Does limit of "approximate zero set" converge to the zero set?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vulture1991
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Set Zero
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the convergence of the limit of the "approximate zero set" to the actual zero set for a function \( f: \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m \). It establishes that if \( f \) is a proper map, then the limit \( \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \max_{x\in \mathcal{Z}_\epsilon} \text{dist}(x, \mathcal{Z}) = 0 \) holds true. The proof relies on the compactness of the preimage of compact sets under proper maps, leading to a contradiction if the limit were greater than zero. The example provided illustrates that without the properness condition, the limit does not necessarily converge.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of proper maps in topology
  • Familiarity with the concepts of zero sets and distance metrics
  • Knowledge of limits and convergence in mathematical analysis
  • Basic understanding of compactness in metric spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of proper maps in topology
  • Learn about the implications of compactness in analysis
  • Explore the concept of zero sets in multivariable calculus
  • Investigate the relationship between continuity and convergence in functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced calculus, and researchers in functional analysis who are exploring the behavior of functions and their zero sets.

Vulture1991
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Let f:\mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^m. Define the zero set by \mathcal{Z}\triangleq\{x\in\mathbb{R}^m | f(x)=\mathbf{0}\} and an \epsilon-approximation of this set by \mathcal{Z}_\epsilon\triangleq\{x\in\mathbb{R}^m|~||f(x)||\leq\epsilon\} for some \epsilon&gt;0. Clearly \mathcal{Z}\subseteq \mathcal{Z}_\epsilon. Can one assume any condition on the function f so that<br /> \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}~\max_{x\in \mathcal{Z}_\epsilon}~\text{dist}(x, \mathcal{Z})=0,<br />holds?

I know in general this doesn't hold by this example (function of a scalar variable):
<br /> f(x)=\left\{\begin{align}<br /> 0,\quad{x\leq 0};<br /> \\<br /> 1/x,\quad x&gt;0.<br /> \end{align}<br /> \right.<br />

I really appreciate any help or hint.
Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vulture said:
Let f:\mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^m. Define the zero set by \mathcal{Z}\triangleq\{x\in\mathbb{R}^m | f(x)=\mathbf{0}\} and an \epsilon-approximation of this set by \mathcal{Z}_\epsilon\triangleq\{x\in\mathbb{R}^m|~||f(x)||\leq\epsilon\} for some \epsilon&gt;0. Clearly \mathcal{Z}\subseteq \mathcal{Z}_\epsilon. Can one assume any condition on the function f so that<br /> \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}~\max_{x\in \mathcal{Z}_\epsilon}~\text{dist}(x, \mathcal{Z})=0,<br />holds?

I know in general this doesn't hold by this example (function of a scalar variable):
<br /> f(x)=\left\{\begin{align}<br /> 0,\quad{x\leq 0};<br /> \\<br /> 1/x,\quad x&gt;0.<br /> \end{align}<br /> \right.<br />

I really appreciate any help or hint.
Thank you.
If one assumes that $f$ is a proper map then the conclusion holds. By proper I mean $f^{-1}(K)$ is compact whenever $K\subseteq \mathbf R^n$ is compact. Let's prove this.

Assume by way of contradiction that there is a proper map $f:\mathbf R^n\to \mathbf R^m$ such that
$$\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \max_{x\in \mathcal Z_\epsilon} \text{dist}(x, \mathcal Z)$$
is greater than $0$. Call this limit $\alpha$.

So for each positive natural number $n$ we can find $x_n\in \mathcal Z_{1/n}$ such that $\text{dist}(x_n, \mathcal Z)\geq \alpha$. But each $x_n$ lies is $\mathcal Z_1$, which by assumption of properness is a compact set. Thus the sequence $(x_n)$ has a convergent subsequence $(x_{n_k})_{k=1}^\infty$ which, say, converges to $x_0$. It follows that $\text{dist}(x_0, \mathcal Z)\geq \alpha$.

But for each $N>0$, the points in the sequence $(x_{n_k})$ eventually lie in $\mathcal Z_{1/N}$ which is a closed set, since it is compact. Thus $x_0\in Z_{1/N}$ for each $N$. Therefore $f(x_0)\leq 1/N$ or all $N$ which shows that $f(x_0)=0$. But then $\text{dist}(x_0, \mathcal Z)=0$ and we have a contradiction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K