If every sequence $(x_{n}) subset X$ and $(lambda_{n}) subset mathbb{R}$ we have $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$,...












4












$begingroup$



Let $(V,Vert cdot Vert)$ a normed vector space.



(a) Prove that if $A,B subset V$ with $A$ open, then $A + B$ is open.



(b) Is there disjoint open sets $A_{1},A_{2}$ for which there is no disjoint closed sets $F_{1},F_{2}$ such that $A_{1} subset F_{1}$ and $A_{2} subset F_{2}$?



(c) Prove that if $X subset V$ is bounded, then for every sequence $(x_{n}) subset X$ and $(lambda_{n}) subset mathbb{R}$ with $lim lambda_{n} = 0$ we have $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$. What about the converse?




My attempt.



(a) Let $A$ be an open set. So, $A + b = {a+b mid a in A}$ is translation, therefore, is open. But $displaystyle A + B = bigcup_{b in B}(A+b)$, then $A+B$ is open.



(b) Take $A_{1} = mathbb{R}_{>0}$ and $A_{2} = mathbb{R}_{<0}$, because $overline{A_{1}} = A_{1}cup{0}$ and $overline{A_{2}} = A_{2}cup{0}$



(c) If $(x_{n})$ is a sequence in $X$, then $(x_{n})$ is bounded. But
$$(x_{n}) = ((x_{1,n}),(x_{2,n}),...,(x_{k,n}))$$
where each $(x_{i,n})$ is a bounded sequence in $mathbb{R}$. Thus, $lim lambda_{n}x_{i,n} = 0$ for each $i$, then $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$.



The converse seems true, but I cannot prove. Can someone help me?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Don't you need $lambda_nto0$?
    $endgroup$
    – SmileyCraft
    Jan 4 at 22:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There are a couple issues with your part (c); one is your assumption that you can write $x_n$ in coordinates in this way (and why would you need to?), and second is that there is a quite large gap - some magic has happened when you say "Thus." What would happen if $lambda_n = 1$ for all $n$?
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:20












  • $begingroup$
    @SmileyCraft, oh, yes! I forgot to write!
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For another issue, note that in part (b) you're implicitly assuming that $V = mathbb{R}$. This is supposed to be a general normed space, although your idea is on the right track.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:21










  • $begingroup$
    @T.Bongers, thanks for the hint! I'll try to correct the mistakes.
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:22
















4












$begingroup$



Let $(V,Vert cdot Vert)$ a normed vector space.



(a) Prove that if $A,B subset V$ with $A$ open, then $A + B$ is open.



(b) Is there disjoint open sets $A_{1},A_{2}$ for which there is no disjoint closed sets $F_{1},F_{2}$ such that $A_{1} subset F_{1}$ and $A_{2} subset F_{2}$?



(c) Prove that if $X subset V$ is bounded, then for every sequence $(x_{n}) subset X$ and $(lambda_{n}) subset mathbb{R}$ with $lim lambda_{n} = 0$ we have $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$. What about the converse?




My attempt.



(a) Let $A$ be an open set. So, $A + b = {a+b mid a in A}$ is translation, therefore, is open. But $displaystyle A + B = bigcup_{b in B}(A+b)$, then $A+B$ is open.



(b) Take $A_{1} = mathbb{R}_{>0}$ and $A_{2} = mathbb{R}_{<0}$, because $overline{A_{1}} = A_{1}cup{0}$ and $overline{A_{2}} = A_{2}cup{0}$



(c) If $(x_{n})$ is a sequence in $X$, then $(x_{n})$ is bounded. But
$$(x_{n}) = ((x_{1,n}),(x_{2,n}),...,(x_{k,n}))$$
where each $(x_{i,n})$ is a bounded sequence in $mathbb{R}$. Thus, $lim lambda_{n}x_{i,n} = 0$ for each $i$, then $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$.



The converse seems true, but I cannot prove. Can someone help me?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Don't you need $lambda_nto0$?
    $endgroup$
    – SmileyCraft
    Jan 4 at 22:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There are a couple issues with your part (c); one is your assumption that you can write $x_n$ in coordinates in this way (and why would you need to?), and second is that there is a quite large gap - some magic has happened when you say "Thus." What would happen if $lambda_n = 1$ for all $n$?
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:20












  • $begingroup$
    @SmileyCraft, oh, yes! I forgot to write!
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For another issue, note that in part (b) you're implicitly assuming that $V = mathbb{R}$. This is supposed to be a general normed space, although your idea is on the right track.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:21










  • $begingroup$
    @T.Bongers, thanks for the hint! I'll try to correct the mistakes.
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:22














4












4








4


1



$begingroup$



Let $(V,Vert cdot Vert)$ a normed vector space.



