Functional analysis: Shoe set is not dense in C([a,b])

In summary, the discussion focused on proving that the set S = {f \in C[a,b] | f(t_0) = 0} is not dense in the space C[a,b] with the sup-norm. The approach involved taking a constant function g(x) = Y+1 and calculating the sup-norm of the difference between f and g, showing that it can be greater than any given number Y. However, this approach may not work for all values of t0 and there may be other cases to consider. It was suggested to use a similar argument to show that if f(x) = 1, no function in the subset S can get close to it in sup-norm.
  • #1
Mixer
39
0

Homework Statement



Let [itex] [a,b] \subset \mathbb{R} [/itex] be a compact interval and t0 [itex]\in [a,b] [/itex] fixed. Show that the set [itex] S = {f \in C[a,b] | f(t_0) = 0} [/itex] is not dense in the space [itex]C[a,b][/itex] (with the sup-norm).

Homework Equations



Dense set: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_set

sup - norm: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SupremumNorm.html


The Attempt at a Solution



I tried to take function f from S and function g from C[a,b] and calculate the sup-norm of the difference of the functions and make it bigger than some number. However I am not able to do so.. I'm not even sure if my approach is correct here. What should be my strategy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For a given number Y, take g(x)= Y+ 1, a constant function. What is d(f, g)?
 
  • #3
Thank you for reply!

So are you saying that I should take g(t) = t0 + 1 for all t. Then

[itex]\left\|f - g\right\| = sup_{t \in [a,b]} |f(t) - g(t)| \geq |f(t_0) - g(t)| = |0 - t_0 -1| = |t_0 + 1| [/itex]

Therefore set S is not dense in C[a,b] ?
 
  • #4
Mixer said:
Thank you for reply!

So are you saying that I should take g(t) = t0 + 1 for all t. Then

[itex]\left\|f - g\right\| = sup_{t \in [a,b]} |f(t) - g(t)| \geq |f(t_0) - g(t)| = |0 - t_0 -1| = |t_0 + 1| [/itex]

Therefore set S is not dense in C[a,b] ?

I don't think that is quite what he is saying. And you could accidentally have ##t_0=-1## which would wreck your argument. Why don't you just use a similar argument to show that if ##f(x)
\equiv 1## that no ##g## in your subset gets close to it in sup norm?
 
Back
Top