Seemingly simple proof that I cannot conclude

  • Thread starter amanda_ou812
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of convergence in a metric space and the relationship between the limit of a sequence and the limit of the distance between the elements of the sequence and a given point in the space. This is demonstrated through various theorems and definitions, leading to the conclusion that lim p_n = p if and only if lim d(p_n, p) = 0.
  • #1
amanda_ou812
48
1

Homework Statement


Let (X, d) be a metric space, and we have a sequence p (sub n) is a subset of X and p is an element in X. Prove that lim p (sub n) = p if and only if the sequence of real numbers satisfies lim d(p, pn) = 0.


Homework Equations


Theorems from my class.
1. Let (X, d) be a metric space, {pn}, a subset of X,is a sequence in X and p and element of X. We say that the sequence {pn} converges to p and write lim pn=p, provided that for every e > 0, there is a real number N so that when n > N, then d(p, pn) < e.
2. Let (X,d) be a metric space and let S be a subset of X. Then S is a closed subset if and only if whenever {pn} is a subset of S and a convergent sequence, we have lim {pn} is an element of S.
3. Let (X, d) be a metric space and let E be a subset of X. Then the following are equivalent:
1. there exists a point p which is an element of X and r1 >0 such that E is a subset of B(p;r1), 2. there exists a point q which is an element of X and r2 >0 such that E is a subset of B-(q;r2), 3. there exists M > 0 so that every x,y in E satisfies d(x,y) <= M.
4. Let (X, d) be a metric space and let E is a subset of X. We say that E is a bounded set provided that it satisfies any of the three equivalent conditions of the above proposition.
5. Let (X,d) be a metric space. If {pn} is a convergent sequence, then it is bounded.

The Attempt at a Solution



The forward implication: lim {pn} = p => convergent => bounded => for p in X and r > 0 then {pn} is a subset of B (p; r) ...I am not really sure where to go from here to get lim d(p, pn) = 0. I tried using a bunch of inequalities but that's just it. The are not EQUALities.

The reverse implication: not sure if this is correct (actually I am pretty sure its wrong) lim (d(p, pn)) = 0 => d (p, pn) = 0. This is a metric space we know that d (x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y. So this implies p = pn. (From here on, i am sure I am incorrect). => lim pn = lim p = p. Hence lim pn = p. I think this is wrong because I didn't use an e, n or N anywhere.

Any hints or help would be appreciated.
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
OK, write down the following definitions:

[tex]p_n\rightarrow p~\text{in}~X[/tex]

and

[tex]d(p_n,p)\rightarrow 0~\text{in}~\mathbb{R}[/tex]

Don't you get exactly the same thing (or close)?
 

Related to Seemingly simple proof that I cannot conclude

1. What is a seemingly simple proof?

A seemingly simple proof is a mathematical or scientific argument that appears to be straightforward and easily understandable, but upon closer examination, is actually more complex and cannot be concluded with certainty.

2. Why is it important to recognize seemingly simple proofs?

Recognizing seemingly simple proofs is important because it allows scientists and mathematicians to carefully examine and evaluate the evidence and logic presented, and ensure that conclusions are based on solid reasoning and evidence.

3. What are some common examples of seemingly simple proofs?

Some common examples of seemingly simple proofs include mathematical equations or formulas that are missing key factors or assumptions, or scientific experiments with results that may seem conclusive at first glance, but do not account for all variables or potential errors.

4. How can one avoid falling for seemingly simple proofs?

To avoid falling for seemingly simple proofs, it is important to approach any argument or evidence with a critical and analytical mindset. This includes carefully examining assumptions, considering alternative explanations, and seeking out further evidence or expert opinions.

5. Are all seemingly simple proofs incorrect or flawed?

No, not all seemingly simple proofs are incorrect or flawed. Some may be valid and well-supported, but it is always important to carefully evaluate and scrutinize any claims or arguments before accepting them as true.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
871
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
597
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
990
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
921
Back
Top