Verifying an inequality if $A subset Bbb{C}$ is compact?
$begingroup$
Suppose $A,B$ are subsets of the complex plane $Bbb{C}$ with $A$ compact
Then there exists a point $a in A$ such that $forall x in A, y in B$ there exists $b in B$ such that $|a-b| leq |x-y|$.
I am thinking whether the above statement is true? $A$ is compact in $Bbb{C}$ means that $A$ is closed and bounded, trying to think $Bbb{C}$ similar to an $Bbb{R}^2$ plane, but I cannot think what the inequality means? any motivation or visualization of the inequality and is that even true?
real-analysis compactness quantifiers
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose $A,B$ are subsets of the complex plane $Bbb{C}$ with $A$ compact
Then there exists a point $a in A$ such that $forall x in A, y in B$ there exists $b in B$ such that $|a-b| leq |x-y|$.
I am thinking whether the above statement is true? $A$ is compact in $Bbb{C}$ means that $A$ is closed and bounded, trying to think $Bbb{C}$ similar to an $Bbb{R}^2$ plane, but I cannot think what the inequality means? any motivation or visualization of the inequality and is that even true?
real-analysis compactness quantifiers
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I think it is true if you replace $B$ by its closure, just in the last part of the statement "... there exists $b in bar{B}$ such that ..."
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 6:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose $A,B$ are subsets of the complex plane $Bbb{C}$ with $A$ compact
Then there exists a point $a in A$ such that $forall x in A, y in B$ there exists $b in B$ such that $|a-b| leq |x-y|$.
I am thinking whether the above statement is true? $A$ is compact in $Bbb{C}$ means that $A$ is closed and bounded, trying to think $Bbb{C}$ similar to an $Bbb{R}^2$ plane, but I cannot think what the inequality means? any motivation or visualization of the inequality and is that even true?
real-analysis compactness quantifiers
$endgroup$
Suppose $A,B$ are subsets of the complex plane $Bbb{C}$ with $A$ compact
Then there exists a point $a in A$ such that $forall x in A, y in B$ there exists $b in B$ such that $|a-b| leq |x-y|$.
I am thinking whether the above statement is true? $A$ is compact in $Bbb{C}$ means that $A$ is closed and bounded, trying to think $Bbb{C}$ similar to an $Bbb{R}^2$ plane, but I cannot think what the inequality means? any motivation or visualization of the inequality and is that even true?
real-analysis compactness quantifiers
real-analysis compactness quantifiers
asked Jan 1 at 6:05
BAYMAXBAYMAX
2,88621123
2,88621123
1
$begingroup$
I think it is true if you replace $B$ by its closure, just in the last part of the statement "... there exists $b in bar{B}$ such that ..."
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 6:31
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I think it is true if you replace $B$ by its closure, just in the last part of the statement "... there exists $b in bar{B}$ such that ..."
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 6:31
1
1
$begingroup$
I think it is true if you replace $B$ by its closure, just in the last part of the statement "... there exists $b in bar{B}$ such that ..."
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 6:31
$begingroup$
I think it is true if you replace $B$ by its closure, just in the last part of the statement "... there exists $b in bar{B}$ such that ..."
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 6:31
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let us define $d(x,B) = inf_{zin B} d(x,z)$. From the triangle inequality $d(x,z)leq d(y,z)+d(x,y)$, by taking infimum over $zin B$, we know that $xmapsto d(x,B)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
Now, assume to the contrary that for every $ain A$, there exists $xin A$ and $yin B$ such that for all $bin B$
$$
d(a,b)>d(x,y) tag{*}
$$ holds. Choose $a in text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$. Then $(*)$ implies that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y).
$$ By $(*)$, there exists $x'in A$, $y'in B$ such that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y)>d(x',y')ge d(x',B).
$$ This contradict $x'in A$. Hence we argue by contradiction that the statement is true.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I was thinking what is $text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$ ?
$endgroup$
– BAYMAX
Jan 2 at 0:33
$begingroup$
It is the set of minimizers of $Ani pmapsto d(p,B)$. That is, $text{argmin}_{pin A}d(p,B) ={ pin A;|; d(p,B)le d(q,B)text{ for all }qin A}$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 2 at 5:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The map $Arightarrow mathbb{R}^+, xmapsto d(x,B)$ is continuous on the compact set $A$.
