Is the Set C+Fx Closed in a Metric Space?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether the set C+Fx is closed in a normed vector space, where C is a closed subspace and x is a point not in C. Participants explore the implications of the properties of the underlying field F and the nature of convergence in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that since C is closed and x is not in C, the set C+Fx can be shown to be closed by examining the convergence of sequences in this set.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for F to be a complete field, such as the reals or complexes, to ensure that limits of sequences involving scalars from F behave correctly.
  • A later reply proposes that the requirement for X to be a normed space might be relaxed, suggesting that the proof could hold in any metric space due to the induced metric on the subspaces.
  • Concerns are raised about the necessity of F being closed or complete, with a counterexample provided involving the rationals as a field over the reals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of F being complete and whether the proof can be generalized beyond normed spaces. There is no consensus on the correctness of the proof or the conditions required for it to hold.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the completeness of the field F and the nature of convergence in the context of metric spaces remain unresolved. The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions and the potential for counterexamples.

iknowone
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Let X be a normed vector space. If C is a closed subspace x is a point in X not in C, show that the set C+Fx is closed. (F is the underlying field of the vector space).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi there!

Here's my suggestion, but it needs an overview from someone familiar with functional analysis, to be sure it's correct or incorrect:

As X is a normed space, C and Fx are also normed as subspaces of a normed space. So the convergence in these subspaces is set with respect to the original norm of X.

Let [tex]c_n, n\in N;c_n\longwrightarrow\c,c\in C[/tex] be a convergent sequence in C+Fx with limit c. Then, following the structure of the space (because x does not lie in C, C+Fx is a direct sum), we could write [tex]c_n=a_n+\lambda_n x; a_n\in C,\lambda_n\in F[/tex] both convergent sequences [tex]a_n\rightarrow a ;\lambda_n\rightarrow\lambda[/tex] (otherwise c_n could not be convergent).

Since C is closed then [tex]a\in C[/tex] and (assuming F is closed or complete)*** [tex]\lambda\in F[/tex]. So the limit takes the form [tex]c_n\rightarrow a+\lambda x\in C+Fx[/tex] and therefore lies in the space. *** I am not sure, but I think F must also be given as closed. (as a counter example consider the space R^2 over the rationals Q: Set C to be the disc around the origin (closed) and x be some point not in C)

I hope this proof is true at least to some extend.

[edit: spelling :)]
 
Last edited:
Marin is right, you need [itex]F[/itex] to be a complete field, for example the reals or complexes. Otherwise, from [itex]\lambda_n x[/itex] convergent we cannot conclude the limit is a scalar multiple of [itex]x[/itex].
 
Hi again!

As I look at the proof once again (assuming the proof is correct), the condition X to be a normed space could actually be reduced. The same proof will also be true for any metric space (X,d) with a metric d , as the metric induces the same metric on the subspaces.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K