MHB Metric Spaces .... the Uniform Metric .... Garling, Proposition 11.1.11 ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Uniform
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading D. J. H. Garling's book: "A Course in Mathematical Analysis: Volume II: Metric and Topological Spaces, Functions of a Vector Variable" ... ...

I am focused on Chapter 11: Metric Spaces and Normed Spaces ... ...

I need some help with an aspect of the proof of Theorem 11.1.11 ...

Garling's statement and proof of Theorem 11.1.11 reads as follows:
View attachment 8945
View attachment 8946Near the end of Garling's proof above we read the following:

" ... ... Suppose that $$f,g,h \in B_X(S)$$ and that $$s \in S$$. Then

$$d(f(s), h(s)) \le d(f(s), g(s)) + d(g(s), h(s)) \le d_\infty (f, g) + d_\infty (g, h)$$ ... ... ... (1)

Taking the supremum, $$d_\infty (f, h) \le d_\infty (f, g) + d_\infty (g, h)$$ ... ... ... "Now (1) is true for arbitrary s and so it is true for all $$s$$ including the point for which $$d(f(s), h(s))$$ is a maximum ... if a maximum exists ...But in the case where a maximum does not exist ... how do we know that taking the supremum preserves inequality (1) ...Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Garling - 1 - Proposition 11.1.11 ... ... PART 1 .png
    Garling - 1 - Proposition 11.1.11 ... ... PART 1 .png
    22 KB · Views: 121
  • Garling - 2 - Proposition 11.1.11 ... ... PART 2 .png
    Garling - 2 - Proposition 11.1.11 ... ... PART 2 .png
    17.7 KB · Views: 123
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
Near the end of Garling's proof above we read the following:

" ... ... Suppose that $$f,g,h \in B_X(S)$$ and that $$s \in S$$. Then

$$d(f(s), h(s)) \le d(f(s), g(s)) + d(g(s), h(s)) \le d_\infty (f, g) + d_\infty (g, h)$$ ... ... ... (1)

Taking the supremum, $$d_\infty (f, h) \le d_\infty (f, g) + d_\infty (g, h)$$ ... ... ... "Now (1) is true for arbitrary s and so it is true for all $$s$$ including the point for which $$d(f(s), h(s))$$ is a maximum ... if a maximum exists ...But in the case where a maximum does not exist ... how do we know that taking the supremum preserves inequality (1) ...
The inequality (1) shows that $d_\infty (f, g) + d_\infty (g, h)$ is an upper bound for $d(f(s), h(s))$. The supremum (or least upper bound) of $d(f(s), h(s))$ must therefore be at most $d_\infty (f, g) + d_\infty (g, h)$.
 
Opalg said:
The inequality (1) shows that $d_\infty (f, g) + d_\infty (g, h)$ is an upper bound for $d(f(s), h(s))$. The supremum (or least upper bound) of $d(f(s), h(s))$ must therefore be at most $d_\infty (f, g) + d_\infty (g, h)$.[Thanks for clarifying the issue Opalg ...

Appreciate your help...

Peter
 
A sphere as topological manifold can be defined by gluing together the boundary of two disk. Basically one starts assigning each disk the subspace topology from ##\mathbb R^2## and then taking the quotient topology obtained by gluing their boundaries. Starting from the above definition of 2-sphere as topological manifold, shows that it is homeomorphic to the "embedded" sphere understood as subset of ##\mathbb R^3## in the subspace topology.
Back
Top