Here $d(x,B)=inf{|x-y|, , yin B}$.
Then there exists $ain A$ which minimizes this map $i.e.$ $d(a,B)=d(A,B)$.
Then for every $xin A$ and $yin B$ we have $|x-y|geq d(A,B) = d(a,B)=|a-b|$ for some $bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
What if there is no $yin B$ that minimizes the distance to $x$? Referring to your definition of $d(x,B)$, of course.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 6:54
$begingroup$
$bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:00
$begingroup$
you corrected it to infimum (from minimum). $binoverline B$ played no role in my question.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 7:05
$begingroup$
It just a matter of notation. Because we learned to use min and inf equivalently. But seems this creates confusion.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:08
$begingroup$
Because I was assuming y must be B then I wouldnt take the closure at the end.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:11
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The statement is true.
Let $M = inf{|a-b| : a in A, b in B}$. First of all, suppose that the infimum is achieved, i.e. there exist $a in A$ and $b in B$ such that $|a-b| = M$. Then it is clear that for every $x in A, y in B$, we have $|a-b| leq |x-y|$, so the condition is satisfied.
Conversely, suppose the infimum isn't satisfied. Then there exist$^1$ sequences $(a_n)_n subseteq A$ and $(b_n)_n subseteq B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$. Now, since $A$ is compact, it is sequentially compact, so we can extract a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_k$ of $(a_n)_n$ which converges to some $a in A$. We claim this $a$ satisfies the condition.
Let $x in A$, $y in B$. We know that the infimum $M$ is not achieved, so we have $|x-y|>M$. Let $epsilon = |x-y|-M>0$. By definition of convergence$^2$, we can pick $K,N in mathbb{N}$ such that:
begin{align*}
&forall k geq K, |a_{n_k} - a| < epsilon/2 \
&forall n geq N, |a_n - b_n| < epsilon/2 + M
end{align*}
Then we can pick some $k$ such that $k geq K$ and $n_k geq N$, and we get:
begin{align*}
|a - b_{n_k}| leq |a - a_{n_k}| + |a_{n_k} - b_{n_k}| < epsilon/2 + epsilon/2 + M = epsilon + M = |x-y|
end{align*}
And thus choosing $b_{n_k}$ satisfies the desired condition. $blacksquare$
$^1$Assuming $A$ and $B$ are non-empty. To see this, note that by definition of the infimum, for every $n in mathbb{N}$, there must exist $a_n in A$ and $b_n in B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| < M + 1/n$. And, naturally, $|a_n - b_n| geq M$.
$^2$In the case of $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$, we can remove one set of absolute values since we know $|a_n - b_n| > M$ for every $n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058240%2fverifying-an-inequality-if-a-subset-bbbc-is-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let us define $d(x,B) = inf_{zin B} d(x,z)$. From the triangle inequality $d(x,z)leq d(y,z)+d(x,y)$, by taking infimum over $zin B$, we know that $xmapsto d(x,B)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
Now, assume to the contrary that for every $ain A$, there exists $xin A$ and $yin B$ such that for all $bin B$
$$
d(a,b)>d(x,y) tag{*}
$$ holds. Choose $a in text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$. Then $(*)$ implies that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y).
$$ By $(*)$, there exists $x'in A$, $y'in B$ such that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y)>d(x',y')ge d(x',B).
$$ This contradict $x'in A$. Hence we argue by contradiction that the statement is true.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I was thinking what is $text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$ ?
$endgroup$
– BAYMAX
Jan 2 at 0:33
$begingroup$
It is the set of minimizers of $Ani pmapsto d(p,B)$. That is, $text{argmin}_{pin A}d(p,B) ={ pin A;|; d(p,B)le d(q,B)text{ for all }qin A}$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 2 at 5:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let us define $d(x,B) = inf_{zin B} d(x,z)$. From the triangle inequality $d(x,z)leq d(y,z)+d(x,y)$, by taking infimum over $zin B$, we know that $xmapsto d(x,B)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
Now, assume to the contrary that for every $ain A$, there exists $xin A$ and $yin B$ such that for all $bin B$
$$
d(a,b)>d(x,y) tag{*}
$$ holds. Choose $a in text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$. Then $(*)$ implies that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y).
$$ By $(*)$, there exists $x'in A$, $y'in B$ such that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y)>d(x',y')ge d(x',B).
$$ This contradict $x'in A$. Hence we argue by contradiction that the statement is true.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I was thinking what is $text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$ ?
