- #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
- 3,998
- 48
- TL;DR Summary
- The thread concerns the use of the reverse triangle inequality to prove that an open ball is an open set ...
I am reading John B. Conway's book: A First Course in Analysis and am focused on Chapter 5: Metric and Euclidean Spaces ... and in particular I am focused on Section 5.3: Open and Closed Sets ...
Conway's Example 5.3,4 (b) reads as follows ... ...
Note that Conway defines open and closed sets as follows:
Now ... in the text of Example 5.3.4 shown above we read the following:
" ... ... the Reverse Triangle Inequality implies ##\mid d(x,a) - d( a_n, a ) \mid \ge d(a_n, x) \ge r## ... ... "Can someone please explain to me exactly why ##\mid d(x,a) - d( a_n, a ) \mid \ge d(a_n, x) \ge r## ...
My thoughts on this are as follows ...
It seems to me that the Reverse Triangle Inequality implies ##\mid d(x,a) - d( a_n, a ) \mid \le d(a_n, x)## ... ?Hope someone can clarify the above issue ...
Peter===================================================================================The above post mentions the Reverse Triangle Inequality ... Conway's statement of that inequality is as follows:
Hope that helps ..
Peter
Conway's Example 5.3,4 (b) reads as follows ... ...
Note that Conway defines open and closed sets as follows:
Now ... in the text of Example 5.3.4 shown above we read the following:
" ... ... the Reverse Triangle Inequality implies ##\mid d(x,a) - d( a_n, a ) \mid \ge d(a_n, x) \ge r## ... ... "Can someone please explain to me exactly why ##\mid d(x,a) - d( a_n, a ) \mid \ge d(a_n, x) \ge r## ...
My thoughts on this are as follows ...
It seems to me that the Reverse Triangle Inequality implies ##\mid d(x,a) - d( a_n, a ) \mid \le d(a_n, x)## ... ?Hope someone can clarify the above issue ...
Peter===================================================================================The above post mentions the Reverse Triangle Inequality ... Conway's statement of that inequality is as follows:
Hope that helps ..
Peter