(a) Prove that if $A,B subset V$ with $A$ open, then $A + B$ is open.



(b) Is there disjoint open sets $A_{1},A_{2}$ for which there is no disjoint closed sets $F_{1},F_{2}$ such that $A_{1} subset F_{1}$ and $A_{2} subset F_{2}$?



(c) Prove that if $X subset V$ is bounded, then for every sequence $(x_{n}) subset X$ and $(lambda_{n}) subset mathbb{R}$ with $lim lambda_{n} = 0$ we have $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$. What about the converse?




My attempt.



(a) Let $A$ be an open set. So, $A + b = {a+b mid a in A}$ is translation, therefore, is open. But $displaystyle A + B = bigcup_{b in B}(A+b)$, then $A+B$ is open.



(b) Take $A_{1} = mathbb{R}_{>0}$ and $A_{2} = mathbb{R}_{<0}$, because $overline{A_{1}} = A_{1}cup{0}$ and $overline{A_{2}} = A_{2}cup{0}$



(c) If $(x_{n})$ is a sequence in $X$, then $(x_{n})$ is bounded. But
$$(x_{n}) = ((x_{1,n}),(x_{2,n}),...,(x_{k,n}))$$
where each $(x_{i,n})$ is a bounded sequence in $mathbb{R}$. Thus, $lim lambda_{n}x_{i,n} = 0$ for each $i$, then $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$.



The converse seems true, but I cannot prove. Can someone help me?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





Let $(V,Vert cdot Vert)$ a normed vector space.



(a) Prove that if $A,B subset V$ with $A$ open, then $A + B$ is open.



(b) Is there disjoint open sets $A_{1},A_{2}$ for which there is no disjoint closed sets $F_{1},F_{2}$ such that $A_{1} subset F_{1}$ and $A_{2} subset F_{2}$?



(c) Prove that if $X subset V$ is bounded, then for every sequence $(x_{n}) subset X$ and $(lambda_{n}) subset mathbb{R}$ with $lim lambda_{n} = 0$ we have $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$. What about the converse?




My attempt.



(a) Let $A$ be an open set. So, $A + b = {a+b mid a in A}$ is translation, therefore, is open. But $displaystyle A + B = bigcup_{b in B}(A+b)$, then $A+B$ is open.



(b) Take $A_{1} = mathbb{R}_{>0}$ and $A_{2} = mathbb{R}_{<0}$, because $overline{A_{1}} = A_{1}cup{0}$ and $overline{A_{2}} = A_{2}cup{0}$



(c) If $(x_{n})$ is a sequence in $X$, then $(x_{n})$ is bounded. But
$$(x_{n}) = ((x_{1,n}),(x_{2,n}),...,(x_{k,n}))$$
where each $(x_{i,n})$ is a bounded sequence in $mathbb{R}$. Thus, $lim lambda_{n}x_{i,n} = 0$ for each $i$, then $lim lambda_{n}x_{n} = 0$.



The converse seems true, but I cannot prove. Can someone help me?







general-topology metric-spaces






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 4 at 22:20







Lucas Corrêa

















asked Jan 4 at 22:13









Lucas CorrêaLucas Corrêa

1,6151321




1,6151321












  • $begingroup$
    Don't you need $lambda_nto0$?
    $endgroup$
    – SmileyCraft
    Jan 4 at 22:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There are a couple issues with your part (c); one is your assumption that you can write $x_n$ in coordinates in this way (and why would you need to?), and second is that there is a quite large gap - some magic has happened when you say "Thus." What would happen if $lambda_n = 1$ for all $n$?
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:20












  • $begingroup$
    @SmileyCraft, oh, yes! I forgot to write!
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For another issue, note that in part (b) you're implicitly assuming that $V = mathbb{R}$. This is supposed to be a general normed space, although your idea is on the right track.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:21










  • $begingroup$
    @T.Bongers, thanks for the hint! I'll try to correct the mistakes.
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:22


