$endgroup$
– BAYMAX
Jan 2 at 0:33
$begingroup$
It is the set of minimizers of $Ani pmapsto d(p,B)$. That is, $text{argmin}_{pin A}d(p,B) ={ pin A;|; d(p,B)le d(q,B)text{ for all }qin A}$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 2 at 5:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let us define $d(x,B) = inf_{zin B} d(x,z)$. From the triangle inequality $d(x,z)leq d(y,z)+d(x,y)$, by taking infimum over $zin B$, we know that $xmapsto d(x,B)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
Now, assume to the contrary that for every $ain A$, there exists $xin A$ and $yin B$ such that for all $bin B$
$$
d(a,b)>d(x,y) tag{*}
$$ holds. Choose $a in text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$. Then $(*)$ implies that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y).
$$ By $(*)$, there exists $x'in A$, $y'in B$ such that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y)>d(x',y')ge d(x',B).
$$ This contradict $x'in A$. Hence we argue by contradiction that the statement is true.
$endgroup$
Let us define $d(x,B) = inf_{zin B} d(x,z)$. From the triangle inequality $d(x,z)leq d(y,z)+d(x,y)$, by taking infimum over $zin B$, we know that $xmapsto d(x,B)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
Now, assume to the contrary that for every $ain A$, there exists $xin A$ and $yin B$ such that for all $bin B$
$$
d(a,b)>d(x,y) tag{*}
$$ holds. Choose $a in text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$. Then $(*)$ implies that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y).
$$ By $(*)$, there exists $x'in A$, $y'in B$ such that
$$
min_{pin A} d(p,B) = d(x,y)>d(x',y')ge d(x',B).
$$ This contradict $x'in A$. Hence we argue by contradiction that the statement is true.
answered Jan 1 at 7:08
SongSong
9,211627
9,211627
$begingroup$
I was thinking what is $text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$ ?
$endgroup$
– BAYMAX
Jan 2 at 0:33
$begingroup$
It is the set of minimizers of $Ani pmapsto d(p,B)$. That is, $text{argmin}_{pin A}d(p,B) ={ pin A;|; d(p,B)le d(q,B)text{ for all }qin A}$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 2 at 5:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was thinking what is $text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$ ?
$endgroup$
– BAYMAX
Jan 2 at 0:33
$begingroup$
It is the set of minimizers of $Ani pmapsto d(p,B)$. That is, $text{argmin}_{pin A}d(p,B) ={ pin A;|; d(p,B)le d(q,B)text{ for all }qin A}$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 2 at 5:52
$begingroup$
I was thinking what is $text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$ ?
$endgroup$
– BAYMAX
Jan 2 at 0:33
$begingroup$
I was thinking what is $text{argmin}_{pin A} d(p,B)$ ?
$endgroup$
– BAYMAX
Jan 2 at 0:33
$begingroup$
It is the set of minimizers of $Ani pmapsto d(p,B)$. That is, $text{argmin}_{pin A}d(p,B) ={ pin A;|; d(p,B)le d(q,B)text{ for all }qin A}$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 2 at 5:52
$begingroup$
It is the set of minimizers of $Ani pmapsto d(p,B)$. That is, $text{argmin}_{pin A}d(p,B) ={ pin A;|; d(p,B)le d(q,B)text{ for all }qin A}$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Jan 2 at 5:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The map $Arightarrow mathbb{R}^+, xmapsto d(x,B)$ is continuous on the compact set $A$.
Here $d(x,B)=inf{|x-y|, , yin B}$.
Then there exists $ain A$ which minimizes this map $i.e.$ $d(a,B)=d(A,B)$.
