Metric Spaces - Fixed Point Theorem (Apostol, Theorem 4.48)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the Fixed Point Theorem for a metric space as presented in Apostol's work. Participants are seeking clarification on the application of the triangle inequality in deriving a specific relation involving distances between points in the metric space.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Peter expresses confusion regarding how Apostol derives the relation $$d(p_m, p_n) \le \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} d(p_{k+1}, p_k)$$ using the triangle inequality.
  • One participant explains that the triangle inequality applies to any metric space and can be used iteratively to establish the desired inequality.
  • Another participant reiterates the validity of the triangle inequality for metrics and provides a step-by-step breakdown of its application in this context.
  • A further participant emphasizes that the triangle inequality is an axiom of metrics, contributing to the foundational understanding of the theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the validity of the triangle inequality in metric spaces and its application in the proof. However, Peter's initial confusion indicates that there is still some uncertainty regarding the specific steps in the derivation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the specific steps Peter is struggling with, and the reliance on the triangle inequality assumes familiarity with its application in metric spaces.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I need help with the proof of the Fixed Point Theorem for a metric space (S,d) (Apostol Theorem 4.48)

The Fixed Point Theorem and its proof read as follows:View attachment 3901
View attachment 3902
In the above proof Apostol writes:

" ... ... Using the triangle inequality we find for $$m \gt n$$,

$$d(p_m, p_n) \le \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} d(p_{k+1}, p_k ) $$ ... ... "I am unsure of how (exactly!) Apostol uses the triangle inequality to derive the relation

$$d(p_m, p_n) \le \sum_{k=n}^{m-1} d(p_{k+1}, p_k ) $$

Can someone please help by showing how (formally and rigorously) this is derived?

I presume that Apostol is using the generalised form of the triangle inequality which he describes as the following (see page 13):

$$| x_1 + x_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + x_n | \le |x_1| + |x_2| + \ ... \ ... \ + |x_n|$$

... ... but ... ... I cannot see how he derives a situation where:

$$d(p_m, p_n) = d(p_{n+1}, p_n) + d(p_{n+2}, p_{n+1}) + \ ... \ ... \ + d( p_m, p_{m-1} )$$

so that the triangle inequality can be applied ... ...

Hope that someone can help,

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

The triangle inequality is valid for any metric, not only the absolute value, this is, if $(X,d)$ is a metric space, then $d(x,z)\leq d(x,y)+d(y,z)$ for all $x,y,z\in X$.

Now he applies this as many times as needed.

$d(p_{m},p_{n})\leq d(p_{n},p_{n+1})+d(p_{n+1},p_{m})$
$d(p_{n+1},p_{m})\leq d(p_{n+1},p_{n+2})+d(p_{n+2},p_{m})$

and so he can conclude $d(p_{m},p_{n})\leq \displaystyle\sum_{k=n}^{m-1}d(p_{k+1},p_{k})$
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

The triangle inequality is valid for any metric, not only the absolute value, this is, if $(X,d)$ is a metric space, then $d(x,z)\leq d(x,y)+d(y,z)$ for all $x,y,z\in X$.

Now he applies this as many times as needed.

$d(p_{m},p_{n})\leq d(p_{n},p_{n+1})+d(p_{n+1},p_{m})$
$d(p_{n+1},p_{m})\leq d(p_{n+1},p_{n+2})+d(p_{n+2},p_{m})$

and so he can conclude $d(p_{m},p_{n})\leq \displaystyle\sum_{k=n}^{m-1}d(p_{k+1},p_{k})$
Thanks Fallen Angel ...

Appreciate your help ... ...

Peter
 
I just want to add that the triangle inequality is an axiom for a metric. Sorry Peter if this sounds redundant.
 
Euge said:
I just want to add that the triangle inequality is an axiom for a metric. Sorry Peter if this sounds redundant.

Hi Euge,

No ... that does not sound redundant at all ...

Your post is relevant and most helpful,

Thanks,

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K