Graduate Same open sets + same bounded sets => same Cauchy sequences?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores whether two metrics, ##d_1## and ##d_2##, that induce the same topology and bornology also yield the same Cauchy sequences. It is established that having the same open and bounded sets does not guarantee that a sequence is Cauchy under both metrics. An example is provided where the sequence of reciprocals of integers is Cauchy under the metric ##d_2## but not under ##d_1##. This demonstrates that differing Cauchy sequences can exist despite shared topological and bounded properties. The conclusion is that the relationship between open sets, bounded sets, and Cauchy sequences is not straightforward.
lugita15
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
15
Let ##d_1## and ##d_2## be two metrics on the same set ##X##. Suppose that a set is open with respect to ##d_1## if and only if it is open with respect to ##d_2##, and a set is bounded with respect to ##d_1## it and only if it is bounded with respect to ##d_2##. (In technical language, ##d_1## and ##d_2## induce the same topology and the same bornology.) My question is, does this imply that a sequence is Cauchy with respect to ##d_1## if and only it is Cauchy with respect to ##d_2##?

If not, does anyone know of an example of two metrics which share the same open sets and the same bounded sets, but have different collections of Cauchy sequences?
 
  • Like
Likes member 587159
Physics news on Phys.org
Set of all reciprocal of integers between 0 and 1. Let ##d_1## be defined as ##d_1(x,y)=1## if ##x\ne y##. Let ##d_2## be defined as ##d_2(x,y)=|x-y|## if ##x\ne y##. Then ##(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},...)## will be a Cauchy sequence for ##d_2##, but not for ##d_1##..
 
Thanks, that makes sense.
 
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 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
993
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K