jan 09 '21 at 04:11
  • 2
    @Lucas: you are given $||P''||<\delta$. Now $P$ is a refinement of $P' '$ ie $P' '\subseteq P$ and hence $||P||\leq ||P' '||<\delta$. Refining a partition can never increase the norm. – Paramanand Singh Jan 09 '21 at 04:20
  • 1
    @Lucas: There was a typo in that expression which I corrected above. The first term on the LHS should be $|f(x_{j+1}'') - f(x_k')|$. – RRL Jan 09 '21 at 18:17
  • The question was about functions $f$ with bounded variation, but your proposed counterexample in the first paragraph does not have bounded variation. – Mike Earnest Jan 09 '21 at 18:22
  • @MikeEarnest: OK. I'll remove that example. Do you believe that convergence always holds without continuity of $f$? – RRL Jan 09 '21 at 18:34
  • @RRL I would guess so, seems intuitively true. – Mike Earnest Jan 09 '21 at 18:43
  • @MikeEarnest: Clearly it holds if $f$ is continuous and that can be extended obviously if there are only a finite number of discontinuity points. In my haste to provide
    a counterexample, I used a function with uncountably many discontinuities and so as you observed had unbounded variation. So that leaves room for finding a counterexample where the set of discontinuity points is countably infinite.
    – RRL Jan 09 '21 at 18:52
  • I had seen this theorem in some paper without proof. But it had a counter-example for a discontinuous function. I will find that out and mention here. – Paramanand Singh Jan 11 '21 at 02:18
  • @ParamanandSingh: Thank you. A proof without continuity is just not jumping out at me right now. – RRL Jan 11 '21 at 02:43
  • 1
    Ok there was a hint in the paper. Consider $f$ continuous and strictly increasing on $[a, b] $ and $c\in(a, b) $. Let $g=f$ except $g(c) \neq f(c) $. Then $V(g) =V(f) +2|f(c)-g(c)|$. However when we take limits as norm tending to $0$ the extra $2|f(c)-g(c)|$ will not be seen unless partition contains point $c$. Please double check this and if you think it is OK you may add this in the answer. – Paramanand Singh Jan 11 '21 at 08:05
  • @ParamanandSingh: So this shows that continuity is needed even for an increasing function (which of course is if bounded variation) for the convergence to hold. I'll check, but you should post it as a supplement to this answer and I will certainly upvote. I'm am really happy you discovered this as I was struggling to find a counterexample. – RRL Jan 12 '21 at 03:28
  • I have posted an answer. – Paramanand Singh Jan 12 '21 at 07:01
  • Thanks @RRL. This same proof works for arclength of a curve in $\mathbb R^n$, or perhaps a more general metric space. – mr_e_man Dec 05 '23 at 04:28
3

This is a complement to the excellent answer by user RRL. I present a counter-example to show that continuity is essential for the result (proved in other answer) to hold.

Let $f:[a, b] \to\mathbb {R} $ be a function which is continuous and strictly increasing on $[a, b] $ and let $c\in(a, b) $. And consider another function $g:[a, b] \to\mathbb {R} $ such that $f(x) =g(x) $ for all $x\in[a, b]\setminus \{c\} $ and $f(c) \neq g(c) $. Then $g$ has a removable discontinuity at $c$ and is continuous at all other points of $[a, b] $.

It should be easy to observe that both $f, g$ are of bounded variation and $$V_a^b(g) =V_a^b(f) +2|f(c)-g(c)|$$ The relation above should be obvious if one takes a partition which includes point $c$. Points close to $c$ and left of $c$ will lead to a term $|f(c) - g(c) | $ in the total variation for $g$ and similar is the case for points near and to the right of $c$.

Next note that if we try to find the limit of sum $$V(g, P) =\sum_{k=1}^{n}|g(x_k)-g(x_{k-1})|$$ corresponding to partition $$P=\{x_0,x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n\}$$ as norm of partition $P$ tends to $0$ then depending on whether the partition contains $c$ (or not) the limit will (or will not) include the extra $2|f(c)-g(c)|$ and thus the limit does not exist (one can say it oscillates finitely with two limit points $V_a^b(f) $ and $V_a^b(f) +2|f(c)-g(c)|$).

Hence we must ensure continuity of a function before we can use the limit via norm approaching $0$ to find total variation of the function.

This is one of the cases where the limit using norm of partition and limit using refinement of partition differ.


The above counter-example is given as a hint in the lecture notes by Christopher Heil. See Exercise 19 (the exercise has a typo as it is supposed to find the counter-example to theorem 17 and not theorem 18 as mentioned). IMHO the lecture notes are good and would be worth going through.

  • What if we take the norm of the partition in the codomain instead of the domain? $$\lVert P\rVert=\max_{1\leq k\leq n}(x_k-x_{k-1})$$ $$\lVert f(P)\rVert=\max_{1\leq k\leq n}\big|f(x_k)-f(x_{k-1})\big|$$ $$\sup_PV(f,P)\overset?=\lim_{\lVert f(P)\rVert\to0}V(f,P)$$ – mr_e_man Dec 11 '23 at 21:37
  • I suppose if the function is $$f(x)=\begin{cases}0,\quad a\leq x<b\1,\quad x=b\end{cases}$$ then the limit on the right doesn't make sense, as $\lVert f(P)\rVert$ cannot be made arbitrarily small. – mr_e_man Dec 11 '23 at 22:10
  • For any discontinuous function we can't ensure that $||f(P) ||$ tends to zero. @mr_e_man – Paramanand Singh Dec 11 '23 at 22:46
  • Well, if $g$ is defined as in your answer, then there are partitions with arbitrarily small $\lVert g(P)\rVert$, so the limit makes sense (i.e. the value satisfying the $\varepsilon,\delta$ statement is unique if it exists). Anyway, I've posted a new question, assuming continuity and injectivity (but higher dimensions). – mr_e_man Dec 11 '23 at 23:52