MHB Proving ||u||_d = 0 and u=0 in Metric Spaces

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linux
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Norm
Click For Summary
In the discussion about proving that ||u||_d = 0 implies u=0 in metric spaces, participants highlight the complexity of demonstrating this equivalence. The norm ||u||_d is defined based on a finite sum of positive terms, suggesting that if the minimum is zero, all terms must also be zero. However, the challenge arises from the existence of multiple representations of the function u, which can complicate the proof. An example using the real line illustrates that different representations of u do not necessarily lead to a decrease in the norm, making a formal proof difficult. Overall, the consensus is that while the implication seems intuitive, a rigorous demonstration remains elusive.
Linux
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Let $$(X, d)$$ be a metric space, $$AE_0(X) = \{ u : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \ : \ u^{-1} (\mathbb{R} \setminus \{0 \} ) \ \ \text{is finite}, \ \sum_{x \in X} u(x)=0 \}$$,

for $$x,y \in X, \ x \neq y, \ m_{xy} \in AE_0(X), \ \ m_{xy} (x)=1, \ m_{xy}(y)=-1, \ m_{xy}(z)=0$$ for $$z \neq x, y$$ and $$m_{xx} \equiv 0$$

for $$u \in AE_0(X), \ ||u||_d = \inf \{ \sum_{k=1}^n |a_k| d(x_k, y_k) \ : \ u= \sum_{k=1}^n a_km_{x_k, y_k}, a_k \in \mathbb{R}, x_k, y_k \in X, n \ge 1 \}$$

How to prove that $$||u||_d = 0 \ \iff \ u=0$$?

I know it is not so obvious that then all terms in the sum $$\sum_{k=1}^n |a_k| d(x_k, y_k)$$ must be zero.

Could you help me out a bit?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Linux said:
Let $$(X, d)$$ be a metric space, $$AE_0(X) = \{ u : X \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \ : \ u^{-1} (\mathbb{R} \setminus \{0 \} ) \ \ \text{is finite}, \ \sum_{x \in X} u(x)=0 \}$$,

for $$x,y \in X, \ x \neq y, \ m_{xy} \in AE_0(X), \ \ m_{xy} (x)=1, \ m_{xy}(y)=-1, \ m_{xy}(z)=0$$ for $$z \neq x, y$$ and $$m_{xx} \equiv 0$$

for $$u \in AE_0(X), \ ||u||_d = \inf \{ \sum_{k=1}^n |a_k| d(x_k, y_k) \ : \ u= \sum_{k=1}^n a_km_{x_k, y_k}, a_k \in \mathbb{R}, x_k, y_k \in X, n \ge 1 \}$$

How to prove that $$||u||_d = 0 \ \iff \ u=0$$?

I know it is not so obvious that then all terms in the sum $$\sum_{k=1}^n |a_k| d(x_k, y_k)$$ must be zero.

Could you help me out a bit?

Thank you.
Hi Linux, and welcome to MHB!

The problem of showing that $\|u\|_d = 0$ implies $u=0$ seems difficult, and I have not been able to solve it. See http://mathhelpboards.com/analysis-50/could-you-check-my-solution-13108.html.
 
Hi,

I have not much time so I may be wrong but doing it fast I think that the set $\{(a_{k},x_{k},y_{k}) \ : \ u=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}m_{x_{k},y_{k}}\}$ is finite, so the infimum is always reched (i.e., it's a minimum) and your norm is given by series of positive terms, si the minimum being zero implies that all terms are zero.

I will think on it with caution later.
 
Fallen Angel said:
I have not much time so I may be wrong but doing it fast I think that the set $\{(a_{k},x_{k},y_{k}) \ : \ u=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}m_{x_{k},y_{k}}\}$ is finite, so the infimum is always reached (i.e., it's a minimum) and your norm is given by series of positive terms, so the minimum being zero implies that all terms are zero.
The problem is that there may be different representations of $u$ using points other than those at which $u$ is nonzero.

Suppose for example that the underlying metric space is the real line, and that $u = m_{0,1}$ (so that $u(0) = 1$, $u(1) = -1$ and $u$ is zero at all other points). Then $u$ can also be expressed as $u = m_{0,1/2} + m_{1/2,1}$, or as $$u = \sum_{k=0}^{999}m_{k/1000,(k+1)/1000}.$$ It is intuitively clear that $\|u\|_d$ cannot be decreased by such procedures, but a formal proof seems very elusive.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K