Show that Z is totally bounded and perfect

  • Thread starter Thread starter Demon117
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded
Demon117
Messages
162
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


For integers m and n, let d(m,n)=0 if m=n and d(m,n) = 1/5^k otherwise, where k is the highest power of 5 that divides m-n. Show that d is indeed a metric.

Show that, in this metric, the set Z of integers is totally bounded and perfect.


The Attempt at a Solution



I frankly do not know where to begin with this proof. I guess my first question is, what must I show precisely?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, what are the definitions?? That are the things you need to show!
 
micromass said:
Well, what are the definitions?? That are the things you need to show!

I think that this is obvious, which means I should have asked a different question.

Totally Bounded - Given epsilon>0 I must show that the set Z has a finite covering by epsilon neighborhoods.

Perfect - Need to show that each point p in Z, is a cluster point. Z clusters at p, if each open ball is an infinite set.

Now, clearly in the metric each point p,q in Z is a cluster point because d(p,q) --->0 as k gets larger and larger, by the definition of the metric. Therefore Z is perfect in the metric.

I don't really understand how to show that it is totally bounded in the metric. How do I come up with some finite covering that fits this idea.
 
The way I always approach such questions is by giving a description of the open balls. Given n in Z and given a certain epsilon, what does B(n,epsilon) look like?? Of course, we can always choose \epsilon=5^k, this will make no difference...
 
micromass said:
The way I always approach such questions is by giving a description of the open balls. Given n in Z and given a certain epsilon, what does B(n,epsilon) look like?? Of course, we can always choose \epsilon=5^k, this will make no difference...

Would this imply that Z is compact in the metric? or complete?
 
No, I haven't said anything about compactness or completeness. You only need to know the balls to form an idea on how to prove total boundedness...
 
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