Then for every $xin A$ and $yin B$ we have $|x-y|geq d(A,B) = d(a,B)=|a-b|$ for some $bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
What if there is no $yin B$ that minimizes the distance to $x$? Referring to your definition of $d(x,B)$, of course.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 6:54
$begingroup$
$bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:00
$begingroup$
you corrected it to infimum (from minimum). $binoverline B$ played no role in my question.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 7:05
$begingroup$
It just a matter of notation. Because we learned to use min and inf equivalently. But seems this creates confusion.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:08
$begingroup$
Because I was assuming y must be B then I wouldnt take the closure at the end.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:11
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The map $Arightarrow mathbb{R}^+, xmapsto d(x,B)$ is continuous on the compact set $A$.
Here $d(x,B)=inf{|x-y|, , yin B}$.
Then there exists $ain A$ which minimizes this map $i.e.$ $d(a,B)=d(A,B)$.
Then for every $xin A$ and $yin B$ we have $|x-y|geq d(A,B) = d(a,B)=|a-b|$ for some $bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
What if there is no $yin B$ that minimizes the distance to $x$? Referring to your definition of $d(x,B)$, of course.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 6:54
$begingroup$
$bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:00
$begingroup$
you corrected it to infimum (from minimum). $binoverline B$ played no role in my question.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 7:05
$begingroup$
It just a matter of notation. Because we learned to use min and inf equivalently. But seems this creates confusion.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:08
$begingroup$
Because I was assuming y must be B then I wouldnt take the closure at the end.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:11
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The map $Arightarrow mathbb{R}^+, xmapsto d(x,B)$ is continuous on the compact set $A$.
Here $d(x,B)=inf{|x-y|, , yin B}$.
Then there exists $ain A$ which minimizes this map $i.e.$ $d(a,B)=d(A,B)$.
Then for every $xin A$ and $yin B$ we have $|x-y|geq d(A,B) = d(a,B)=|a-b|$ for some $bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
The map $Arightarrow mathbb{R}^+, xmapsto d(x,B)$ is continuous on the compact set $A$.
Here $d(x,B)=inf{|x-y|, , yin B}$.
Then there exists $ain A$ which minimizes this map $i.e.$ $d(a,B)=d(A,B)$.
Then for every $xin A$ and $yin B$ we have $|x-y|geq d(A,B) = d(a,B)=|a-b|$ for some $bin bar{B}$.
edited Jan 1 at 6:57
answered Jan 1 at 6:47
moutheticsmouthetics
50127
50127
2
$begingroup$
What if there is no $yin B$ that minimizes the distance to $x$? Referring to your definition of $d(x,B)$, of course.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 6:54
$begingroup$
$bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:00
$begingroup$
you corrected it to infimum (from minimum). $binoverline B$ played no role in my question.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 7:05
$begingroup$
It just a matter of notation. Because we learned to use min and inf equivalently. But seems this creates confusion.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:08
$begingroup$
Because I was assuming y must be B then I wouldnt take the closure at the end.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:11
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
What if there is no $yin B$ that minimizes the distance to $x$? Referring to your definition of $d(x,B)$, of course.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 6:54
$begingroup$
$bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:00
$begingroup$
you corrected it to infimum (from minimum). $binoverline B$ played no role in my question.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 7:05
$begingroup$
It just a matter of notation. Because we learned to use min and inf equivalently. But seems this creates confusion.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:08
$begingroup$
Because I was assuming y must be B then I wouldnt take the closure at the end.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:11
2
2
$begingroup$
What if there is no $yin B$ that minimizes the distance to $x$? Referring to your definition of $d(x,B)$, of course.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 6:54
$begingroup$
What if there is no $yin B$ that minimizes the distance to $x$? Referring to your definition of $d(x,B)$, of course.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 6:54
$begingroup$
$bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:00
$begingroup$
$bin bar{B}$.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:00
$begingroup$
you corrected it to infimum (from minimum). $binoverline B$ played no role in my question.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 7:05
$begingroup$
you corrected it to infimum (from minimum). $binoverline B$ played no role in my question.
