# Does uniform boundedness imply pointwise boundedness?

Does uniform boundedness imply pointwise boundedness? I take Walter Rudin's definition shown below.

If yes, we can also find a converging subsequence for $\{f_n\}$ if it's uniformly bounded, contradicting to Rudin's statement that "there need not exist a subsequence which converges pointwise on E"

I can prove pointwise boundedness doesn't imply uniform boundedness by setting $f_n(x)=x$ and $\phi (x)=2x$ for $x\in(0,+\infty)$.

• Unless you use non-standard definitions, uniform boundedness implies pointwise boundedness. Nov 18 '17 at 15:59
• Uniform boundedness implies pointwise boundedness, take $\phi(x) = M$ for all $x$. That doesn't contradict what Rudin writes. We can find a subsequence that is pointwise convergent on the countable subset $E_1$. But that doesn't imply that it is pointwise convergent on all of $E$. Nov 18 '17 at 16:25
• I see, thanks! @DanielFischer
– Hank
Nov 18 '17 at 17:52

Certainly uniform boundedness implies pointwise boundedness (in the notation of the definitions you cite, define $\phi(x)=M$ for all $x$).
Say $(f_n)$ is uniformly bounded. This does not imply there is a pointise convergent subsequence. The error you're probably making is this: Yes, for every $x$ there exists a subsequence $(f_{n_j})$ such that $f_{n_j}(x)$ is convergent. That does not say there is a pointwise convergent subsequence, because the subsequence you have depends on $x$, while saying there is a pointwise convergent subsequence says there is one subsequence that works for every $x$.
{"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 1, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0}