Register to reply 
Completeness of R^2 with sup norm 
Share this thread: 
#1
Mar1012, 04:57 AM

P: 652

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Given that R is complete, prove that R^2 with the sup norm is complete 2. Relevant equations 3. The attempt at a solution How may I tackle this? Thanks 


#2
Mar1012, 05:12 AM

P: 85

Start with a Cauchy sequence in R^2?



#3
Mar1012, 08:37 AM

P: 652

by definition we have ##x_nx_\infty=sup(x_n(1)x(1),x_n(2)x(2))## for ##n \in \mathbb{N}## ie ##x_nx_\infty \to 0## as ##n \to \infty##. We need to show that ##x_n(1) \to x(1)##. Since ##x_n## is Cauchy, ##\exists n_0 \in N## s.t. ##x_nx_\infty < \epsilon \forall n \ge n_0## we have that ##x_n(1)x(1) < \epsilon/2 \forall n_1 \ge n_0## and ##x_n(2)x(2) < \epsilon/2 \forall n_2 \ge n_0## ##\implies x_nx < \epsilon/2 + \epsilon/2 < \epsilon##...........? Not sure if this right or how to complete it? Thanks 


#4
Mar1012, 01:05 PM

P: 85

Completeness of R^2 with sup norm
Where did your x come from?
Cauchy means for all r>0, there exists a natural number p such that for all m,n>p, d(x_m,x_n) < r. In this case, max{xn(1)xm(1),xn(2)xm(2)}<r for all n,m>p 


#5
Mar1212, 05:15 AM

P: 652




#6
Mar1212, 10:59 AM

P: 85

I thought x_n was your arbitrary Cauchy sequence. You have an x_n and an x in your post.



#7
Mar1212, 02:07 PM

P: 652




#8
Mar1212, 05:25 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,245

What is x(1) and x(2)? It looks like you're thinking that ##x(1)=\lim_n x_n(1)## and similarly for (2). But what makes you think that these limits exist?



#9
Mar1312, 02:21 AM

P: 652

Now, that you mention it, I guess I dont know whether they exist but its seems to be a pattern I've seen when writing these proofs. Ie, assume x_n converges to x and continue. That's all I've done here!... 


#10
Mar1312, 03:39 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,245

So you think you can prove that x_{n}→x by assuming that x_{n}→x? If this had made sense, we could prove any statement by just assuming that it's true.



#11
Mar1312, 05:34 AM

P: 652




#12
Mar1312, 05:55 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,245

Which sequence? If you mean ##\langle x_n\rangle##, then no, it's not valid, because you're assuming what you're trying to prove. If you mean ##\langle (x_n)_1\rangle## and ##\langle (x_n)_2\rangle##, then my question is, have you proved that these sequences are Cauchy?



#13
Mar1312, 02:32 PM

P: 652

Proof. given ##\epsilon >0## ##\exists n_0 \in \mathbb{N}## s.t. ##\forall n,m > n_0## then ##x_nx_m < \epsilon## Suppose x_n converges to L and let ε>0 be given. Then ##\exists n_0 in N## s.t. ##x_nL < \epsilon/2 \forall n \ge n_0## Let any integer ##m \ge n## be given. since ##m \ge n \ge n_0## then ##x_mL < \epsilon/2## By the triangle inequality ##x_nx_m=(x_nL)+(Lx_m) \le x_m L+x_nL < \epsilon/2+\epsilon/2 < \epsilon \implies x_n## is Cauchy If I have correctly proven this is Cauchy, what is the next step? 


#14
Mar1312, 03:16 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,245

If you delete everything before the word "suppose" (in particular the part where you assume what you want to prove), then what we have left is a correct proof of the claim that every convergent sequence in ℝ is Cauchy. But this doesn't seem to be relevant to the problem you're trying to solve.
You need to start with an arbitrary sequence in ##\mathbb R^2## that's Cauchy with respect to the ∞norm, and then use the fact that it's Cauchy with respect to the ∞norm to learn something else about it, something you can use to prove that it's convergent with respect to the ∞norm. 


