Uniform continuity

At a Glance

Why This Chapter Matters

Both questions are 15-mark problems requiring structured multi-step proofs. The 2016 question proves uniform continuity on R\mathbb{R} via a three-region splitting argument (two tails plus a compact middle), requiring an embedded proof of the Heine-Cantor theorem. The 2020 question disproves uniform continuity via an explicit sequence construction. Together they give both sides of the coin and are the two most likely question patterns for this atom.

Minimum Theory

Uniform continuity. f:I→Rf : I \to \mathbb{R} is uniformly continuous if for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there exists δ>0\delta > 0 (depending only on ε\varepsilon, not on the base point) such that ∣x−y∣<δ⇒∣f(x)−f(y)∣<ε|x - y| < \delta \Rightarrow |f(x) - f(y)| < \varepsilon for all x,y∈Ix, y \in I.

Heine-Cantor theorem. A continuous function on a closed bounded interval [a,b][a, b] is uniformly continuous. Proof by contradiction: if not, for every nn there exist un,vn∈[a,b]u_n, v_n \in [a,b] with ∣un−vn∣<1/n|u_n - v_n| < 1/n but ∣f(un)−f(vn)∣≥ε0|f(u_n) - f(v_n)| \ge \varepsilon_0. Bolzano-Weierstrass gives a subsequence unk→cu_{n_k} \to c; then vnk→cv_{n_k} \to c too (since ∣un−vn∣→0|u_n - v_n| \to 0). Continuity gives f(unk),f(vnk)→f(c)f(u_{n_k}), f(v_{n_k}) \to f(c), contradicting the gap ≥ε0\ge \varepsilon_0.

Negation of uniform continuity. ff is NOT uniformly continuous on II iff there exists ε0>0\varepsilon_0 > 0 and sequences (xn),(yn)(x_n), (y_n) in II with ∣xn−yn∣→0|x_n - y_n| \to 0 but ∣f(xn)−f(yn)∣≥ε0|f(x_n) - f(y_n)| \ge \varepsilon_0.

Left graph: uniformly continuous function — one band of width 2\varepsilon around y=f(x) is captured by the same \delta regardless of base point. Right graph: f(x) = \sin(x^2) on [0,\infty) — oscillations become increasingly compressed; the same \delta cannot capture all oscillations because f moves from 0 to 1 in a shrinking x-interval near large n.

Question Archetypes

ArchetypeRecognition
prove-uniform-continuityfunction continuous on R\mathbb{R} with finite limits at ±∞\pm\infty; prove uniformly continuous
disprove-uniform-continuityfunction whose oscillations compress (like sin⁡(x2)\sin(x^2)) on an unbounded interval; disprove

prove-uniform-continuity (1 question; 2016)

Recognition Cues — f:R→Rf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} continuous, lim⁡x→±∞f(x)\lim_{x\to\pm\infty} f(x) finite. The hypothesis on limits at ±∞\pm\infty is the key signal: the function is “flat” far out, so the tails are automatically uniform; the compact middle piece is handled by Heine-Cantor.

Solution Template

  1. Let ε>0\varepsilon > 0. Use lim⁡x→+∞f(x)=L+\lim_{x\to+\infty} f(x) = L_+ to find M+M_+ such that ∣f(x)−L+∣<ε/3|f(x) - L_+| < \varepsilon/3 for x>M+x > M_+.
  2. Similarly find M−M_- for the left tail. Set M=max⁡(M+,M−)M = \max(M_+, M_-).
  3. For x,yx, y both in the right tail (M,∞)(M, \infty): ∣f(x)−f(y)∣<2ε/3<ε|f(x) - f(y)| < 2\varepsilon/3 < \varepsilon (no constraint on ∣x−y∣|x-y|). Similarly for the left tail.
  4. Apply Heine-Cantor to [−M−1,M+1][-M-1, M+1] (compact): ∃δ1>0\exists \delta_1 > 0 with ∣x−y∣<δ1⇒∣f(x)−f(y)∣<ε|x-y| < \delta_1 \Rightarrow |f(x)-f(y)| < \varepsilon for x,y∈[−M−1,M+1]x, y \in [-M-1, M+1].
  5. Set δ=min⁡(δ1,1)\delta = \min(\delta_1, 1). For ∣x−y∣<δ≤1|x-y| < \delta \le 1: if both points are in the same tail, use the tail bound; otherwise both lie in [−M−1,M+1][-M-1, M+1] (since ∣x−y∣<1|x-y| < 1 prevents them being in opposite tails), and use the Heine-Cantor bound.
  6. Conclude ff is uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R}.

