Infimum calculation bizarre for me

  • Thread starter Thread starter julypraise
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the infimum in a metric space context, specifically regarding the distance from a point to a nonempty subset of that space. The original poster is attempting to demonstrate the existence of a point in the closure of the subset that satisfies a certain distance condition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster presents a calculation involving distances in a metric space and questions the validity of their approach. They express uncertainty about the existence of a point in the closure of the subset that meets the required distance condition.
  • Participants suggest that the last step of the original poster's calculation is incorrect and encourage a focus on definitions related to closure in metric spaces.
  • There is a discussion about the continuity of distance functions and the potential use of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, with some participants questioning its applicability in general metric spaces.

Discussion Status

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the existence of the point in the closure may depend on the compactness of the subset, highlighting the need for careful consideration of assumptions in the problem.

julypraise
Messages
104
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Could you please check the following calculation is right?

Let X be a metric space, and A its nonempty subset.

Define [itex]\inf_{a \in A} d(x,a) = d(x,A)[/itex] for any x in X

We have the following facts (don't have to check this)

If [itex]a[/itex] is in the closure of [itex]A[/itex] then d(a,A)=0.

So my calculuation is as follows. Let x be in X and a_0 be in the closure of A

Then

[itex]d(x,a_{0}) \leq \inf_{a\in A} \{ d(x,a) + d(a,a_{0}) \} = \inf_{a\in A}d(x,a) + \inf_{a\in A}d(a,a_{0}) = d(x,A)[/itex]


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



The calculation looks somehow right (probably because of my bad). I have to show the existence of such a_0. In R^2 dimension, I can draw this and get it, but such a point a_0 is not arbitrary in that case whereas the a_0 in my calculation is arbitrary and works fine which is very stupid...

Probably the equality made in the mid is not right... But if it is not right, how can I show the existence of such a_0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The last step of your calculation is not correct, and anyway, that approach is not the way you want to proceed.

Instead, you need to use the fact that a_0 lies in the closure of A. Write down as many equivalent definitions you can of a_0 being in the closure of A. One of them will be what you should use.
 
Ayre said:
The last step of your calculation is not correct, and anyway, that approach is not the way you want to proceed.

Instead, you need to use the fact that a_0 lies in the closure of A. Write down as many equivalent definitions you can of a_0 being in the closure of A. One of them will be what you should use.

Thank you very much, I will do that. But if I may aks you, what exactly do you refer to by the last step?

you mean the last equality, I guess?
 
julypraise said:
you mean the last equality, I guess?

Yes. I mean, if you assume the result you're trying to prove, then that equality is correct. But, of course, you're not allowed to assume what you're trying to prove.
 
Ayre said:
Yes. I mean, if you assume the result you're trying to prove, then that equality is correct. But, of course, you're not allowed to assume what you're trying to prove.

Hey, sorry but I'm not sure what you are talking abt.

The thing that if a is in the closure of A then d(a,A)=0 is right.

But I'm trying to prove for arbitrary x in X there exists a_0 in the closure of A

such that d(x,a_0) <= d(x,A). But I'm stuck...
 
julypraise said:
Hey, sorry but I'm not sure what you are talking abt.

The thing that if a is in the closure of A then d(a,A)=0 is right.

But I'm trying to prove for arbitrary x in X there exists a_0 in the closure of A

such that d(x,a_0) <= d(x,A). But I'm stuck...

I'm very sorry. I misread your question, I thought you were trying to show that d(a,A)=0 for a in the closure of A.

But your calculation is still not correct. The formula

[tex]\inf_{a\in A} (d(x,a) + d(a,a_0)) = \inf_{a\in A}d(x,a) + \inf_{a\in A} d(a,a_0)\text,[/tex]

which you are using, does not hold.

Instead, to find an a_0, start by taking a sequence a_n in a such that

[tex]d(x, a_n) \rightarrow d(x, A)\text,[/tex]

and showing that it converges.

Again, apologies for misreading your question. Please ignore everything I said in the earlier posts.
 
Oh no worries; apology well taken.

And yes, that part is wrong I see.

Okay, I think the sequence is a very good idea.

So if I solve it right now,

letting x be arbitrary in X

observe for every n in N (the set of natural numbers)

there exists a number a(n) in [itex]\{ d(x,a) \mid a \in A \}[/itex] such that

d(x,A) = inf{...} <= a(n) < d(x,A) + 1/n.

Then a(n) = d(x,a'(n)) for some a'(n) in A.

Then it is obvious the sequence (a(n)) = (d(x,a'(n))) converges to d(x,A).

We let a_n := a'(n). By this we construct a sequence (a_n) in A.

Now I'm kinda stuck here again. I know a function [itex]a\mapsto d(x,a)[/itex] defined on the closure of A is continuous, but cannot use it here. I've tried to use this continuity like

[itex]\lim_{n \to \infty} d(x,a_{n}) = d(x, \lim_{n \to \infty} a_{n})[/itex],

but this holds if we already know a_n converges to some a_0 in the colsure of of A
Another attempt is that

d(x,a_n) converges to a point in the closure of {d(x,a) | a in A}

But is it going to be Cl({d(x,a) | a in A}) = {d(x,a) | a in Cl(A)}??

Need to check..
 
Let me rephase that. The sequence a_n will not really converge, but a subsequence does. What properties do you know that guarantee that sequences have convergent subsequences?

(I realize now that this solution method will be slightly roundabout. Perhaps you can see how to simplify it later.)
 
I know Bolzano-Weierstrass thm in R^k. But A is a subspace of a general metric space,
so I don't think I can use it...

It just reminds me now that

actually in a general space it may be possible that such a point a_0 may not exist,

and for such a_0 to exist, I think it is necessary that A is compact.

In this case I define a function f_x

[itex]f_x:A \to \mathbb{R}: a \mapsto d(x,a)[/itex].

Then since d is continuous (and also the restircted d|_A), this function f will be continuous too.

Thus if I use Weierstrass thm,

I get inff(A) is in f(A), which was what I longed to get.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K