  • $begingroup$
    Don't you need $lambda_nto0$?
    $endgroup$
    – SmileyCraft
    Jan 4 at 22:18






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There are a couple issues with your part (c); one is your assumption that you can write $x_n$ in coordinates in this way (and why would you need to?), and second is that there is a quite large gap - some magic has happened when you say "Thus." What would happen if $lambda_n = 1$ for all $n$?
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:20












  • $begingroup$
    @SmileyCraft, oh, yes! I forgot to write!
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For another issue, note that in part (b) you're implicitly assuming that $V = mathbb{R}$. This is supposed to be a general normed space, although your idea is on the right track.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:21










  • $begingroup$
    @T.Bongers, thanks for the hint! I'll try to correct the mistakes.
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:22
















$begingroup$
Don't you need $lambda_nto0$?
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 22:18




$begingroup$
Don't you need $lambda_nto0$?
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 22:18




1




1




$begingroup$
There are a couple issues with your part (c); one is your assumption that you can write $x_n$ in coordinates in this way (and why would you need to?), and second is that there is a quite large gap - some magic has happened when you say "Thus." What would happen if $lambda_n = 1$ for all $n$?
$endgroup$
– T. Bongers
Jan 4 at 22:20






$begingroup$
There are a couple issues with your part (c); one is your assumption that you can write $x_n$ in coordinates in this way (and why would you need to?), and second is that there is a quite large gap - some magic has happened when you say "Thus." What would happen if $lambda_n = 1$ for all $n$?
$endgroup$
– T. Bongers
Jan 4 at 22:20














$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft, oh, yes! I forgot to write!
$endgroup$
– Lucas Corrêa
Jan 4 at 22:20




$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft, oh, yes! I forgot to write!
$endgroup$
– Lucas Corrêa
Jan 4 at 22:20




1




1




$begingroup$
For another issue, note that in part (b) you're implicitly assuming that $V = mathbb{R}$. This is supposed to be a general normed space, although your idea is on the right track.
$endgroup$
– T. Bongers
Jan 4 at 22:21




$begingroup$
For another issue, note that in part (b) you're implicitly assuming that $V = mathbb{R}$. This is supposed to be a general normed space, although your idea is on the right track.
$endgroup$
– T. Bongers
Jan 4 at 22:21












$begingroup$
@T.Bongers, thanks for the hint! I'll try to correct the mistakes.
$endgroup$
– Lucas Corrêa
Jan 4 at 22:22




$begingroup$
@T.Bongers, thanks for the hint! I'll try to correct the mistakes.
$endgroup$
– Lucas Corrêa
Jan 4 at 22:22










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Your part (a) is fine, assuming that you know translation is continuous.



Your part (b) is on the right track, but it assumes that $V$ is the continuum, whereas it should be a normed vector space. You have the right idea of separating two sets by a very small set, but you shouldn't rely on coordinates (since you don't have any coordinates...). Use the norm instead.



Your part (c) has a similar issue: unless you're in a finite dimensional space, there is neither reason nor justification for writing the sequence in coordinates. Again, you need to be using the norm. Notice that



$$|lambda_n x_n| = |lambda_n| cdot |x_n| le |lambda_n| sup_{x in X} |x| to 0.$$



The converse is in fact true, and can be handled similarly; choose an unbounded sequence ${x_n}$ and craft $lambda_n$ depending on $x_n$ so that $|lambda_n x_n| notto 0$. Constant norm works.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Awesome, I got it! But for (b), I have some troubles. I thinking in $A_{1}, A_{2}$ such that $partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2} neq emptyset$ and $Vsetminus(A_{1}cup A_{2}) = partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2}$. How can I ensure that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ exist? Or how can I make explicit $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$?
    $endgroup$
    – Lucas Corrêa
    Jan 4 at 22:38






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For your attempt, you used "positive" and "negative" as the separation condition. This doesn't work for the norm, because you cannot have a negative norm value... but there's no need to cut at zero. Try cutting somewhere else.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Bongers
    Jan 4 at 22:39



















1












$begingroup$

The converse is true, we'll prove it by contraposition:



