5
$\begingroup$

Find all functions $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $$xf(x)-yf(y)=(x-y)f(x+y)$$ for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$.


Problem by me.


Most elegant solution gets the checkmark!

$\endgroup$
0
3
$\begingroup$

If a function $f(x)$ satisfies the given functional equation, then so does $f(x)+c$ for any fixed constant $c$. So we can assume without loss of generality that $f(0)=0$.

  • Putting $y=-x$, we find

    $f(-x)=-f(x)$ for all $x\neq0$, i.e. the function $f$ must be odd.

  • Putting $y=-2x$, we find

    $f(-2x)=-2f(x)$ for all $x\neq0$. Combining this with the above result gives $f(2x)=2f(x)$ for all $x\neq0$.

  • Then by induction, putting $y=2x$ then $y=3x$ and so on, we find

    $f(nx)=nf(x)$ for all $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}$. Therefore, the same is true for all $n\in\mathbb{Q}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}$.

So far this shows that $f$ must be

linear on every "rationally linear subset" $r\mathbb{Q}$ for $r\in\mathbb{R}$, i.e. that the function $\frac{f(x)}{x}$ must be constant on any such subset.

Can these constants be different for different such subsets? Let's use $(x,y)$ and $(x,-y)$ to get

$(x-y)f(x+y)=xf(x)-yf(y)=xf(x)+yf(-y)=(x+y)f(x-y)$, which means $\frac{f(x+y)}{x+y}=\frac{f(x-y)}{x-y}$ for any $x,y$ not equal to $\pm$ each other.

But then for any two real numbers which are not rational multiples of each other,

we can express them as $x+y$ and $x-y$ for some $x$ and $y$, thus showing that the constants corresponding to these rational-multiple subsets must be the same.

In conclusion,

$f$ must be linear, and every linear function satisfies the given constraint.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Tip: After the prove of odd, you can put $(x,y)$ for $(x,-y)$ in the original equation and observe what happens. $\endgroup$ – Culver Kwan Jun 12 '20 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ @CulverKwan Thanks, that cracked it! $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Jun 12 '20 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ Correct! You did well! $\endgroup$ – Culver Kwan Jun 13 '20 at 5:15
2
$\begingroup$

I think that $f$ satisfies the equation iff

$f(x) = mx + c$, i.e, $f$ is linear, for $m,c \in \mathbb{R}$

Proof

If $x=y$ then the equation is trivially satisfied so let $x = y+a$ with $a \neq 0$.
Then the functional equation becomes $$(y+a)f(y+a) - yf(y) = a f(2y+a)$$ Furthermore, if we let $x=a$ in the original equation and rearrange we get $$(y-a)f(y+a) - yf(y) = -af(a) $$ Subtracting the second equation from the first gives $$2af(y+a) = af(2y+a) + af(a)$$ and dividing by $a$ and rearranging gives $$f(2y + a) - f(y+a) = f(y+a) - f(a)$$ and this holds for all values of $y$ and $a \neq 0$.
In particular, setting $y=1$ gives $f(a+2) - f(a+1) = f(a+1) - f(a)$ and it follows that $$f(a+N) - f(a) = N(f(a+1) - f(a)) = m(a+N) + c$$ for all integers $N$ where $m = f(a+1)-f(a)$ and $c = f(a) - a(f(a+1)-f(a))$.

Now let $\mathbb{Z}_z = \{x \in \mathbb{R} | x-z \in \mathbb{Z}\}$.
The above equation tells us that for all $x$ in $\mathbb{Z}_z$, $f(x) = m_z x + c_z$ for some $m_z, c_z \in \mathbb{R}$.
In particular, for all $x$ in $\mathbb{Z}$, $f(x) = m_0x + c_0$.
For arbitrary $z$, it's not necessarily true that the values of $m_z$ and $c_z$ are equal to $m_0$ and $c_0$, respectively. To show this, let $x$ be and integer and $y \in \mathbb{Z}_z$.
Then $x+y \in \mathbb{Z}_z$ and using our original equation, we have $$xf(x) - yf(y) = (x-y)f(x+y)$$ $$\Rightarrow x(m_0x+c_0) - y(m_zy+c_z) = (x-y)(m_z(x+y) + c_z)$$ $$ \Rightarrow m_0 x^2 + c_0 x = m_z x^2 + c_z $$ Since this must hold for all integers $x$ it follows that $m_0 = m_z$ and $c_0 = c_z$.
Therefore $f(x) = mx + c$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$.

The final part is checking that this works for the original equation, indeed $$xf(x) - yf(y) = m(x^2 - y^2) + c(x-y) = (x-y)(m(x+y) + c) = (x-y)f(x+y) $$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This seems like it could use some elaboration on the arguments indicated by "by varying a" and "by varying y". $\endgroup$ – Gareth McCaughan Jun 10 '20 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ I'm worried that you might be implicitly assuming continuity or something like that. $\endgroup$ – Gareth McCaughan Jun 10 '20 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ @GarethMcCaughan I've updated my answer which I think works this time. I think you were right, I was trying to fudge a continuity earlier. $\endgroup$ – hexomino Jun 10 '20 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ There is a more elegant solution. Try find it. $\endgroup$ – Culver Kwan Jun 11 '20 at 12:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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