- #1
ozkan12
- 149
- 0
I am trying with no luck to prove:
Let (X,d) be a metric space and A a non-empty subset of X. For x,y in X, prove that
d(x,A) ≤ d(x,y) + d(y,A)d(x,A)=infz∈Ad(x,z). Now, say z0∈A and y∈X. Then d(x,z0)≤d(x,y)+d(y,z0). Taking infimum over all z∈A of the left hand side, we obtain:
d(x,A)=infz∈Ad(x,z)≤d(x,z0)≤d(x,y)+d(y,z0).
Observe that d(x,A) is now independent of z0. Hence taking the infimum over all z in A of the right hand side, we get:
d(x,A)≤d(x,y)+infz∈Ad(y,z)=d(x,y)+d(y,A).
İn this proof, we take inf for d(y,z0). but why we didnt take inf for d(x,y) ?
Let (X,d) be a metric space and A a non-empty subset of X. For x,y in X, prove that
d(x,A) ≤ d(x,y) + d(y,A)d(x,A)=infz∈Ad(x,z). Now, say z0∈A and y∈X. Then d(x,z0)≤d(x,y)+d(y,z0). Taking infimum over all z∈A of the left hand side, we obtain:
d(x,A)=infz∈Ad(x,z)≤d(x,z0)≤d(x,y)+d(y,z0).
Observe that d(x,A) is now independent of z0. Hence taking the infimum over all z in A of the right hand side, we get:
d(x,A)≤d(x,y)+infz∈Ad(y,z)=d(x,y)+d(y,A).
İn this proof, we take inf for d(y,z0). but why we didnt take inf for d(x,y) ?