Metric Spaces of Bounded Sequences

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the convergence of bounded sequences in the metric spaces (L, ρ₁) and (L, ρ∞). It is established that a sequence converging to X* in (L, ρ₁) does not necessarily converge to X* in (L, ρ∞). The participants clarify that convergence must be defined in terms of sequences of sequences, specifically using the inequality involving ρ₁. A counterexample involving sequences of 0's and 1's is suggested as a straightforward solution to the posed problem.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and convergence concepts
  • Familiarity with bounded sequences in functional analysis
  • Knowledge of the metrics ρ₁ and ρ∞
  • Ability to work with sequences and series
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of metric spaces, focusing on convergence criteria
  • Explore examples of bounded sequences and their behaviors under different metrics
  • Study the implications of convergence in functional analysis, particularly in L spaces
  • Investigate counterexamples in metric spaces to solidify understanding of convergence
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of functional analysis, and anyone studying the properties of metric spaces and convergence of sequences will benefit from this discussion.

octane90
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I was attempting to find a counterexample to the problem below. I think I may have, but was ultimately left with more questions than answers.

Consider the space, L, of all bounded sequences with the metric \rho_1

\displaystyle \rho_1(x,y)=\sum\limits_{t=1}^{\infty}2^{-t}|x_t-y_t|

Show that a sequence that converges to X^* in (L,\rho_1) does not necessarily converge to X^* in (L,\rho_\infty)

Where, \rho_\infty(x,y)=sup_t|x_t-y_t|.

I believe convergence means:

X converges to Y if \forall \epsilon>0 \exists N s.t. \sum\limits_{t=N}^{\infty}2^{-t}|x_t-y_t|<\epsilon

I believe that x_n=sin (n) converges to the 0 sequence in \rho_1, but not in \rho_\infty. However, it seems like x_n=sin (n) could also be shown to converge to {1,1,1,1,...} under \rho_1 which shouldn't be allowed.

Could anyone help me out?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
octane90 said:
Where, \rho_\infty(x,y)=sup(x_t,y_t).

I doubt that this is correct. It should be \rho_\infty(x,y)=\sup_t |x_t-y_t|.

I believe convergence means:

X converges to Y if \forall \epsilon>0 \exists N s.t. \sum\limits_{t=N}^{\infty}2^{-t}|x_t-y_t|<\epsilon

This is not what convergence is. First of all you must have a sequence of elements in L. That is, you have to start from a sequence of sequences. Let X_k=(x_k^n)_n, then we can say that X_k\rightarrow Y if for each \varepsilon>0, there exists an N such that for all k\geq N holds that \rho_1(X_k,Y)<\varepsilon. That last inequality is of course the same as

\sum_{t=1}^{+\infty} 2^{-t}|x_k^t-y^t|<\varepsilon

I believe that x_n=sin (n) converges to the 0 sequence in \rho_1, but not in \rho_\infty. However, it seems like x_n=sin (n) could also be shown to converge to {1,1,1,1,...} under $\rho_1$ which should be allowed.

This is of course incorrect, since x_n=\sin(n) is only one sequence. Again: you must have a sequence of sequences.
 
Thanks, that was very helpful. It makes sense that I need to be thinking of a sequence of sequences. I was just having trouble wrapping my head around this L space.

And you are of course right about my typo in the problem set-up, I fixed it.
 
The counterexample you're looking for is very easy. Think about sequences with only 0's and 1's.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K