Assume that $X$ is unbounded. Hence for every $ninmathbb{N}$ exists $x_n in X$ such that $|x_n| ge n$. Consider the sequence $(lambda_n)_n = left(frac1nright)_n$. We have $lim_{ntoinfty} lambda_n = 0$ but
$ |lambda_nx_n| ge 1, forall ninmathbb{N}$ so it cannot converge to $0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    For the converse: suppose $X$ is not bounded. Then it contains some sequence $(x_n)$ such that $(|x_n|)toinfty$ (take $x_n$ to be an example given by the negation of the definition of "bounded" with the constant set to $n$). Take $lambda_n = frac{1}{|x_n|}$. Then $(lambda_n)to 0$, but $(lambda_nx_n)notto 0$, since $(|lambda_nx_n|) = (1) notto 0$. Thus, taking the contrapositive, we have the converse (NB: you've got a bit missing out of the contrapositive you've given in the title: you've dropped the $limlambda_n = 0$ bit).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      1












      $begingroup$

      Your approach to part (a) is correct; to be more explicit, you could show why $A+b$ is open.



      You have the right idea for part (b), but it needs to be stated a bit more generally. Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be disjoint open balls that both have some point $z$ in their closure. Then if $F_1$, $F_2$ are closed sets containing $A_1$, $A_2$, respectively, we have $zin F_1$ and $zin F_2$ since $F_1supset overline{A_1}$ and $F_2supsetoverline{A_2}$, so $F_1$ and $F_2$ cannot be disjoint. To construct such $A_1$ and $A_2$, let $x,y$ be distinct points in $V$ with $|x|=|y|$ and consider the open balls centered at $x$ and $y$ with radius $frac 12 |x-y|$. Then the point $frac12(x+y)$ is in the closure of both of these balls.



      For part (c) I will defer to the accepted answer.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













        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
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062176%2fif-every-sequence-x-n-subset-x-and-lambda-n-subset-mathbbr-we%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        2












        $begingroup$

        Your part (a) is fine, assuming that you know translation is continuous.



        Your part (b) is on the right track, but it assumes that $V$ is the continuum, whereas it should be a normed vector space. You have the right idea of separating two sets by a very small set, but you shouldn't rely on coordinates (since you don't have any coordinates...). Use the norm instead.



        Your part (c) has a similar issue: unless you're in a finite dimensional space, there is neither reason nor justification for writing the sequence in coordinates. Again, you need to be using the norm. Notice that



        $$|lambda_n x_n| = |lambda_n| cdot |x_n| le |lambda_n| sup_{x in X} |x| to 0.$$



        The converse is in fact true, and can be handled similarly; choose an unbounded sequence ${x_n}$ and craft $lambda_n$ depending on $x_n$ so that $|lambda_n x_n| notto 0$. Constant norm works.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          Awesome, I got it! But for (b), I have some troubles. I thinking in $A_{1}, A_{2}$ such that $partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2} neq emptyset$ and $Vsetminus(A_{1}cup A_{2}) = partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2}$. How can I ensure that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ exist? Or how can I make explicit $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$?
          $endgroup$
          – Lucas Corrêa
          Jan 4 at 22:38






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          For your attempt, you used "positive" and "negative" as the separation condition. This doesn't work for the norm, because you cannot have a negative norm value... but there's no need to cut at zero. Try cutting somewhere else.
          $endgroup$
          – T. Bongers
          Jan 4 at 22:39
















        2












        $begingroup$

        Your part (a) is fine, assuming that you know translation is continuous.



        Your part (b) is on the right track, but it assumes that $V$ is the continuum, whereas it should be a normed vector space. You have the right idea of separating two sets by a very small set, but you shouldn't rely on coordinates (since you don't have any coordinates...). Use the norm instead.



        Your part (c) has a similar issue: unless you're in a finite dimensional space, there is neither reason nor justification for writing the sequence in coordinates. Again, you need to be using the norm. Notice that



        $$|lambda_n x_n| = |lambda_n| cdot |x_n| le |lambda_n| sup_{x in X} |x| to 0.$$



        The converse is in fact true, and can be handled similarly; choose an unbounded sequence ${x_n}$ and craft $lambda_n$ depending on $x_n$ so that $|lambda_n x_n| notto 0$. Constant norm works.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













        • $begingroup$
          Awesome, I got it! But for (b), I have some troubles. I thinking in $A_{1}, A_{2}$ such that $partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2} neq emptyset$ and $Vsetminus(A_{1}cup A_{2}) = partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2}$. How can I ensure that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ exist? Or how can I make explicit $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$?
          $endgroup$
          – Lucas Corrêa
          Jan 4 at 22:38






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          For your attempt, you used "positive" and "negative" as the separation condition. This doesn't work for the norm, because you cannot have a negative norm value... but there's no need to cut at zero. Try cutting somewhere else.
          $endgroup$
          – T. Bongers
          Jan 4 at 22:39














        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Your part (a) is fine, assuming that you know translation is continuous.



