Are the metrics d_infty and d_e equivalent?

complexnumber
Messages
61
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let X = \textbf{b} denote the set of all bounded real-valued
sequences. Define the two metrics:
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> d_{\infty}(x,y) := \sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} |x_n - y_n| \text{,<br /> and } d_e(x,y) := \sum^\infty_{n=1} \frac{1}{2^n} \frac{|x_n -<br /> y_n|}{1 + |x_n - y_n|}<br /> \end{align*}<br />
for x = (x_1,x_2,\ldots), y = (y_1,y_2,\ldots) \in \textbf{b} = X.

Prove that these metrics are not equivalent.

Homework Equations



For a space X \ne \varnothing, two distance functions d_1,d_2 are equivalent if for all sequences \{x_k \} \subset X \lim_{k \to \infty} d_1(x_k,x) = 0 if and only if \lim_{k \to \infty} d_2(x_k,x) = 0.

The Attempt at a Solution



I guess the proof is to show that for sequence \boldsymbol{x}^{(k)}, \lim_{k \to \infty} d_{e}(x^{(k)}, x) \ne 0 when \lim_{k \to \infty} d_{\infty}(x^{(k)}, x) = 0. But how can I prove this? What area of math do I need?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
complexnumber said:

Homework Statement



Let X = \textbf{b} denote the set of all bounded real-valued
sequences. Define the two metrics:
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> d_{\infty}(x,y) := \sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} |x_n - y_n| \text{,<br /> and } d_e(x,y) := \sum^\infty_{n=1} \frac{1}{2^n} \frac{|x_n -<br /> y_n|}{1 + |x_n - y_n|}<br /> \end{align*}<br />
for x = (x_1,x_2,\ldots), y = (y_1,y_2,\ldots) \in \textbf{b} = X.

Prove that these metrics are not equivalent.

Homework Equations



For a space X \ne \varnothing, two distance functions d_1,d_2 are equivalent if for all sequences \{x_k \} \subset X \lim_{k \to \infty} d_1(x_k,x) = 0 if and only if \lim_{k \to \infty} d_2(x_k,x) = 0.

The Attempt at a Solution



I guess the proof is to show that for sequence \boldsymbol{x}^{(k)}, \lim_{k \to \infty} d_{e}(x^{(k)}, x) \ne 0 when \lim_{k \to \infty} d_{\infty}(x^{(k)}, x) = 0. But how can I prove this? What area of math do I need?

Think about {xn} where xn(k) = δnk, the Kronecker delta.
 
LCKurtz said:
Think about {xn} where xn(k) = δnk, the Kronecker delta.

Thank you for the suggestion. I can see this is a very smart counter example. Do you know with this kind of questions if we are supposed to prove by contradiction or a more generic way?
 
complexnumber said:
I guess the proof is to show that for sequence \boldsymbol{x}^{(k)}, \lim_{k \to \infty} d_{e}(x^{(k)}, x) \ne 0 when \lim_{k \to \infty} d_{\infty}(x^{(k)}, x) = 0. But how can I prove this? What area of math do I need?

complexnumber said:
Thank you for the suggestion. I can see this is a very smart counter example. Do you know with this kind of questions if we are supposed to prove by contradiction or a more generic way?

You yourself described above what you need to do. Try it with the sequence I suggested.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top