A Limits and Supremum: Is It True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathvsphysics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits Supremum
Mathvsphysics
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
We have ##a_n## converges in norm to ##a## and a set ##S## such that for all ##n\ge 0##
$$\sup_{s\in S} <a_n,s><+\infty .$$ Is it true that ##\sup_{s\in S} <a,s><+\infty##
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to use two hashes (or two dollars) for Latex delimiters.
 
Is this a homework-type of problem? There is a format for those and you must show work before we can give hints.
Suppose ##M \in R## is such that ##sup<a_n,s> \lt M##. Also, suppose ##\epsilon \gt 0## and ##m\in N## are such that ##<a_n,a> \lt \epsilon## ##\forall n\gt m##. What can you say then?
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K