Skip to content


  • Research Article
  • Open Access

Superstability of Generalized Multiplicative Functionals

  • 1Email author,
  • 2,
  • 3 and
  • 1
Journal of Inequalities and Applications20092009:486375

  • Received: 2 March 2009
  • Accepted: 20 May 2009
  • Published:


Let be a set with a binary operation such that, for each , either , or . We show the superstability of the functional equation . More explicitly, if and satisfies for each , then for all , or for all . In the latter case, the constant is the best possible.


  • Similar Argument
  • Binary Operation
  • Weak Condition
  • Commutative Semigroup
  • Infinite Subset

1. Introduction

It seems that the stability problem of functional equations had been first raised by S. M. Ulam (cf. [1, Chapter VI]). "For what metric groups is it true that an -automorphism of is necessarily near to a strict automorphism? (An -automorphism of means a transformation of into itself such that for all .)" D. H. Hyers [2] gave an affirmative answer to the problem: if and is a mapping between two real Banach spaces and satisfying for all , then there exists a unique additive mapping such that for all . If, in addition, the mapping is continuous for each fixed , then is linear. This result is called Hyers-Ulam stability of the additive Cauchy equation . J. A. Baker [3, Theorem ] considered stability of the multiplicative Cauchy equation : if and is a complex valued function on a semigroup such that for all , then is multiplicative, or for all . This result is called superstability of the functional equation . Recently, A. Najdecki [4, Theorem ] proved the superstability of the functional equation : if , is a (real or complex valued) functional from a commutative semigroup and is a mapping from into itself such that for all , then holds for all , or is bounded.

In this paper, we show that superstability of the functional equation holds for a set with a binary operation under an additional assumption.

2. Main Result

Theorem 2.1.

Let and a set with a binary operation such that, for each , either
If satisfies

then for all , or for all . In the latter case, the constant is the best possible.


Let be a functional satisfying (2.2). Suppose that is bounded. There exists a constant such that for all . Set . By (2.2), we have, for each , , and therefore

Thus, . Now it is easy to see that . Consequently, if is bounded, then for all . The constant is the best possible since for satisfies for each . It should be mentioned that the above proof is essentially due to P. Šemrl [5, Proof of Theorem and Proposition ] (cf. [6, Proposition ]).

Suppose that is an unbounded functional satisfying the inequality (2.2). Since is unbounded, there exists a sequence such that . Take arbitrarily. Set

By (2.1), . Thus either or is an infinite subset of . First we consider the case when is infinite. Take arbitrarily. Choose with . Since is assumed to be infinite, for each there exists such that . Then is a subsequence of with for every . By the choice of , we have
Thus we may and do assume that for every . By (2.2) we have, for each and , . According to (2.5), we have
Consequently, we have, for each
Since , we have for every . Applying (2.7), we have
By (2.2) and (2.5), we have
Consequently, we have by (2.8) and (2.7)

Next we consider the case when is infinite. By a quite similar argument as in the case when is infinite, we see that there exists a subsequence such that for every . Then

In the same way as in the proof of (2.7), we have
for every . According to (2.2) and (2.11), we have
Since for every , (2.11) and (2.12) show that

Consequently, if is unbounded, then for all .

Remark 2.2.

Let be a mapping from a commutative semigroup into itself. We define the binary operation by for each . Then satisfies (2.1) since

for all . Therefore, Theorem 2.1 is a generalization of Najdecki [4, Theorem ] and Baker [3, Theorem ].

Remark 2.3.

Let be a set, and . Suppose that has a binary operation such that, for each , either

If satisfies (2.2) for some , then by quite similar arguments to the proof of Theorem 2.1, we can prove that for all , or for all . Thus, Theorem 2.1 is still true under the weaker condition (2.16) instead of (2.2). This was pointed out by the referee of this paper. The condition (2.16) is related to that introduced by Kannappan [7].

Example 2.4.

Let and be mappings from a semigroup into itself with the following properties.

(a) for every .

(b) .

(c) for every .

If we define for each , then we have for every . In fact, if , then we have

as claimed.

Let be a ring homomorphism from into itself, that is, and for each . It is well known that there exist infinitely many such homomorphisms on (cf. [8, 9]). If is not identically , then we see that for every , the field of all rational real numbers. Thus, if we consider the case when , a nonzero ring homomorphism, and , then satisfies the conditions (a), (b), and (c).

If we define for each , then holds for every . In fact,


Example 2.5.

Let and, let . We define the binary operation by

for each . Then satisfies the condition (2.1). In fact, let .

(a)If , then we have
(b)If , then
(c)If and , then
(d)If and , then
(e)If , then we have
Therefore, satisfies the condition (2.1). On the other hand, if , then

Thus, in general. In the same way, we see that if , then need not to be true.



The authors would like to thank the referees for valuable suggestions and comments to improve the manuscript. The first and fourth authors were partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research.

Authors’ Affiliations

Department of Applied Mathematics and Physics, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Yamagata University, Yonezawa 992-8510, Japan
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Shinshu University, Matsumoto 390-8621, Japan
Department of Information Sciences, Toho University, Funabashi, Chiba 274-8510, Japan


  1. Ulam SM: A Collection of Mathematical Problems, Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics, no. 8. Interscience, New York, NY, USA; 1960:xiii+150.Google Scholar
  2. Hyers DH: On the stability of the linear functional equation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1941, 27: 222–224. 10.1073/pnas.27.4.222MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker JA: The stability of the cosine equation. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1980,80(3):411–416. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1980-0580995-3MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Najdecki A: On stability of a functional equation connected with the Reynolds operator. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 2007, 2007:-3.Google Scholar
  5. Šemrl P: Non linear perturbations of homomorphisms on The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics. Series 2 1999, 50: 87–109. 10.1093/qjmath/50.197.87View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Jarosz K: Perturbations of Banach Algebras, Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Volume 1120. Springer, Berlin, Germany; 1985:ii+118.Google Scholar
  7. Kannappan Pl: On quadratic functional equation. International Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences 2000,9(1):35–60.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnow A: The automorphisms of an algebraically closed field. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin 1970, 13: 95–97. 10.4153/CMB-1970-019-3MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Kestelman H: Automorphisms of the field of complex numbers. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. Second Series 1951, 53: 1–12. 10.1112/plms/s2-53.1.1MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar


© Takeshi Miura et al. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.