Is the Subset A Closed in C([0,1]) with the Given Metric?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether the subset A = {f ∈ C([0,1]); ∫_0^1 f(x) dx = 0} is closed in the space C([0,1]) with the metric ρ(f,g) = (∫_0^1 |f(x) - g(x)|² dx)^{1/2}. Participants explore various approaches to prove this property, including continuity arguments and inequalities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in proving that A is closed and suggests showing that the complement of A is open.
  • Another participant proposes demonstrating the continuity of the map f → ∫ f(x) dx as a potential approach.
  • A suggestion is made to consider the case where |∫_0^1 g(x) dx| = ε to explore the relationship between neighborhoods and the set A.
  • Concerns are raised about missing inequalities necessary for proving continuity, particularly in relation to the metric ρ.
  • One participant points out that a modified Cauchy-Schwarz inequality could be useful in this context.
  • Another participant mentions the relevance of Jensen's inequality, drawing a connection to its application in probability theory.
  • A question is posed regarding the proof for the supremum case, suggesting that if that proof is established, it could simplify the current proof due to the relationship between the metrics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to have differing views on the best approach to prove the closedness of the set A. While some suggest continuity arguments, others focus on inequalities and specific properties of the metrics involved. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on a definitive method.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need for specific inequalities and continuity conditions, indicating that the proof may depend on certain assumptions about the metrics and functions involved.

r4nd0m
Messages
96
Reaction score
1
This seems to be a very easy exercise, but I am completely stuck:
Prove that in C([0,1]) with the metric
[tex]\rho(f,g) = (\int_0^1|f(x)-g(x)|^2 dx)^{1/2}[/tex]

a subset
[tex]A = \{f \in C([0,1]); \int_0^1 f(x) dx = 0\}[/tex] is closed.

I tried to show that the complement of A is open - it could be easily done if the metric was [tex]\rho(f,g) = sup_{x \in [0,1]}|f(x)-g(x)|[/tex] - but with the integral metric it's not that easy.

Am I missing something?
Thanks for any help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I would attempt to show that the map f--->int f(x)dx is continuous.

And you need / not \ in your closing tex tags.
 
Consider if:
[tex]\left| \int_0^1 g(x)dx \right| = \epsilon[/tex]
then you might be able to show that
[tex]N_{\epsilon}(g(x)) \cap A = \emptyset[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Well, I tried both, but the problem is that I still miss some kind of inequality that I could use.

I mean - if I want to show the continuity for example - I have to show that:
[tex]\forall \varepsilon > 0 \quad \exists \delta >0 \quad \forall g \in C([a,b]) : \rho(f,g)<\delta \quad |\int^1_0 f(x)-g(x) dx|< \varepsilon[/tex].

But what then?
[tex]|\int^1_0 f(x) - g(x) dx| \leq \int^1_0 |f(x) - g(x)| dx[/tex]
but I miss some other inequality where I could compare it with [tex]\rho(f,g)[/tex]
 
Well, there is another inequality lying around. So use it That last inequality is also <=p(f,g).
 
Of course :rolleyes: - a little modified Cauchy-Schwartz inequality is the key.
I hate algebraic tricks :smile:
Thanks for help
 
It's definitely not an algebraic trick. It is an application of the Jensen inequality from analysis. You might know it from probability theory, since it just states that the variance of a random variable is positive, i.e.

E(X^2)>E(X)^2

where E is the expectation operator and X an r.v.
 
How did you prove it for the supremum case? If you can prove it for the supremum, this proof here is self-contained because the given metric is always less than the supremum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
9K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K