Can anybody help me to understand this proof?

  • Thread starter Artusartos
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
To show x_0 in F, we have to show that for every choice of n_0, x_0 is in F_n_0, not just for some choice of n_0.
  • #1
Artusartos
247
0
Let [itex](F_n)[/itex] be a decreasing sequence [i.e., F_1 contains F2 which contains F_3...etc] of closed bounded nonempty sets in [itex]R^k[/itex]. Then [itex]F = \cap^{\infty}_{m=1} F_n[/itex] is also closed, bounded and nonempty.

The proof (from our textbook) says:

Clearly F is closed and bounded. It is the nonemptiness that needs proving! For each n, select an element [itex](x_n)[/itex] in [itex]F_n[/itex]. By the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem 13.5, a subsequence [itex](x_n_m})^{\infty}_{m=1}[/itex] of [itex](x_n)[/itex] converges to some element [itex]x_0[/itex] in [itex]R^k[/itex]. To show [itex]x_0 \in F[/itex], it suffices to show [itex]x_0 \in F_n_0[/itex] with [itex]n_0[/itex] fixed.

Why does it suffice to show that?

If [itex]m \geq n_0[/itex], then [itex]n_m \geq n_0[/itex], so [itex]x_n_m \in F_n_m \subseteq F_n_0[/itex].

But what if m<n_0?

Hence the sequence [itex]{x_n_m}^{\infty}_{m=1}[/itex] consists of points in [itex]F_n_0[/itex] and converges to [itex]x_0[/itex]. Thus [itex]x_0[/itex] belongs to [itex]F_n_0[/itex] by (b) of proposition 13.9 (which says “The set E is closed if and only if it contains the limit ofevery convergent sequence of points in E.)

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Artusartos said:
Let [itex](F_n)[/itex] be a decreasing sequence [i.e., F_1 contains F2 which contains F_3...etc] of closed bounded nonempty sets in [itex]R^k[/itex]. Then [itex]F = \cap^{\infty}_{m=1} F_n[/itex] is also closed, bounded and nonempty.

The proof (from our textbook) says:

Clearly F is closed and bounded. It is the nonemptiness that needs proving! For each n, select an element [itex](x_n)[/itex] in [itex]F_n[/itex]. By the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem 13.5, a subsequence [itex](x_n_m})^{\infty}_{m=1}[/itex] of [itex](x_n)[/itex] converges to some element [itex]x_0[/itex] in [itex]R^k[/itex]. To show [itex]x_0 \in F[/itex], it suffices to show [itex]x_0 \in F_n_0[/itex] with [itex]n_0[/itex] fixed.

Why does it suffice to show that?

If [itex]m \geq n_0[/itex], then [itex]n_m \geq n_0[/itex], so [itex]x_n_m \in F_n_m \subseteq F_n_0[/itex].

But what if m<n_0?

Hence the sequence [itex]{x_n_m}^{\infty}_{m=1}[/itex] consists of points in [itex]F_n_0[/itex] and converges to [itex]x_0[/itex]. Thus [itex]x_0[/itex] belongs to [itex]F_n_0[/itex] by (b) of proposition 13.9 (which says “The set E is closed if and only if it contains the limit ofevery convergent sequence of points in E.)

Thanks in advance

As you could see, your post is very hard to understand. This wouldn't have happened had you used the "Preview Post" option before posting it.

There is no [tex] option here but itex enclosed in square parentheses. Please do fix your post.

DonAntonio
 
  • #3
DonAntonio said:
As you could see, your post is very hard to understand. This wouldn't have happened had you used the "Preview Post" option before posting it.

There is no [tex] option here but itex enclosed in square parentheses. Please do fix your post.

DonAntonio

But I don't know how to use itex...??
 
  • #4
Inside [itex] [/itex] you have to write in latex language.
 
  • #5
Einj said:
Inside [itex] [/itex] you have to write in latex language.

But I did do that...it still didn't change...
 
  • #7
I agree that the post needs to be fixed, but I think I understand it as it is:


Artusartos said:
To show [itex]x_0 \in F[/itex], it suffices to show [itex]x_0 \in F_n_0[/itex] with [itex]n_0[/itex] fixed.

Why does it suffice to show that?
i agree that this is confusing. It is poorly expressed. The author must mean something like this:

To show x_0 in F, it suffices to show that for each fixed n_0: x_0 in F_n_0.
If [itex]m \geq n_0[/itex], then [itex]n_m \geq n_0[/itex], so [itex]x_n_m \in F_n_m \subseteq F_n_0[/itex].

But what if m<n_0?
This doesn't matter. The convergence behaviour of a sequence does not depend upon its first finite number of elements. If x1,x2,x3,x4,x5... converges to x, so does e.g. y1,y2,y3,x4,x5...
 
  • #8
Erland said:
I agree that the post needs to be fixed, but I think I understand it as it is:



i agree that this is confusing. It is poorly expressed. The author must mean something like this:

To show x_0 in F, it suffices to show that for each fixed n_0: x_0 in F_n_0.

This doesn't matter. The convergence behaviour of a sequence does not depend upon its first finite number of elements. If x1,x2,x3,x4,x5... converges to x, so does e.g. y1,y2,y3,x4,x5...

Thanks for answering, but I'm not sure if I understood the first answer. What exactly does "for each fixed n_0" mean?
 
  • #9
Artusartos said:
Thanks for answering, but I'm not sure if I understood the first answer. What exactly does "for each fixed n_0" mean?
That this should be proved for every number n_0 (which will be fixed in the succeeding part of the proof), not just that there is one n_0 for which this holds.
 

FAQ: Can anybody help me to understand this proof?

What is a proof?

A proof is a logical argument that demonstrates the truth or validity of a statement or theorem.

Why is understanding a proof important?

Understanding a proof allows you to verify the accuracy of a statement or theorem, and also provides a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts and principles.

What makes a proof difficult to understand?

A proof can be difficult to understand if it involves complex or abstract concepts, relies on advanced mathematical or scientific principles, or if it is poorly explained or presented.

How can I improve my understanding of a proof?

Some ways to improve your understanding of a proof include breaking it down into smaller steps, using visual aids or diagrams, seeking additional explanations or examples, and practicing solving similar problems.

What can I do if I still don't understand a proof?

If you are struggling to understand a proof, it can be helpful to seek assistance from a teacher, tutor, or knowledgeable peer. You may also benefit from reviewing prerequisite concepts or seeking out alternative explanations or resources.

Back
Top