        Your part (b) is on the right track, but it assumes that $V$ is the continuum, whereas it should be a normed vector space. You have the right idea of separating two sets by a very small set, but you shouldn't rely on coordinates (since you don't have any coordinates...). Use the norm instead.



        Your part (c) has a similar issue: unless you're in a finite dimensional space, there is neither reason nor justification for writing the sequence in coordinates. Again, you need to be using the norm. Notice that



        $$|lambda_n x_n| = |lambda_n| cdot |x_n| le |lambda_n| sup_{x in X} |x| to 0.$$



        The converse is in fact true, and can be handled similarly; choose an unbounded sequence ${x_n}$ and craft $lambda_n$ depending on $x_n$ so that $|lambda_n x_n| notto 0$. Constant norm works.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Your part (a) is fine, assuming that you know translation is continuous.



        Your part (b) is on the right track, but it assumes that $V$ is the continuum, whereas it should be a normed vector space. You have the right idea of separating two sets by a very small set, but you shouldn't rely on coordinates (since you don't have any coordinates...). Use the norm instead.



        Your part (c) has a similar issue: unless you're in a finite dimensional space, there is neither reason nor justification for writing the sequence in coordinates. Again, you need to be using the norm. Notice that



        $$|lambda_n x_n| = |lambda_n| cdot |x_n| le |lambda_n| sup_{x in X} |x| to 0.$$



        The converse is in fact true, and can be handled similarly; choose an unbounded sequence ${x_n}$ and craft $lambda_n$ depending on $x_n$ so that $|lambda_n x_n| notto 0$. Constant norm works.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 4 at 22:28









        T. BongersT. Bongers

        23.1k54662




        23.1k54662












        • $begingroup$
          Awesome, I got it! But for (b), I have some troubles. I thinking in $A_{1}, A_{2}$ such that $partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2} neq emptyset$ and $Vsetminus(A_{1}cup A_{2}) = partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2}$. How can I ensure that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ exist? Or how can I make explicit $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$?
          $endgroup$
          – Lucas Corrêa
          Jan 4 at 22:38






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          For your attempt, you used "positive" and "negative" as the separation condition. This doesn't work for the norm, because you cannot have a negative norm value... but there's no need to cut at zero. Try cutting somewhere else.
          $endgroup$
          – T. Bongers
          Jan 4 at 22:39


















        • $begingroup$
          Awesome, I got it! But for (b), I have some troubles. I thinking in $A_{1}, A_{2}$ such that $partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2} neq emptyset$ and $Vsetminus(A_{1}cup A_{2}) = partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2}$. How can I ensure that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ exist? Or how can I make explicit $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$?
          $endgroup$
          – Lucas Corrêa
          Jan 4 at 22:38






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          For your attempt, you used "positive" and "negative" as the separation condition. This doesn't work for the norm, because you cannot have a negative norm value... but there's no need to cut at zero. Try cutting somewhere else.
          $endgroup$
          – T. Bongers
          Jan 4 at 22:39
















        $begingroup$
        Awesome, I got it! But for (b), I have some troubles. I thinking in $A_{1}, A_{2}$ such that $partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2} neq emptyset$ and $Vsetminus(A_{1}cup A_{2}) = partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2}$. How can I ensure that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ exist? Or how can I make explicit $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$?
        $endgroup$
        – Lucas Corrêa
        Jan 4 at 22:38




        $begingroup$
        Awesome, I got it! But for (b), I have some troubles. I thinking in $A_{1}, A_{2}$ such that $partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2} neq emptyset$ and $Vsetminus(A_{1}cup A_{2}) = partial A_{1} cap partial A_{2}$. How can I ensure that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ exist? Or how can I make explicit $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$?
        $endgroup$
        – Lucas Corrêa
        Jan 4 at 22:38




