Proof that closure of a space equals another space.

Paalfaal
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Define:

- c0 = {(xn)n \in \ell\infty : limn → \infty xn = 0}

- l0 = {(xn)n \in \ell\infty : \exists N \in the natural numbers, (xn)n = 0, n \geq N}Problem: Prove that \overline{\ell}0= c0 in \ell\infty

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I want to find the solution using the limit-definition of closure.

Considering an element

x = (xn) \in c0

and a sequence

yj = (xjn) \in \ell0,

such that xnj = xn for n < j, xnj = 0, otherwise.

Using the metric induced by the supremum norm; || xn - xnj || \rightarrow 0 as j tends to infinity. We can du this for all elements in c0, and hence c0 \subseteq \overline{\ell}0.

My problem is to show the other direction, that is

\overline{\ell}0 \subseteq c0

I need to show that elements in \overline{\ell}0 has a vanishing limit. I don't know how to do this using the supremum norm. In fact, it seems impossible to me..

Can I get any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Clearly, we know that \ell_0\subseteq c_0. Try to prove now that c_0 is closed. This would imply what you try to prove.
 
Hmmm.. When is it true that A \subseteq B \Rightarrow \bar{A} \subseteq \bar{B} ?


I ask because I've been working on a similar problem: Prove that \bar{\ell}0 = \ell2 in \ell2.

With a similar approach of the attempt above I got \bar{\ell}0 \supseteq \ell2.

Since \ell0 \subseteq \ell2 (for obvious reasons),
\bar{\ell}0 \subseteq\ell2 iff \ell2 = \bar{\ell}2 (correct me if I'm wrong here).

In that case, \bar{\ell}0 = \ell2 in \ell2.


(I guess it might is trivial that \ell2 = \bar{\ell}2 in \ell2, but Is there an easy way to prove this?)

Any comments?

:smile:
 
Paalfaal said:
Hmmm.. When is it true that A \subseteq B \Rightarrow \bar{A} \subseteq \bar{B} ?

This is always true. Try to prove it.

(I guess it might is trivial that \ell2 = \bar{\ell}2 in \ell2, but Is there an easy way to prove this?)

If X is a metric space, then \overline{X}=X (closure in X). Try to prove this.
 
micromass said:
Try to prove it.

I certiantly will!


Thank you for your help! Much appreciated :smile:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top