#15
Mar1312, 03:29 PM

HW Helper
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 7,575

Bugatti79, you need to develop a strategy to work a problem like this. You are trying to show ##R^2## is complete, meaning every Cauchy sequence in ##R^2## converges to a point in ##R^2##. What you have to work with is that ##R## is complete. So you start with a Cauchy sequence ##\{x_n = (x_n(1),x_n(2))\}## like you did. You are trying to find an ##x=(x(1),x(2))\in R^2## such that ##x_n\to x##. If you could show ##x_n(1)## and ##x_n(2)## converged to something, maybe that something would do for ##x##. How might you show they converge? If they do, how could show that their limits could be used for ##x##? You have been working on relevant material recently.



#16
Mar1412, 01:26 PM

P: 652

ie, we need to find ##n_0 \in N## s.t ##x_n(1)x(1) < \epsilon \forall n > n_0## Since we know ##x_n \to x \in R^2,  _\infty## we know ##\exists n_0 \in N## s.t ##x_nx_\infty < \epsilon \forall n \ge n_0## ie ##(x_n(1)x(1), x_n(2)x(2))_\infty < \epsilon## We have that ##x_n(1)x(1) \le max (x_n(1)x(1), x_n(2)x(2)) < \epsilon## This shows ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## as ##n \to \infty## Similarly We have that ##x_n(2)x(2) \le max (x_n(1)x(1), x_n(2)x(2)) < \epsilon## This shows ##x_n(2) \to x(2)## as ##n \to \infty## Now, conversely assume ##x_n(1) \to x(1)## and ##x_n(2) \to x(2)## Need to show that ##x_n \to x in R^2,  _\infty##. Need to find ##n_0 \in N## s.t. ##x_nx_\infty \forall n \ge n_0## but we know that ##x_n(1) \to x(1), \exists n \in N## s.t. ##x_n(1)x(1) < \epsilon/2 \forall n \ge n_1## and ##x_n(2)x(2) < \epsilon/2 \forall n \ge n_2## Take ##n_0=max(n_1,n_2)##. Then ##\forall n > n_0## we have ##x_nx_\infty=max(x_n(1)x(1),x_n(2)x(2)) < \epsilon/2 + \epsilon/2 < \epsilon## Therefore ##x_n \to x \implies## R^2 with the sup norm is complete...? It looks like it is similar to the other question I answered in my other post..? 


#17
Mar1412, 01:58 PM

HW Helper
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 7,575




#18
Mar1412, 03:39 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,245

Bugatti79, you need to rethink your entire approach to proofs. Theorems are always implications, i.e. statements of the form ##A\Rightarrow B##, but you always ignore that. You always try to avoid making the assumption A, you always try to avoid using the definitions of the terms in A, and most of the time, you even assume B! These are the three biggest mistakes that can possibly be made in a proof. You also often make irrelevant assumptions that have nothing to do with the theorem.
You want to prove that if a sequence is Cauchy with respect to the ∞norm, it's convergent with respect to the ∞norm. So A is the statement "##\langle x_n\rangle## is Cauchy with respect to the ∞norm", and B is the statement "##\langle x_n\rangle## is convergent with respect to the ∞norm". And you start by assuming B, as usual. This is the single biggest mistake that can be made in a proof. One thing you need to understand is that once a proof of ##A\Rightarrow B## has arrived at the statement B, there's nothing more to say. That's the end of the proof. So if you start by assuming B, nothing more needs to be said. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense to say anything more after that. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Norm of operator vs. norm of its inverse  Calculus  3  
Proof that norm of submatrix must be less than norm of matrix it's embedded in  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2  
Prove that the dual norm is in fact a norm  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2  
How do i determine if a rock is qtznorm, olnorm, hynorm or nenorm?  Earth  1  
Completeness in l^\infty Norm  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2 