Worked Example

2016 Paper 2, 2016-P2-Q4b (15 marks)

Let f:R→Rf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} be a continuous function such that lim⁡x→+∞f(x)\lim_{x\to+\infty} f(x) and lim⁡x→−∞f(x)\lim_{x\to-\infty} f(x) exist and are finite. Prove that ff is uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R}.

Let ε>0\varepsilon > 0. Denote L+=lim⁡x→+∞f(x)L_+ = \lim_{x\to+\infty}f(x) and L−=lim⁡x→−∞f(x)L_- = \lim_{x\to-\infty}f(x) (finite).

Step 1 — Control the tails.

By the limit at +∞+\infty, there exists M+>0M_+ > 0 such that x>M+⇒∣f(x)−L+∣<ε/3x > M_+ \Rightarrow |f(x) - L_+| < \varepsilon/3. Hence for any x,y>M+x, y > M_+:

∣f(x)−f(y)∣≤∣f(x)−L+∣+∣L+−f(y)∣<ε3+ε3=2ε3<ε.(T+)|f(x)-f(y)| \le |f(x)-L_+| + |L_+-f(y)| < \frac{\varepsilon}{3}+\frac{\varepsilon}{3} = \frac{2\varepsilon}{3} < \varepsilon. \qquad\text{(T+)}

Similarly, there exists M−>0M_- > 0 such that for any x,y<−M−x, y < -M_-: ∣f(x)−f(y)∣<ε|f(x)-f(y)| < \varepsilon. (T−-)

Set M=max⁡(M+,M−)+1M = \max(M_+, M_-) + 1.

Step 2 — Heine-Cantor on the compact middle.

The interval [−M−1,M+1][-M-1, M+1] is closed and bounded, hence compact. Since ff is continuous on a compact set, ff is uniformly continuous on [−M−1,M+1][-M-1, M+1] (Heine-Cantor):

(Proof of Heine-Cantor.) Suppose not: then for some ε0>0\varepsilon_0 > 0 and every n∈Nn \in \mathbb{N} there exist un,vn∈[−M−1,M+1]u_n, v_n \in [-M-1, M+1] with ∣un−vn∣<1/n|u_n - v_n| < 1/n but ∣f(un)−f(vn)∣≥ε0|f(u_n) - f(v_n)| \ge \varepsilon_0. By Bolzano-Weierstrass, (unk)(u_{n_k}) has a convergent subsequence unk→c∈[−M−1,M+1]u_{n_k} \to c \in [-M-1, M+1]. Since ∣unk−vnk∣<1/nk→0|u_{n_k} - v_{n_k}| < 1/n_k \to 0, also vnk→cv_{n_k} \to c. Continuity of ff gives f(unk)→f(c)f(u_{n_k}) \to f(c) and f(vnk)→f(c)f(v_{n_k}) \to f(c), so ∣f(unk)−f(vnk)∣→0|f(u_{n_k}) - f(v_{n_k})| \to 0, contradicting ≥ε0\ge \varepsilon_0. □\square

So there exists δ1>0\delta_1 > 0 such that for x,y∈[−M−1,M+1]x, y \in [-M-1, M+1] with ∣x−y∣<δ1|x-y| < \delta_1: ∣f(x)−f(y)∣<ε|f(x)-f(y)| < \varepsilon. (C)

Step 3 — Stitch with δ=min⁡(δ1,1)\delta = \min(\delta_1, 1).

Let x,y∈Rx, y \in \mathbb{R} with ∣x−y∣<δ≤1|x-y| < \delta \le 1. Since ∣x−y∣<1|x-y| < 1, the points xx and yy cannot lie in opposite tails (right tail and left tail are separated by more than 11):

In every case ∣f(x)−f(y)∣<ε|f(x)-f(y)| < \varepsilon, and δ\delta depends only on ε\varepsilon (not on x,yx, y).

f is uniformly continuous on R.\boxed{f \text{ is uniformly continuous on } \mathbb{R}.}

Common Traps


disprove-uniform-continuity (1 question; 2020)

Recognition Cues — Function like f(x)=sin⁡(x2)f(x) = \sin(x^2) on [0,∞)[0, \infty), or any function whose oscillations accelerate on an unbounded interval. The question says “prove that ff is not uniformly continuous.” Use the sequence-pair method with the negation of the definition.

Solution Template

  1. State the negation of uniform continuity: ∃ε0>0\exists \varepsilon_0 > 0 such that ∀δ>0\forall \delta > 0, ∃x,y\exists x, y with ∣x−y∣<δ|x-y| < \delta but ∣f(x)−f(y)∣≥ε0|f(x)-f(y)| \ge \varepsilon_0.
  2. Choose sequences xn,ynx_n, y_n so that f(xn)=1f(x_n) = 1 and f(yn)=0f(y_n) = 0 (or similar fixed values) for all nn.
  3. Show xn−yn→0x_n - y_n \to 0 (rationalize if necessary).
  4. Set ε0=1\varepsilon_0 = 1. For any δ>0\delta > 0, pick nn large so ∣xn−yn∣<δ|x_n - y_n| < \delta; then ∣f(xn)−f(yn)∣=1≥ε0|f(x_n) - f(y_n)| = 1 \ge \varepsilon_0. Conclude not uniformly continuous.

