Hausdorff distance between balls

  • Thread starter Thread starter Calabi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Balls
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Hausdorff distance between closed balls in a normed space, specifically in the context of $\mathbb{R}^n$. The original poster aims to demonstrate that the distance between unit closed balls in different norms converges to zero as the norms approach a specific value.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the Hausdorff distance definition and its application to the closed balls. There is discussion on the conditions under which the supremum is achieved and the relationship between different norms. Questions arise regarding the behavior of points in the supremum and their relation to the balls.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning assumptions about the points used in the supremum and discussing the implications of compactness. Some have suggested visualizing the situation in two dimensions to aid understanding, while others are clarifying definitions and exploring the consequences of the relationships between the balls.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the definitions and the implications of the supremum, as well as the need for clarity on the conditions under which certain points can be considered in the analysis. The discussion reflects a mix of attempts to simplify the problem and the challenges posed by the general case versus specific dimensions.

Calabi
Messages
140
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Hello. Let be n integer and let's considere $$\mathbb{R}^{n} = E$$.
Let be the distance $$d : (x; y) \in \mathbb{R}^{2} \rightarrow ||x - y||_{2}$$.
We wright $$\forall p \in [1; \infty], B_{p}$$ the unit closed ball for $$||.||_{p}$$.
Forall compacts A, B of $$E$$, we define $$d'(A; B) = sup_{x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}} |inf_{y \in A}d(x; y) - inf_{y \in B}d(x; y)|$$.
My goal is to show tha forall $$p_{0} \in [1; +\infty]$$, $$d'(B_{p_{0}}, B_{p}) \rightarrow_{p \rightarrow p_{0}} 0$$.

Homework Equations


$$d'(A; B) = sup_{x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}} |inf_{y \in A}d(x; y) - inf_{y \in B}d(x; y)|$$[/B]

I also simplify this distance by showing $$d'(A; B) = max (sup_{x \in A} d(x; B), sup_{x \in B}d(x; A))$$.

The Attempt at a Solution



At the moment I just think about the case where n = 2 : the sup is reach I think
is reach on the $$y = x$$ space.
I also ask my self about the inequality between norm.


What do you think please?

Thank you in advance and have a nice afternoon:oldbiggrin:.

 
Physics news on Phys.org
What happens to the distance, if you apply it to the balls in question?
 
We can suppose for exemple that ##p \leq p_{0}##, so ##B_{p} \subset B_{p_{0}}## so
##d(B_p, B_{p_0}) = sup_{x \in B_{p_0}} d(x, B_p)##
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now what could be interesting is to explicite this sup. And at dimension 2, the sup is reach as I think(I think we could show it.). on the line define by y = x.
 
I will write ##q < p## because for ##p = q## is nothing to do: ##d(B_p,B_q) = d(B_p, B_p) = 0##.
It's faster to type with less indices.
Then ##B_q ⊂ B_p##. I will also use the original definition of ##d## since you have not shown the simplification you stated.
Further I drop the ' from the ##d##. It doesn't make sense to have it. Your original ##d## is nothing else but ##||x-y||##.

First I would draw a two dimensional picture of the situation.

For the proof it does not become easier in the case ##n=2##. Therefore we can stay in the general case.

Next: Can you exclude that a possible ##x## from the supremum is not within ##B_p##? How?
(I'm not sure whether you need it, but it is a good exercise to use your drawing and to visualize what has to be done.)
 
Hello and thanks : the supremum $$sup_{x \in B_{p}}d(x, B_{q})$$ is the distance you wright and this sup is reach on a certain x of $$B_{p}$$(because of its compacity.).
Don't worry I visualisz the situation at dimension 2.
It's just I try to stay general.
 
Correction to #5: Of course I meant, that the points within ##B_p## cannot be those ##x## in the supremum (double negation error). Why?
Hint: From this on you can tell which point ##y## of ##B_p## has to be taken for the infimum to a given ##x##.
 
You mean the sup :
Calabi said:
supx∈Bpd(x,Bq)
is reach on a point in $$B_{p}$$.
Of course it is : $$B_{p}$$ is compact and the application $$d(., A)$$ is continious. So it reach is sup.
 
Forall A subset of E.
 
  • #10
I have difficulties to follow you.
I mean:
1) ##d(B_q,B_p) = \sup_{x\in ℝ^n} | ## some function of ## x|## is what you have to examine.
2) Start to consider a single given ##x##.
3) In order to build the supremum as required, can this ##x## be an element of ##B_p## ?
 