        1




        1




        $begingroup$
        For your attempt, you used "positive" and "negative" as the separation condition. This doesn't work for the norm, because you cannot have a negative norm value... but there's no need to cut at zero. Try cutting somewhere else.
        $endgroup$
        – T. Bongers
        Jan 4 at 22:39




        $begingroup$
        For your attempt, you used "positive" and "negative" as the separation condition. This doesn't work for the norm, because you cannot have a negative norm value... but there's no need to cut at zero. Try cutting somewhere else.
        $endgroup$
        – T. Bongers
        Jan 4 at 22:39











        1












        $begingroup$

        The converse is true, we'll prove it by contraposition:



        Assume that $X$ is unbounded. Hence for every $ninmathbb{N}$ exists $x_n in X$ such that $|x_n| ge n$. Consider the sequence $(lambda_n)_n = left(frac1nright)_n$. We have $lim_{ntoinfty} lambda_n = 0$ but
        $ |lambda_nx_n| ge 1, forall ninmathbb{N}$ so it cannot converge to $0$.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          1












          $begingroup$

          The converse is true, we'll prove it by contraposition:



          Assume that $X$ is unbounded. Hence for every $ninmathbb{N}$ exists $x_n in X$ such that $|x_n| ge n$. Consider the sequence $(lambda_n)_n = left(frac1nright)_n$. We have $lim_{ntoinfty} lambda_n = 0$ but
          $ |lambda_nx_n| ge 1, forall ninmathbb{N}$ so it cannot converge to $0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            The converse is true, we'll prove it by contraposition:



            Assume that $X$ is unbounded. Hence for every $ninmathbb{N}$ exists $x_n in X$ such that $|x_n| ge n$. Consider the sequence $(lambda_n)_n = left(frac1nright)_n$. We have $lim_{ntoinfty} lambda_n = 0$ but
            $ |lambda_nx_n| ge 1, forall ninmathbb{N}$ so it cannot converge to $0$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The converse is true, we'll prove it by contraposition:



            Assume that $X$ is unbounded. Hence for every $ninmathbb{N}$ exists $x_n in X$ such that $|x_n| ge n$. Consider the sequence $(lambda_n)_n = left(frac1nright)_n$. We have $lim_{ntoinfty} lambda_n = 0$ but
            $ |lambda_nx_n| ge 1, forall ninmathbb{N}$ so it cannot converge to $0$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jan 4 at 22:28









            mechanodroidmechanodroid

            27.3k62446




            27.3k62446























                1












                $begingroup$

                For the converse: suppose $X$ is not bounded. Then it contains some sequence $(x_n)$ such that $(|x_n|)toinfty$ (take $x_n$ to be an example given by the negation of the definition of "bounded" with the constant set to $n$). Take $lambda_n = frac{1}{|x_n|}$. Then $(lambda_n)to 0$, but $(lambda_nx_n)notto 0$, since $(|lambda_nx_n|) = (1) notto 0$. Thus, taking the contrapositive, we have the converse (NB: you've got a bit missing out of the contrapositive you've given in the title: you've dropped the $limlambda_n = 0$ bit).






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  For the converse: suppose $X$ is not bounded. Then it contains some sequence $(x_n)$ such that $(|x_n|)toinfty$ (take $x_n$ to be an example given by the negation of the definition of "bounded" with the constant set to $n$). Take $lambda_n = frac{1}{|x_n|}$. Then $(lambda_n)to 0$, but $(lambda_nx_n)notto 0$, since $(|lambda_nx_n|) = (1) notto 0$. Thus, taking the contrapositive, we have the converse (NB: you've got a bit missing out of the contrapositive you've given in the title: you've dropped the $limlambda_n = 0$ bit).






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    For the converse: suppose $X$ is not bounded. Then it contains some sequence $(x_n)$ such that $(|x_n|)toinfty$ (take $x_n$ to be an example given by the negation of the definition of "bounded" with the constant set to $n$). Take $lambda_n = frac{1}{|x_n|}$. Then $(lambda_n)to 0$, but $(lambda_nx_n)notto 0$, since $(|lambda_nx_n|) = (1) notto 0$. Thus, taking the contrapositive, we have the converse (NB: you've got a bit missing out of the contrapositive you've given in the title: you've dropped the $limlambda_n = 0$ bit).






