Unit sphere is compact in 1-norm

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The unit sphere in the 1-norm in ##\mathbb{R}^n## is compact, as established through the Heine-Borel theorem. This conclusion arises from demonstrating that the set defined by ##|x_1|+\ldots+|x_n|=1## is both closed and bounded in the standard 2-norm. The continuity of the identity map between the 1-norm and 2-norm further supports this compactness, confirming that all norms in ##\mathbb{R}^n## are equivalent through transitivity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Heine-Borel theorem
  • Familiarity with norm equivalence in metric spaces
  • Knowledge of continuity in multivariable calculus
  • Basic concepts of closed and bounded sets in topology
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Heine-Borel theorem in detail
  • Learn about norm equivalence in ##\mathbb{R}^n##
  • Explore continuity of functions in metric spaces
  • Investigate properties of compact sets in topology
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of topology, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of norms and compactness in metric spaces.

psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
How do I go about showing the unit sphere is compact in the ##1##-norm without using the fact that norms on ##\mathbb R^n## are equivalent?
In Introduction to Topology by Gamelin and Greene, I'm working an exercise to show the equivalence of norms in ##\mathbb R^n##. This exercise succeeds another exercise where various equivalent formulations of "equivalent norms" have been given, e.g. that two norms ##\|\cdot\|_a,\|\cdot\|_b## are equivalent iff the identity map from ##(\mathbb R^n,\|\cdot\|_a)## to ##(\mathbb R^n,\|\cdot\|_b)## is bicontinuous.

Now, in showing that all norms in ##\mathbb R^n## are equivalent, the authors show a given norm ##\|\cdot\|## is equivalent to the ##1##-norm (and then by transitivity, we have equivalence for all norms, since equivalent norms is an equivalence relation). I have already managed to understand that the identity is continuous from ##(\mathbb R^n,\|\cdot\|_1)## to ##(\mathbb R^n,\|\cdot\|)##. To show that the inverse of the identity map is continuous, the authors claim that the unit sphere in the ##1##-norm is compact. I'm getting hung up on this statement, since I don't know how to go about this without using that the norms are equivalent already. How would one show the unit sphere in the ##1##-norm is compact?

I know of Heine-Borel, but I'm not sure how and if it applies here. Any help would be very appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The unit sphere in the 1-norm is the set of points ##(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n## satisfying ##|x_1|+\ldots+|x_n|=1.##

This set is bounded since ##|x_i|\leq 1## for each ##i##. It is also closed, because the map ##f:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}, f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=|x_1|+\ldots+|x_n|## is continuous, and your set is the preimage of the closed set ##\{1\}.##

So, by Heine-Borel, it is compact. In the above, closed and bounded are relative to the standard (2-) norm.

It's also not hard to just directly verify that the identity map from ##\mathbb{R}^n## with the 2-norm to ##\mathbb{R}^n## with the 1-norm is continuous.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
Infrared said:
So, by Heine-Borel, it is compact. In the above, closed and bounded are relative to the standard (2-) norm.
Thank you. May I ask, in what sense are closed and bounded relative to the ##2##-norm? I feel like you only used the ##1##-norm in showing that the set is closed and bounded.

So you showed the set is compact in the ##2##-norm, and since the identity map is bicontinuous between the ##1##-norm and ##2##-norm, it preserves this compact set, is that right?
 
psie said:
Thank you. May I ask, in what sense are closed and bounded relative to the -norm? I feel like you only used the -norm in showing that the set is closed and bounded.

In a metric space ##(X,d)##, a set ##E\subseteq X## is bounded if there is a constant ##C## such that ##d(x,y)\leq C## for all ##x,y\in E.## In this case ##E## is the unit ball in the ##1## norm and ##X=\mathbb{R}^n## and ##d## is the usual metric on ##\mathbb{R}^n## (induced by the 2-norm).

So you're just trying to find a constant ##C## such that if ##x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)## and ##y=(y_1,\ldots,y_n)## satisfy ##|x_1|+\ldots+|x_n|=1## and ##|y_1|+\ldots+|y_n|=1## then the distance from ##x## to ##y## in the usual (2-norm) sense is at most ##C.## You should work this out yourself, it's quick once you get your definitions clear.

Similarly, the map ##(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\mapsto |x_1|+\ldots+ |x_n|## is continuous in the standard sense (as is ##\{1\}## being closed). Saying that this map is continuous means the same thing as when you took multivariable calculus.


psie said:
So you showed the set is compact in the ##2##-norm, and since the identity map is bicontinuous between the ##1##-norm and ##2##-norm, it preserves this compact set, is that right?
I think you got the implication backwards- I thought showing that the identity is bicontinuous was the goal. Checking that the unit ball in the 1-norm is compact is presumably a step in your book's proof (though I don't have your book on hand). Though, it's pretty quick to directly check that the identity map is continuous in both directions without this.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K