
Real Analysis Real Analysis Math Forum 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
August 27th, 2009, 07:40 AM  #1 
Newbie Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0  On the Tietze extension theorem in the metric case.
If f is a uniformly continuous function defined on a closed subset A of a metric space with values in [1,2], its extension given by the formula: F(x)= inf ( f(a)d(x,a) : a in A) / d(x,A) is uniformly continuous as well: this is proven in a paper of Mandelkern 'on the uniform continuity of Tietze's extensions. I am wondering what happens if one replaces "uniformly continuous" by Lipschitzean (allowing a different Lipschitzconstant for the extension). I am tempted to believe it's wrong, but cannot find any couterexample... Many thanks! PS under the hypotheses of continuity only, this is well known; in many textbooks this formula is used often to provide an explicit extension; in the case of Lipschitzean functions, there are other ways to extend it to a Lipshcitzean function with the same constant, which are more natural. So this question, in this sense, is not "natural", yet correctly settled... 

Tags 
case, extension, metric, theorem, tietze 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
another odds ratio case  extjsjquery  Algebra  0  December 10th, 2013 02:21 AM 
Which case is the ambiguous case? Triangle  maxgeo  Algebra  1  October 31st, 2012 02:57 PM 
THE CASE OF THE SCALDING COFFEEPlease help  Arley  Calculus  8  April 9th, 2012 03:17 PM 
Help !, Let E be metric spaces and d1 ,d2 two metric in.....  johnmath  Real Analysis  2  March 5th, 2012 07:08 AM 