MHB Complete spaces and Cauchy sequences

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the concept of completeness in metric spaces, specifically highlighting examples of spaces that are not complete. It explains that while every Cauchy sequence in a complete metric space converges, there are notable exceptions. For instance, the set of continuous functions on [0,1] with a specific metric shows that the sequence f_n(x) = x^n is Cauchy but does not converge within the space. Additionally, the rational numbers under the standard metric provide another example, where Cauchy sequences can converge to irrational numbers like e. These examples illustrate the distinction between Cauchy sequences and convergence in various metric spaces.
alyafey22
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
2
I know that a metric space is complete if every Cauchy sequence converges that will surely designate compact metric spaces as complete spaces . I need to see examples of metric spaces which are not complete.

Thanks in advance !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take the set of all continuous functions at [0,1]
with
d(f(x),g(x)) = \int_{0}^{1} \mid f(x) - g(x) \mid dx
Let
f_n(x) = x^n , I want to show f_n is Cauchy
Given \epsilon > 0
if x= 1 ,
f_n (x) = 1 which is Cauchy
if x<1

x^n \rightarrow 0
There exist n_0 such that
\mid x^n \mid &lt; \frac{\epsilon}{2} for all n &gt; n_0
for m,n &gt; n_0
\mid x^n - x^m \mid &lt; \mid x^n\mid + \mid x^m \mid &lt; \frac{\epsilon}{2} + \frac{\epsilon}{2}= \epsilon

d(f_n(x) , f_m(x) ) = \int_{0}^{1} \mid f_n(x) - f_m(x) \mid dx &lt; \int_{0}^{1} \epsilon\;\; dx = \epsilon
Using the fact for f,g continuous functions with f<= g
\int_{a}^{b} f(x) \leq \int_{a}^{b} g(x)

so it is Cauchy but
f_n(x)
converges to
f(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{11} 1 &amp; : x=1 \\ 0 &amp; : x\in [0,1) \end{array} \right.
f not continuous so it is not in the Metric
so f_n(x) is not converge in our metric
but it is Cauchy

Another Example
The metric on the Rational number set Q
with \mid x - y \mid
Let
P_n = \sum_{k=0}^{n} \frac{1}{k!}
this sequence is Cauchy but it is converge to e [\tex] which is not rational number <br /> Another sequence in the same metric is <br /> P_n = \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n} \right)^n which converge to e
 
Last edited:
Amer said:
Take the set of all continuous functions at [0,1]
with
d(f(x),g(x)) = \int_{0}^{1} \mid f(x) - g(x) \mid dx
Let
f_n(x) = x^n , I want to show f_n is Cauchy
Given \epsilon &gt; 0
if x= 1 ,
f_n (x) = 1 which is Cauchy
if x<1

x^n \rightarrow 0
There exist n_0 such that
\mid x^n \mid &lt; \frac{\epsilon}{2} for all n &gt; n_0
for m,n &gt; n_0
\mid x^n - x^m \mid &lt; \mid x^n\mid + \mid x^m \mid &lt; \frac{\epsilon}{2} + \frac{\epsilon}{2}= \epsilon

d(f_n(x) , f_m(x) ) = \int_{0}^{1} \mid f_n(x) - f_m(x) \mid dx &lt; \int_{0}^{1} \epsilon\;\; dx = \epsilon
Using the fact for f,g continuous functions with f<= g
\int_{a}^{b} f(x) \leq \int_{a}^{b} g(x)

so it is Cauchy but
f_n(x)
converges to
f(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{11} 1 &amp; : x=1 \\ 0 &amp; : x\in [0,1) \end{array} \right.
f not continuous so it is not in the Metric
so f_n(x) is not converge in our metric
but it is Cauchy

Another Example
The metric on the Rational number set Q
with \mid x - y \mid
Let
P_n = \sum_{k=0}^{n} \frac{1}{k!}
this sequence is Cauchy but it is converge to e [\tex] which is not rational number <br /> Another sequence in the same metric is <br /> P_n = \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n} \right)^n which converge to e
<br /> <br /> Wow very nice , thanks for the examples :)
 
There is always the simple ones: consider the interval $(0,1)$. The sequence $1/n$ is a Cauchy sequence but does not converge in $(0,1)$. :)
 
Another classical example is the vector space $V$ of the complex sequences $x=(x_n)$ with finitely many non zero terms. The map $V\times V\to \mathbb{C},$ $\langle x,y\rangle=\sum x_n\overline{y_n}$ is an inner product, and the corresponding metric space is not complete.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K