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    For the converse: suppose $X$ is not bounded. Then it contains some sequence $(x_n)$ such that $(|x_n|)toinfty$ (take $x_n$ to be an example given by the negation of the definition of "bounded" with the constant set to $n$). Take $lambda_n = frac{1}{|x_n|}$. Then $(lambda_n)to 0$, but $(lambda_nx_n)notto 0$, since $(|lambda_nx_n|) = (1) notto 0$. Thus, taking the contrapositive, we have the converse (NB: you've got a bit missing out of the contrapositive you've given in the title: you've dropped the $limlambda_n = 0$ bit).







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jan 4 at 22:29









                    user3482749user3482749

                    4,266919




                    4,266919























                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        Your approach to part (a) is correct; to be more explicit, you could show why $A+b$ is open.



                        You have the right idea for part (b), but it needs to be stated a bit more generally. Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be disjoint open balls that both have some point $z$ in their closure. Then if $F_1$, $F_2$ are closed sets containing $A_1$, $A_2$, respectively, we have $zin F_1$ and $zin F_2$ since $F_1supset overline{A_1}$ and $F_2supsetoverline{A_2}$, so $F_1$ and $F_2$ cannot be disjoint. To construct such $A_1$ and $A_2$, let $x,y$ be distinct points in $V$ with $|x|=|y|$ and consider the open balls centered at $x$ and $y$ with radius $frac 12 |x-y|$. Then the point $frac12(x+y)$ is in the closure of both of these balls.



                        For part (c) I will defer to the accepted answer.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          1












                          $begingroup$

                          Your approach to part (a) is correct; to be more explicit, you could show why $A+b$ is open.



                          You have the right idea for part (b), but it needs to be stated a bit more generally. Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be disjoint open balls that both have some point $z$ in their closure. Then if $F_1$, $F_2$ are closed sets containing $A_1$, $A_2$, respectively, we have $zin F_1$ and $zin F_2$ since $F_1supset overline{A_1}$ and $F_2supsetoverline{A_2}$, so $F_1$ and $F_2$ cannot be disjoint. To construct such $A_1$ and $A_2$, let $x,y$ be distinct points in $V$ with $|x|=|y|$ and consider the open balls centered at $x$ and $y$ with radius $frac 12 |x-y|$. Then the point $frac12(x+y)$ is in the closure of both of these balls.



                          For part (c) I will defer to the accepted answer.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            1












                            1








                            1





                            $begingroup$

                            Your approach to part (a) is correct; to be more explicit, you could show why $A+b$ is open.



                            You have the right idea for part (b), but it needs to be stated a bit more generally. Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be disjoint open balls that both have some point $z$ in their closure. Then if $F_1$, $F_2$ are closed sets containing $A_1$, $A_2$, respectively, we have $zin F_1$ and $zin F_2$ since $F_1supset overline{A_1}$ and $F_2supsetoverline{A_2}$, so $F_1$ and $F_2$ cannot be disjoint. To construct such $A_1$ and $A_2$, let $x,y$ be distinct points in $V$ with $|x|=|y|$ and consider the open balls centered at $x$ and $y$ with radius $frac 12 |x-y|$. Then the point $frac12(x+y)$ is in the closure of both of these balls.



                            For part (c) I will defer to the accepted answer.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            Your approach to part (a) is correct; to be more explicit, you could show why $A+b$ is open.



                            You have the right idea for part (b), but it needs to be stated a bit more generally. Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be disjoint open balls that both have some point $z$ in their closure. Then if $F_1$, $F_2$ are closed sets containing $A_1$, $A_2$, respectively, we have $zin F_1$ and $zin F_2$ since $F_1supset overline{A_1}$ and $F_2supsetoverline{A_2}$, so $F_1$ and $F_2$ cannot be disjoint. To construct such $A_1$ and $A_2$, let $x,y$ be distinct points in $V$ with $|x|=|y|$ and consider the open balls centered at $x$ and $y$ with radius $frac 12 |x-y|$. Then the point $frac12(x+y)$ is in the closure of both of these balls.



                            For part (c) I will defer to the accepted answer.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Jan 4 at 22:40









                            Math1000Math1000

                            19.1k31745




                            19.1k31745






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                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.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062176%2fif-every-sequence-x-n-subset-x-and-lambda-n-subset-mathbbr-we%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                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







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Human spaceflight

                                Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                                張江高科駅