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!

Sequences and convergence in the standard topology

  1. Apr 3, 2012 #1
    Hello all.

    I have to present a proof to our Intro to Topology class and I just wanted to make sure I did it right (before I look like a fool up there).


    Proposition

    Let c be in ℝ such that c≠0. Prove that if {an} converges to a in the standard topology, denoted by τs, then {can} converges to ca in the standard topology on ℝ.


    Proof

    Let c [itex]\in[/itex] ℝ such that c≠0. Suppose {an} converges to a in the standard topology, denoted by τs.

    Let V [itex]\in[/itex] τs with ca in V. Since V in τs, there exists an interval (p,q) with ca [itex]\in[/itex] (p,q) and (p,q) [itex]\subseteq[/itex] V. Thus, p < ca < q, which implies p/c < a < q/c.

    Note that p/c < (p/c + a)/2 < a < (q/c + a)/2 < q/c

    Thus, (p/c , q/c) [itex]\in[/itex] τs such that a [itex]\in[/itex] (p/c, q/c).

    Since, by our assumption, {an} converges to a in the standard topology, there exists m [itex]\in[/itex] N such that an [itex]\in[/itex] (p/c,q/c) for all n ≥ m. Hence, p/c < an < q/c. Hence, p < can< q for all n≥m. Since can [itex]\in[/itex] (p,q) and (p,q) [itex]\subseteq[/itex] V, can [itex]\in [/itex]V for all n ≥ m.

    Therefore, {can} converges to ca in the standard topology on ℝ.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 3, 2012 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Looks pretty good. Two minor points.

    Beware that c might be negative.

    I don't really see the point of this line. Why is this necessary??

     
  4. Apr 3, 2012 #3
    Oh ok. So if I consider cases-- with c>0 and c<0-- then most of the work stays in tact. But in the case where c<0, when I divide by c, the inequalities will change, but this will later be undone when I multiply by c at the end. So it should still work. Correct?

    I mentioned that p/c < (p/c + a)/2 < a < (q/c + a)/2 < q/c because I needed to justify that (p/c, q/c) is in fact in the standard topology by showing that there exists an interval--specifically, the interval ( (p/c + a)/2, (q/c + a)/2 )-- such that a is in said interval and said interval is contained in (p/c,q/c).

    One thing is bothering me though...my prof always stressed that when prove that something "exists" when have to choose/set it. I get confused when using the definition of convergence since it implies that there exists an m\in N such that blah blah blah. By showing such an m exists, is that enough? Or do I have to find a specific m\in N where it works? Am I making any sense?
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2012
  5. Apr 3, 2012 #4

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    That's ok.

    Ok, I see what you mean. But what is your definition of the standard topology?? Can't you just say that (p/c,q/c) is the interval contained in (p/c,q/c)?? Not that it matters much...

    The existence follows directly from the definition of convergence, no? I mean: if you know that an converges, then you automatically get the existence of an m such that blablabla.

    If you want to show convergence, then you need to find a specific m. But here you're already given convergence, so existence is no problem here.
     
  6. Apr 3, 2012 #5
    Oh duh! That makes sense and is a lot less complicated.

    Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate your help =]
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Sequences and convergence in the standard topology
  1. Sequence Convergence (Replies: 2)

Loading...