$endgroup$
– Clayton
Jan 1 at 7:05
$begingroup$
It just a matter of notation. Because we learned to use min and inf equivalently. But seems this creates confusion.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:08
$begingroup$
It just a matter of notation. Because we learned to use min and inf equivalently. But seems this creates confusion.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:08
$begingroup$
Because I was assuming y must be B then I wouldnt take the closure at the end.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:11
$begingroup$
Because I was assuming y must be B then I wouldnt take the closure at the end.
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 7:11
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The statement is true.
Let $M = inf{|a-b| : a in A, b in B}$. First of all, suppose that the infimum is achieved, i.e. there exist $a in A$ and $b in B$ such that $|a-b| = M$. Then it is clear that for every $x in A, y in B$, we have $|a-b| leq |x-y|$, so the condition is satisfied.
Conversely, suppose the infimum isn't satisfied. Then there exist$^1$ sequences $(a_n)_n subseteq A$ and $(b_n)_n subseteq B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$. Now, since $A$ is compact, it is sequentially compact, so we can extract a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_k$ of $(a_n)_n$ which converges to some $a in A$. We claim this $a$ satisfies the condition.
Let $x in A$, $y in B$. We know that the infimum $M$ is not achieved, so we have $|x-y|>M$. Let $epsilon = |x-y|-M>0$. By definition of convergence$^2$, we can pick $K,N in mathbb{N}$ such that:
begin{align*}
&forall k geq K, |a_{n_k} - a| < epsilon/2 \
&forall n geq N, |a_n - b_n| < epsilon/2 + M
end{align*}
Then we can pick some $k$ such that $k geq K$ and $n_k geq N$, and we get:
begin{align*}
|a - b_{n_k}| leq |a - a_{n_k}| + |a_{n_k} - b_{n_k}| < epsilon/2 + epsilon/2 + M = epsilon + M = |x-y|
end{align*}
And thus choosing $b_{n_k}$ satisfies the desired condition. $blacksquare$
$^1$Assuming $A$ and $B$ are non-empty. To see this, note that by definition of the infimum, for every $n in mathbb{N}$, there must exist $a_n in A$ and $b_n in B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| < M + 1/n$. And, naturally, $|a_n - b_n| geq M$.
$^2$In the case of $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$, we can remove one set of absolute values since we know $|a_n - b_n| > M$ for every $n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The statement is true.
Let $M = inf{|a-b| : a in A, b in B}$. First of all, suppose that the infimum is achieved, i.e. there exist $a in A$ and $b in B$ such that $|a-b| = M$. Then it is clear that for every $x in A, y in B$, we have $|a-b| leq |x-y|$, so the condition is satisfied.
Conversely, suppose the infimum isn't satisfied. Then there exist$^1$ sequences $(a_n)_n subseteq A$ and $(b_n)_n subseteq B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$. Now, since $A$ is compact, it is sequentially compact, so we can extract a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_k$ of $(a_n)_n$ which converges to some $a in A$. We claim this $a$ satisfies the condition.
Let $x in A$, $y in B$. We know that the infimum $M$ is not achieved, so we have $|x-y|>M$. Let $epsilon = |x-y|-M>0$. By definition of convergence$^2$, we can pick $K,N in mathbb{N}$ such that:
begin{align*}
&forall k geq K, |a_{n_k} - a| < epsilon/2 \
&forall n geq N, |a_n - b_n| < epsilon/2 + M
end{align*}
Then we can pick some $k$ such that $k geq K$ and $n_k geq N$, and we get:
begin{align*}
|a - b_{n_k}| leq |a - a_{n_k}| + |a_{n_k} - b_{n_k}| < epsilon/2 + epsilon/2 + M = epsilon + M = |x-y|
end{align*}
And thus choosing $b_{n_k}$ satisfies the desired condition. $blacksquare$
$^1$Assuming $A$ and $B$ are non-empty. To see this, note that by definition of the infimum, for every $n in mathbb{N}$, there must exist $a_n in A$ and $b_n in B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| < M + 1/n$. And, naturally, $|a_n - b_n| geq M$.
$^2$In the case of $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$, we can remove one set of absolute values since we know $|a_n - b_n| > M$ for every $n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The statement is true.
