Understanding Cantor's Theorem and Diameter

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diameter Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on understanding Theorem 1.4 from John B. Conway's "Functions of a Complex Variable I" (Second Edition), specifically its proof involving the Riemann-Stieljes Integral. The theorem asserts that if a certain condition on the diameter of a set is met, then a complex number I can be approximated within any epsilon by a sum involving a partition of the interval [a,b]. The key takeaway is the relationship between the conditions of the theorem and the implications of Cantor's Theorem regarding the diameter of sets.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with Riemann-Stieljes Integrals
  • Understanding of Cantor's Theorem
  • Knowledge of complex numbers and their properties
  • Basic concepts of mathematical proofs and epsilon-delta definitions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Riemann-Stieljes Integral in detail
  • Review Cantor's Theorem and its implications in analysis
  • Explore the concept of diameter in metric spaces
  • Practice constructing mathematical proofs involving epsilon-delta arguments
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of complex analysis, and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of integration theory and foundational theorems in mathematics.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading John B. Conway's book, "Functions of a Complex Variable I" (Second Edition) ...

I am currently focussed on Chapter IV: Complex Integration ... Section 1: Riemann-Stieljes Integral ... ...

I need help in fully understanding an aspect of the proof of Theorem 1.4 ... ...

Theorem 1.4 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 7443
View attachment 7444In the above text from Conway we read the following:

" ... ... Let us show that this will complete the proof. If $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ let $$m \gt ( 2/ \epsilon ) V( \gamma ) \ge \text{ diam } F_m$$. Since $$I \in F_m$$ , $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$. Thus if $$\delta = \delta_m$$ the theorem is proved. ... ... "I confess I am a little lost here ...I can see that if $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ then $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$ ... but how exactly does this fact together with $$\delta = \delta_m$$ assure us that the theorem is proved ...

... ... that is ... how does $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$

$$\Longrightarrow$$ there exists a complex number $$I$$ such that for every $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ there exists a $$\delta \gt 0$$ sch that for $$\lvert \lvert P \rvert \rvert \lt \delta$$ ... then ...

$$\left\lvert I - \sum_{ i = 1}^m f( \tau_k ) [ \gamma (t_k) -\gamma ( t_{ k-1 } ) ] \right\rvert $$
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter==================================================================================

In the above proof, Conway mentions Cantor's Theorem ... so I am providing MHB readers with Conway's statement of Cantor's Theorem together with the relevant definition of the diameter of a set ... as follows:

View attachment 7445
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If $\delta = \delta_m$ and $P = \{t_0 < t_1 < \cdots < t_n\}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$ with $\|P\| < \delta$ and $\tau_k\in [t_{k-1},t_k]$ for all $k$, then $P \in \mathscr{P}_m$ and $\sum f(\tau_k) [\gamma(t_k) - \gamma(t_{k-1})] \in F_m\subset B(I, \epsilon)$, which implies $\lvert I - \sum f(\tau_k)[\gamma(t_k) - \gamma(t_{k-1})\rvert < \epsilon$.
 
Euge said:
If $\delta = \delta_m$ and $P = \{t_0 < t_1 < \cdots < t_n\}$ is a partition of $[a,b]$ with $\|P\| < \delta$ and $\tau_k\in [t_{k-1},t_k]$ for all $k$, then $P \in \mathscr{P}_m$ and $\sum f(\tau_k) [\gamma(t_k) - \gamma(t_{k-1})] \in F_m\subset B(I, \epsilon)$, which implies $\lvert I - \sum f(\tau_k)[\gamma(t_k) - \gamma(t_{k-1})\rvert < \epsilon$.
Thanks Euge ...

Still reflecting on this ...

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks Euge ...

Still reflecting on this ...

Peter
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K