Non-convergence written with sets

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cuak2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the non-convergence of real-valued functions \( f_n \) to \( f \) in the context of set theory. The left-hand side (L) and right-hand side (R) of the equality are analyzed, revealing that both sides express the same condition for \( \omega \). A correction is made to the formulation of R, emphasizing the need to adjust the intersection over \( N \) to ensure proper indexing. The final conclusion confirms that the conditions for membership in L and R are equivalent.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of real-valued functions and convergence concepts
  • Familiarity with set theory notation and operations
  • Knowledge of mathematical logic, particularly quantifiers
  • Proficiency in manipulating infinite unions and intersections
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of convergence in real analysis
  • Learn about the implications of set operations in mathematical proofs
  • Explore the role of quantifiers in formal logic
  • Investigate examples of non-convergence in sequences of functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in formal proofs regarding function convergence and set theory.

cuak2000
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hey, everyone. I'm trying to prove the following:

[tex]f_n[/tex] and [tex]f_n[/tex] are real-valued function in [tex]\Omega[/tex]

[tex]\{\omega: f_n(\omega) \nrightarrow f(\omega) \} = \\<br /> \bigcup^{\infty}_{k=1} \bigcap^{\infty}_{N=1} \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=1} <br /> \{ \omega : | f_n(\omega) - f(\omega) | \geq 1/k \}<br /> <br /> [/tex]

I am convinced by the proof I've made up, but it isn't formal, so I would appreciate if you could help me give it more formality.
Let's call the left side of the equality L and the right side R.
L can be written:

[tex]\exists k \in \mathbb{N} \quad \forall N \quad \exists n \geq N \quad | f_n(\omega) \nrightarrow f(\omega) | \geq 1/k[/tex]

On the other hand, the last part of R is
[tex]\bigcap^{\infty}_{N=1} \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=1} <br /> \{ \omega : | f_n(\omega) - f(\omega) | \geq 1/k \}[/tex]

which basically takes all the [tex]\omega[/tex] that [tex]\forall N[/tex] have
at least one [tex]n \geq N[/tex] that makes the absolute difference bigger than 1/k
If you take the union for all k, then you have the definition for being in L.
Thanks in advance,

cd
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There's something wrong with your R. You take an intersection over N=1 to infty, but the index N does not appear in the collection over which the intersection is taken. You probably meant

[tex]\bigcup^{\infty}_{k=1} \bigcap^{\infty}_{N=1} \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=N} <br /> \{ \omega : | f_n(\omega) - f(\omega) | \geq 1/k \}[/tex]

and then you are already done, since the condition for omega to belong to this one and to to LHS are the same, namely

[tex]\exists k \in \mathbb{N} \quad \forall N \quad \exists n \geq N \quad | f_n(\omega) \nrightarrow f(\omega) | \geq 1/k[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K