Let u be a continuous mapping of A into [−i,+i]; then there is a continuous mapping v of X into [−i/3,+i/3], such that ∣u(x)−v(x)∣≤2/3 for all x∈A.
Let H be the set of all x∈A such that −i≤u(x)≤−i/3, and let K be the set of all x∈A such that i/3≤u(x)≤i; H and K are closed in A, and therefore in X, and do not intersect; hence by (OV) there is a continuous mapping v of X into [−i/3,+i/3] which is equal to −i/3 on H and to +i/3 on K. The mapping v satisfies the conditions of the lemma.
We now define the functions gn by induction. Applying the lemma with u=f, we define g0 to be a continuous mapping of X into [−i/3,+i/3] such that ∣f(x)−g0(x)∣≤2/3 for all x∈A. Suppose now that a continuous mapping gn of X into the interval
[−i+(32)n+1,i−(32)n+1]
has been defined, such that ∣f(x)−gn(x)∣≤(32)n+1 for all x∈A. Applying the lemma to the function u(x)=(32)n+1(f(x)−gn(x)), we see that there exists a continuous mapping hn+1 of X into the interval
[−3n+22n+1,3n+22n+1]
such that
∣f(x)−gn(x)−hn+1(x)∣≤(2/3)n+2
for all x∈A; the induction is completed by taking gn+1=gn+hn+1, since this function satisfies the inequality ∣gn+1(x)∣≤1−(2/3)n+2 for all x∈X, by virtue of the definition of hn+1.
From this definition it follows that, for m≥p and n≥p, we have
∣gm(x)−gn(x)∣≤3p+22p+1k=0∑∞(2/3)k=(2/3)p+1
at each point x∈X; hence the sequence (gn(x)) is a Cauchy sequence for each x∈X, and therefore converges to a point g(x) of the interval [−1,+1]; and since f(x)−gn(x) tends to 0 for all x∈A as n→∞, g is an extension of f to X. It remains therefore only to show that g is continuous on X.
Now let x be any point of X; then, given any ε>0, there exists an integer n0 such that ∣gm(y)−gn(y)∣≤ε for all y∈X and all m≥n0 and all n≥n0; hence, letting m tend to +∞, we have
∣g(y)−gn(y)∣≤ε.
Let V be a neighbourhood of x such that ∣gn(y)−gn(x)∣≤ε for all y∈V; then, for each y∈V we shall have
∣g(y)−g(x)∣≤∣g(y)−gn(y)∣+∣gn(y)−gn(x)∣+∣g(x)−gn(x)∣≤3ε,
which shows that g is continuous at x, and completes the proof of Theorem 2. (The last part of the proof uses, in a particular case, the idea of uniform convergence, which we shall study in general in Chapter X, no. 1.)
Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Nothing.