  • #11
1)
d(Bq,Bp)=supx∈Rn|d(Bq,Bp)=supx∈ℝn|d(B_q,B_p) = \sup_{x\in ℝ^n} | some function of x|
The some fonction is $$x \in B_{p} \rightarrow d(x, B_{q}) \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$$.
2) Now I have to find forall x in $$B_{p}$$ I have to find $$d(x, B_{q})$$.
3)I don't understand you're question.
My first goal was to find my sup.
 
  • #12
Calabi said:
1)
d(Bq,Bp)=supx∈Rn|d(Bq,Bp)=supx∈ℝn|d(B_q,B_p) = \sup_{x\in ℝ^n} | some function of x|
The some fonction is $$x \in B_{p} \rightarrow d(x, B_{q}) \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$$.
Step by step.
Let us write ##f(x) = \inf_{y \in B_q} ||x-y|| - \inf_{y \in B_p} ||x-y||## and ## d(B_q,B_p) = \sup_{x\in ℝ^n} | f(x)|##.
It is only for we will have less to type, if we introduce ##f(x)##. That's all. And it is the definition of distance here. I do not take the other formula, since you have not proven it. First I want you to understand what has to be done.

2) Now I have to find forall x in $$B_{p}$$ I have to find $$d(x, B_{q})$$.
Why?
Me said:
Start to consider a single given ##x##.
I mean those ##x \in ℝ^n## among which we are searching for the supremum.
Of all possible ##x## I asked
Me said:
... can this ##x## be an element of ##B_p## ?
The answer is no, but why?
What is the value of ##f(x)## in case ##x \in B_q##?
What is the value of ##f(x)## in case ##x \in B_p##?
Remember, ##B_q ⊂ B_p##.
 
  • #13
Hello first I'm sorry(I'm french so sorry if I don't undesrtand you.). so you want to solve it by using :
fresh_42 said:
f(x)=infy∈Bq||x−y||−infy∈Bp||x−y||f(x)=infy∈Bq||x−y||−infy∈Bp||x−y||f(x) = \inf_{y \in B_q} ||x-y|| - \inf_{y \in B_p} ||x-y|| and d(Bq,Bp)=supx∈Rn|f(x)
OK.

If : $$
x \in B_q$$
we have $$f(x) = \inf_{y \in B_p} ||x-y||$$. Same by exchanging p and q.
OK.
 
  • #14
OK so : now you want to find where the sup of $$f$$ is reach if it's reach(remmber f is define on $$\mathbb{R}^{n}$$ which is not compact.).
OK.
 
  • #15
Calabi said:
Hello first I'm sorry(I'm french so sorry if I don't undesrtand you.). so you want to solve it by using :

OK.

If : $$
x \in B_q$$
we have $$f(x) = \inf_{y \in B_p} ||x-y||$$. Same by exchanging p and q.
OK.
Je sais ("some fonction").
If ##x## is in ##B_q## then it is in both balls, because ##B_q ⊂ B_p## and ##f(x) = 0##.
If ##x ∈ B_p / B_q## then $$f(x) = \inf_{y \in B_q} ||x-y||$$.
Hint: we can give an upper bound for ##|f(x)|##. Which? What does that mean for the supremum over all ##x∈ℝ^n##?
 
  • #16
I aggry with what you wright it's juste I think it was uselesse to said it. And abbs would be better since we considere a distance.
I put the abs since my first trade.
 
  • #17
I'm sorry to follow you step it's just I don't see where you want to go.
 
  • #18
Calabi said:
I aggry with what you wright it's juste I think it was uselesse to said it. And abbs would be better since we considere a distance.
I put the abs since my first trade.
Me, too. I defined ##d= sup |f(x)|##. If you pull the abs into the definition of ##f## or not doesn't make a difference.
 
  • #19
The things is it not permitt me to calculate he sup which was my original problem.
 
  • #20
I want to show that the points ##x## in the supremum function cannot be inside the balls.
If it is so, I know they are outside and I don't have to think about special cases anymore.
Then I will take a single point ##x## (outside of ##B_p##) and compute its minimal distances to ##B_q## and ##B_p## plus the points on the balls where the straight of minimal distance goes through. The difference of these points will answer the question about convergence.

(The problem is: If you draw a picture you will see, that your ##x## for the supremum are at infinite distance. The proof is to show why this does not matter.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K