Let $M = inf{|a-b| : a in A, b in B}$. First of all, suppose that the infimum is achieved, i.e. there exist $a in A$ and $b in B$ such that $|a-b| = M$. Then it is clear that for every $x in A, y in B$, we have $|a-b| leq |x-y|$, so the condition is satisfied.
Conversely, suppose the infimum isn't satisfied. Then there exist$^1$ sequences $(a_n)_n subseteq A$ and $(b_n)_n subseteq B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$. Now, since $A$ is compact, it is sequentially compact, so we can extract a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_k$ of $(a_n)_n$ which converges to some $a in A$. We claim this $a$ satisfies the condition.
Let $x in A$, $y in B$. We know that the infimum $M$ is not achieved, so we have $|x-y|>M$. Let $epsilon = |x-y|-M>0$. By definition of convergence$^2$, we can pick $K,N in mathbb{N}$ such that:
begin{align*}
&forall k geq K, |a_{n_k} - a| < epsilon/2 \
&forall n geq N, |a_n - b_n| < epsilon/2 + M
end{align*}
Then we can pick some $k$ such that $k geq K$ and $n_k geq N$, and we get:
begin{align*}
|a - b_{n_k}| leq |a - a_{n_k}| + |a_{n_k} - b_{n_k}| < epsilon/2 + epsilon/2 + M = epsilon + M = |x-y|
end{align*}
And thus choosing $b_{n_k}$ satisfies the desired condition. $blacksquare$
$^1$Assuming $A$ and $B$ are non-empty. To see this, note that by definition of the infimum, for every $n in mathbb{N}$, there must exist $a_n in A$ and $b_n in B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| < M + 1/n$. And, naturally, $|a_n - b_n| geq M$.
$^2$In the case of $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$, we can remove one set of absolute values since we know $|a_n - b_n| > M$ for every $n$.
$endgroup$
The statement is true.
Let $M = inf{|a-b| : a in A, b in B}$. First of all, suppose that the infimum is achieved, i.e. there exist $a in A$ and $b in B$ such that $|a-b| = M$. Then it is clear that for every $x in A, y in B$, we have $|a-b| leq |x-y|$, so the condition is satisfied.
Conversely, suppose the infimum isn't satisfied. Then there exist$^1$ sequences $(a_n)_n subseteq A$ and $(b_n)_n subseteq B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$. Now, since $A$ is compact, it is sequentially compact, so we can extract a subsequence $(a_{n_k})_k$ of $(a_n)_n$ which converges to some $a in A$. We claim this $a$ satisfies the condition.
Let $x in A$, $y in B$. We know that the infimum $M$ is not achieved, so we have $|x-y|>M$. Let $epsilon = |x-y|-M>0$. By definition of convergence$^2$, we can pick $K,N in mathbb{N}$ such that:
begin{align*}
&forall k geq K, |a_{n_k} - a| < epsilon/2 \
&forall n geq N, |a_n - b_n| < epsilon/2 + M
end{align*}
Then we can pick some $k$ such that $k geq K$ and $n_k geq N$, and we get:
begin{align*}
|a - b_{n_k}| leq |a - a_{n_k}| + |a_{n_k} - b_{n_k}| < epsilon/2 + epsilon/2 + M = epsilon + M = |x-y|
end{align*}
And thus choosing $b_{n_k}$ satisfies the desired condition. $blacksquare$
$^1$Assuming $A$ and $B$ are non-empty. To see this, note that by definition of the infimum, for every $n in mathbb{N}$, there must exist $a_n in A$ and $b_n in B$ such that $|a_n - b_n| < M + 1/n$. And, naturally, $|a_n - b_n| geq M$.
$^2$In the case of $|a_n - b_n| rightarrow M$, we can remove one set of absolute values since we know $|a_n - b_n| > M$ for every $n$.
edited Jan 2 at 14:19
answered Jan 2 at 3:09
SamboSambo
2,1822532
2,1822532
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058240%2fverifying-an-inequality-if-a-subset-bbbc-is-compact%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
I think it is true if you replace $B$ by its closure, just in the last part of the statement "... there exists $b in bar{B}$ such that ..."
$endgroup$
– mouthetics
Jan 1 at 6:31