Worked Example

2020 Paper 2, 2020-P2-Q2b (15 marks)

Prove that the function f(x)=sin⁡x2f(x) = \sin x^2 is not uniformly continuous on the interval [0,∞)[0, \infty).

Negation. ff is NOT uniformly continuous on [0,∞)[0,\infty) iff ∃ε0>0\exists \varepsilon_0 > 0 such that for every δ>0\delta > 0 there exist x,y∈[0,∞)x, y \in [0,\infty) with ∣x−y∣<δ|x-y| < \delta but ∣f(x)−f(y)∣≥ε0|f(x)-f(y)| \ge \varepsilon_0.

Step 1 — Choose sequences.

For n≥1n \ge 1, set

xn=2nπ+π2,yn=2nπ.x_n = \sqrt{2n\pi + \tfrac{\pi}{2}}, \qquad y_n = \sqrt{2n\pi}.

Then xn2=2nπ+π/2x_n^2 = 2n\pi + \pi/2 and yn2=2nπy_n^2 = 2n\pi, so

f(xn)=sin⁡ ⁣(2nπ+π2)=1,f(yn)=sin⁡(2nπ)=0.f(x_n) = \sin\!\left(2n\pi + \tfrac{\pi}{2}\right) = 1, \qquad f(y_n) = \sin(2n\pi) = 0.

For every nn: ∣f(xn)−f(yn)∣=1|f(x_n) - f(y_n)| = 1.

Step 2 — Gap xn−yn→0x_n - y_n \to 0.

Rationalizing:

xn−yn=2nπ+π2−2nπ=(2nπ+π2)−2nπ2nπ+π2+2nπ=π/22nπ+π2+2nπ.x_n - y_n = \sqrt{2n\pi + \tfrac{\pi}{2}} - \sqrt{2n\pi} = \frac{(2n\pi + \tfrac{\pi}{2}) - 2n\pi}{\sqrt{2n\pi + \tfrac{\pi}{2}} + \sqrt{2n\pi}} = \frac{\pi/2}{\sqrt{2n\pi + \tfrac{\pi}{2}} + \sqrt{2n\pi}}.

As n→∞n \to \infty the denominator →∞\to \infty, so xn−yn→0x_n - y_n \to 0.

Step 3 — Conclude.

Take ε0=1\varepsilon_0 = 1. Let δ>0\delta > 0 be arbitrary. Choose nn large enough that xn−yn<δx_n - y_n < \delta; then

∣xn−yn∣<δyet∣f(xn)−f(yn)∣=1=ε0.|x_n - y_n| < \delta \quad \text{yet} \quad |f(x_n) - f(y_n)| = 1 = \varepsilon_0.

Since δ>0\delta > 0 was arbitrary, no single δ\delta works for ε0=1\varepsilon_0 = 1.

xn=2nπ+π2, yn=2nπ:∣xn−yn∣→0 but ∣f(xn)−f(yn)∣=1.\boxed{x_n = \sqrt{2n\pi + \tfrac{\pi}{2}},\ y_n = \sqrt{2n\pi}: \quad |x_n - y_n| \to 0 \text{ but } |f(x_n) - f(y_n)| = 1.}

Common Traps

Marks-Aware Writing

15-mark answer (prove-uniform-continuity): Three regions — both tails covered by the limit hypothesis (ε/3\varepsilon/3 argument), compact middle by Heine-Cantor (with the Bolzano-Weierstrass proof of Heine-Cantor written out), stitching with δ=min⁡(δ1,1)\delta = \min(\delta_1, 1). Explain why δ≤1\delta \le 1 prevents the opposite-tail interaction.

15-mark answer (disprove-uniform-continuity): State the negation explicitly (2 lines), define xnx_n and yny_n and compute f(xn),f(yn)f(x_n), f(y_n) (3 lines), rationalize xn−yn→0x_n - y_n \to 0 (4 lines), close with the ε0=1\varepsilon_0 = 1 argument (3 lines). The rationalization step is where marks are often lost.

Practice Set

Ready to drill what you just read?

Daily Practice turns these patterns into one adaptive set a day — practised daily until they're automatic, free for everyone.

See Daily Practice →

This chapter is part of the Maths Coverage Map — 14 years, mapped. Get the take-away PDF free.