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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Uniform
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on D. J. H. Garling's Theorem 11.1.11 from "A Course in Mathematical Analysis: Volume II: Metric and Topological Spaces, Functions of a Vector Variable." Participants examine the proof's assertion that for functions f, g, and h in the bounded set B_X(S), the inequality d(f(s), h(s)) ≤ d(f(s), g(s)) + d(g(s), h(s)) holds. The key point is that taking the supremum preserves this inequality, even when a maximum does not exist. Peter Line clarifies that d_\infty(f,g) + d_\infty(g,h) serves as an upper bound, confirming the validity of the supremum condition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and normed spaces
  • Familiarity with supremum and least upper bound concepts
  • Knowledge of the uniform metric, specifically d_\infty
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical proofs and inequalities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of supremum in metric spaces
  • Explore the implications of Theorem 11.1.11 in Garling's text
  • Learn about the uniform metric and its applications in analysis
  • Review examples of bounded sets in metric spaces
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of analysis, and anyone studying metric and topological spaces will benefit from this discussion, particularly those focusing on proofs involving inequalities in functional analysis.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
TL;DR
This thread involves a proof that the uniform metric is indeed a metric ...
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:
Garling - 1 - Proposition 11.1.11 ... ... PART 1 .png

Garling - 2 - Proposition 11.1.11 ... ... PART 2 .png

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) ...Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Line (1) asserts that d_\infty(f,g) + d_\infty(g,h) is an upper bound for \{d(f(s),g(s)) : s \in S\}. By definition of "least upper bound" it follows that \sup\{d(f(s),g(s)) : s \in S\} \leq d_\infty(f,g) + d_\infty(g,h).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Thanks for the help, pasmith ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K