Is there any characterization of continuous functions $f : \Bbb{R}\longrightarrow \Bbb{R}$ such that for any linearly independent set $A$ (over the rationals) $f(A)$ is also linearly independent ?


2 Answers 2


This may not be a complete answer to the question, but it is too long for a comment.

Given such a function $f$, the restriction $f \restriction [0,\infty)$ is a power function $\alpha x^\beta$ where $\alpha \ne 0$ and $\beta \ge 0$, and similarly the restriction $f \restriction (-\infty,0]$ is a power function of $-x$. We will prove this for the restriction $f \restriction [0,\infty)$ because the other case is similar.

Because $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational, for any $x > 0$ the set $\{x,\sqrt{2} x\}$ is linearly independent, so the set $\{f(x),f(\sqrt{2} x)\}$ is linearly independent, meaning that its elements are nonzero and either

  1. Their quotient $f(\sqrt{2} x)/f(x)$ is irrational, or

  2. They are the same element: $f(\sqrt{2} x) = f(x)$, so the quotient $f(\sqrt{2} x)/f(x)$ is 1.

In either case the quotient $f(\sqrt{2} x)/f(x)$ must take a constant value on this interval because it is a continuous function of $x$ whose range is contained in the totally disconnected set $(\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}) \cup \{1\}$.

Therefore the function $x \mapsto f(2 x)/f(x)$ must also take a constant value $K$ on the interval $(0,\infty)$, namely the square of the previous constant.

Observe that for any positive integer $n$ we have $f(2^{1/n}) = K^{1/n}f(1)$, and in fact for any positive rational number $q$ we have $f(2^q) = K^q f(1)$. This means that $f$ is a multiple of a power function on the set $\{2^q : q \in \mathbb{Q}\}$. By continuity this holds on the closure of this set, namely the interval $[0,\infty)$.

Note that the constant factor $\alpha$ cannot be zero, and that the exponent $\beta$ must be non-negative for $f$ to be continuous at zero.

Discussion of special cases:

Constant case: If the exponent on the interval $[0,\infty)$ is zero, then the function is a nonzero constant $\alpha$ on this interval. Therefore $f(0) \ne 0$, which means that on the interval $(-\infty,0]$ the exponent must also be zero and the function must have the same constant value $\alpha$ by continuity. So in this case $f$ is a nonzero constant function.

Another case is that the exponent $\beta$ is equal to $1$ on both the intervals $(-\infty,0]$ and $[0,\infty)$, so it is piecewise linear. In this case the only restriction on the slopes is that they must be nonzero rational multiples of each other. I don't know if this is the only other case.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1 Nice argument. Do you know any $\beta$ other than $0,1$ such that $x^\beta$ works on $[0,\infty)$ ? $\endgroup$
    – M92
    Nov 19, 2013 at 8:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Most rationals don't work. Note that the above argument shows $\beta = 2\log_2(L)$ where $L$ is irrational or equal to 1. This includes $2(\mathbb{Q} \setminus \mathbb{Z}) = \mathbb{Q} \setminus 2\mathbb{Z}$: let $L = 2^q$ where $q \in \mathbb{Q} \setminus \mathbb{Z}$. But consider $x \mapsto x^{a/b}$ where $b/a \notin \mathbb{N}$. Then $4(2^{b/a})^{a/b} - 2(4^{b/a})^{a/b} = 0$ but $\frac{4^{b/a}}{2^{b/a}} = 2^{b/a} \notin \mathbb{Q}$. This leaves $\beta = 1/n$ or irrational. $\endgroup$ Nov 19, 2013 at 10:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And you can also exclude algebraic irrational $\beta$ in the same way using Gelfond-Schneider. $\endgroup$ Nov 19, 2013 at 11:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I believe that $\beta=1/n$ won't work for $n\ne 1$. Set $x_1=1$, $x_2=2^{1/n}$, and $x_3=(1+2^{1/n^2})^n$. Then I believe that $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, but $x_1^{1/n}+x_2^{1/n} = x_3^{1/n}$. $\endgroup$ Nov 19, 2013 at 15:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Regarding linear independence, something stronger is true. Let $N=n^2$. If $\sum_{m=0}^{N-1} q_m 2^{m/N} = 0$ for $q_m\in\mathbb{Q}$, not all zero, then we have an equation of degree $N-1$ satisfied by $2^{1/N}$. But $x^N-2$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$, a contradiction. $\endgroup$ Nov 19, 2013 at 21:30

Trevor Wilson has reduced the possibilities to $\alpha x^\beta$ with $\alpha\ne 0$ and $\beta\ge 0$. The following argument should reduce the possibilities to $\beta=0$ or $\beta=1$, modulo a lemma that I can't quite seem to prove. Perhaps some other MO reader can plug the gap.

The lemma I need is:

For any $q_1, q_2, q_3\in\mathbb{Q}$, not all zero, and any positive $\beta\ne1$, the equation $$q_1+q_2x^\beta+q_3(1+x^{\beta^2})^{1/\beta} = 0$$ has at most countably many real solutions.

This lemma implies that for any positive $\beta\ne1$, there exists a constant $c>0$ such that the three numbers $x_1:=1$, $x_2:=c$, and $x_3:=(1+c^{\beta})^{1/\beta}$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$. On the other hand, $\alpha x_1^\beta + \alpha x_2^\beta = \alpha x_3^\beta$, so their images under the function are linearly dependent.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If $\beta\neq 1$, some simple algebra gives that the derivative of that equation can vanish only when $ax^{\beta^2}=1+x^{\beta^2}$ for some constant $a$. If the equation had uncountably many solutions, its solutions would have uncountably many accumulation points and the derivative would have to vanish at all of them. $\endgroup$ Nov 19, 2013 at 23:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I get $\alpha x^{-\beta^2} = 1+x^{\beta^2}$, but this doesn't really change things; it's still a rational equation in $x^{\beta^2}$. (Note of course a solution is possible if $\beta=1$, e.g. the identity; Trevor Wilson classifies them above.) $\endgroup$ Nov 20, 2013 at 2:01
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ The function is real-analytic (say, on $(0,\infty)$), hence it cannot have uncountably many zeros unless it is constantly zero, which can only happen when $q_1=q_2=-q_3$ and $\beta=1$. $\endgroup$ Nov 20, 2013 at 12:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.