1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Seemingly simple proof that I cannot conclude

  1. Sep 14, 2011 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Let (X, d) be a metric space, and we have a sequence p (sub n) is a subset of X and p is an element in X. Prove that lim p (sub n) = p if and only if the sequence of real numbers satisfies lim d(p, pn) = 0.


    2. Relevant equations
    Theorems from my class.
    1. Let (X, d) be a metric space, {pn}, a subset of X,is a sequence in X and p and element of X. We say that the sequence {pn} converges to p and write lim pn=p, provided that for every e > 0, there is a real number N so that when n > N, then d(p, pn) < e.
    2. Let (X,d) be a metric space and let S be a subset of X. Then S is a closed subset if and only if whenever {pn} is a subset of S and a convergent sequence, we have lim {pn} is an element of S.
    3. Let (X, d) be a metric space and let E be a subset of X. Then the following are equivalent:
    1. there exists a point p which is an element of X and r1 >0 such that E is a subset of B(p;r1), 2. there exists a point q which is an element of X and r2 >0 such that E is a subset of B-(q;r2), 3. there exists M > 0 so that every x,y in E satisfies d(x,y) <= M.
    4. Let (X, d) be a metric space and let E is a subset of X. We say that E is a bounded set provided that it satisfies any of the three equivalent conditions of the above proposition.
    5. Let (X,d) be a metric space. If {pn} is a convergent sequence, then it is bounded.

    3. The attempt at a solution

    The forward implication: lim {pn} = p => convergent => bounded => for p in X and r > 0 then {pn} is a subset of B (p; r) ....I am not really sure where to go from here to get lim d(p, pn) = 0. I tried using a bunch of inequalities but thats just it. The are not EQUALities.

    The reverse implication: not sure if this is correct (actually I am pretty sure its wrong) lim (d(p, pn)) = 0 => d (p, pn) = 0. This is a metric space we know that d (x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y. So this implies p = pn. (From here on, i am sure I am incorrect). => lim pn = lim p = p. Hence lim pn = p. I think this is wrong because I didn't use an e, n or N anywhere.

    Any hints or help would be appreciated.
    Thanks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 14, 2011 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    OK, write down the following definitions:

    [tex]p_n\rightarrow p~\text{in}~X[/tex]

    and

    [tex]d(p_n,p)\rightarrow 0~\text{in}~\mathbb{R}[/tex]

    Don't you get exactly the same thing (or close)?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook