Uniform continuous function and distance between sets

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in uniform continuity and the distance between sets in metric spaces. The original poster presents a statement requiring proof that if two non-empty sets \(A\) and \(B\) in a metric space \(X\) have a distance of zero, then the images of these sets under a uniformly continuous function \(f\) also have a distance of zero in the codomain metric space \(Y\).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants suggest starting with definitions of uniform continuity and the distance between sets. There is a discussion about proving that if the distance between the images is non-zero while the distance between the original sets is zero, it implies that the function is not uniformly continuous. Some participants explore the implications of definitions and seek to string together the concepts involved to reach a conclusion.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring various lines of reasoning and questioning the clarity of the proof approach. Some participants have provided guidance on how to structure the proof using definitions, while others have pointed out potential convolutions in reasoning. There is no explicit consensus on the best approach yet, but productive dialogue is ongoing.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of a homework problem, which requires careful consideration of definitions and logical implications without providing direct solutions. The nature of the problem invites scrutiny of assumptions regarding uniform continuity and the properties of metric spaces.

mahler1
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement .

Let ##f: (X,d) → (Y,d')## a uniform continuous function, and let ##A, B \subseteq X## non-empty sets such that ##d(A,B)=0##. Prove that ##d'(f(A),f(B))=0##

I've been thinking this exercise but I don't have any idea where to or how to start, could someone give me a hint?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe start by stating the definition of a uniformly continuous function, and the definition of the distance between two sets.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
mahler1 said:
Homework Statement .

Let ##f: (X,d) → (Y,d')## a uniform continuous function, and let ##A, B \subseteq X## non-empty sets such that ##d(A,B)=0##. Prove that ##d'(f(A),f(B))=0##

I've been thinking this exercise but I don't have any idea where to or how to start, could someone give me a hint?

You need to show that for all [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] there exist [itex]x \in A[/itex] and [itex]y \in B[/itex] such that [itex]d'(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ok, I see it. I want to prove that if ##d'(f(A),f(B))≠0## but ##d(A,B)=0## then f is not uniformly continuous.

Assume ##d'(f(A),f(B))≠0## and ##d(A,B)=0##. By hypothesis, ##d(A,B)=0##, which means that ##\forall## ##δ>0##, ##\exists## x, y in A and B respectively : ##d(x,y)<δ##. But the distance between the two images of the sets A and B is not 0, so ##\exists## ##ε>0## such that ##\forall## ##x \in A## and ##\forall## ##y \in B##, ##d'(f(x),f(y))≥ε##. It follows that f is not uniformly continuous.
 
mahler1 said:
Ok, I see it. I want to prove that if ##d'(f(A),f(B))≠0## but ##d(A,B)=0## then f is not uniformly continuous.

Are you sure you want to prove that? I think it's equivalent to the proposition you are asked to prove, but it's not obviously so.

By hypothesis, ##d(A,B)=0##, which means that ##\forall## ##δ>0##, ##\exists## x, y in A and B respectively : ##d(x,y)<δ##.

This is correct.

But the distance between the two images of the sets A and B is not 0, so ##\exists## ##ε>0## such that ##\forall## ##x \in A## and ##\forall## ##y \in B##, ##d'(f(x),f(y))≥ε##.

This is true.

It follows that f is not uniformly continuous.

You have so far that

"There exists [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] such that for all [itex]\delta > 0[/itex] there exist [itex]x \in A \subset X[/itex] and [itex]y \in B \subset X[/itex] such that [itex]d(x,y) < \delta[/itex] and [itex]d'(f(x),f(y)) \geq \epsilon[/itex]."

That is indeed the negation of the definition of uniform continuity, so you have shown that if [itex]d(A,B) = 0[/itex] and [itex]d'(f(A),f(B)) > 0[/itex] then [itex]f[/itex] is not uniformly continuous.

But it's an excessively convoluted and not at all obvious proof of the result you were asked to prove.

There is an easier way. These exercises usually solve themselves if you just write down the formal definitions of the concepts involved and string them together in the right order. The trick is to find the right order.

First let's think about what we want to prove. From the definition of [itex]d'(f(A),f(B))[/itex] we see that want to prove that the greatest lower bound of [itex]\{d'(f(x),f(y)) : x \in A, y \in B\}[/itex] is zero.

Now zero is trivially a lower bound, because metrics are by definition non-negative. So all we really need to show is that there is no greater lower bound. In other words, we must show that for all [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] there exist [itex]x \in A[/itex] and [itex]y \in B[/itex] such that [itex]d'(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon[/itex], so that [itex]\epsilon[/itex] is not a lower bound.

That statement includes the formula "[itex]d'(f(x),f(y)) < \epsilon[/itex]", which suggests that the definition of uniform continuity is a good place to start.
 
As you said, 0 is always a lower bound by definition of distance. So suppose 0 is not the inf {##d'(f(x),f(y))##, with ##f(x) \in A## and ##f(y) \in B##}. Then there is ##β>0## such that ##β≤d(f(x),f(y))## ##\forall## ##f(x) \in f(A)##, ##f(y) \in f(B)##. The function is uniformly continuous, which means that ##\forall## ##ε>0## there is some ##δ_ε## : ##d(x,y)<δ_ε## ##→## ##d'(f(x),f(y))<ε##. Let ##ε=β##, we know that ##dist(A,B)=0##, in particular, for ##δ_β##, ##d(x,y)<δ_β## ##\forall## ##x \in A, y \in B##. But then, ##β≤d'(f(x),f(y))<β## ##\forall## ##f(x) \in f(A), f(y) \in f(B)##, which is absurd. The absurd comes from the assumption that 0 wasn't the greatest lower bound. It follows that 0 is inf{##d'(f(x),f(y))##, with ##f(x) \in A## and ##f(y) \in B##}, and by definition, this is the distance between the sets ##f(A)## and ##f(B)##.

Is this ok? Thanks for your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K