DOCSLIB.ORG

2.5 Let E◦ Denote the Set of All Interior Points of a Set E. (A) Prove That E◦ Is Always Open

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2.5 Let E◦ Denote the Set of All Interior Points of a Set E. (A) Prove That E◦ Is Always Open 2.5 Let E◦ denote the set of all interior points of a set E. Rudin' Ex. 9 (a) Prove that E◦ is always open. (b) Prove that E is open if and only if E◦ = E. (c) If G ⊂ E and G is open, prove that G ⊂ E◦. (d) Prove that the complement of E◦ is the closure of the complement of E. (e) Do E and E always have the same interiors? (f) Do E and E◦ always have the same closures? Proof (a) Suppose p 2 E◦. There there exists δ > 0 such that N(p; δ) ⊂ E. By Theorem 2.19, N(p; δ) is open. So, for any point x 2 N(p; δ), there exists > 0 such that N(x; ) ⊂ N(p; δ) ⊂ E. This means that every point in N(p; δ) is an interior point of E. Hence N(p; δ) ⊂ E◦. This implies E◦ is open. (b) If E = E◦, by (a), E is open. Conversely, suppose E is open. If p 2 E, then there exists δ > 0 such that N(p; δ) ⊂ E. This means that p is an interior point, so p 2 E◦. Hence E ⊂ E◦. On the other hand, interior points are E are necessarily in E, since any neighborhood of a point contains that point. Hence E◦ ⊂ E. We conclude that E = E◦. (c) If p 2 G, since G is open, there exists a neighborhood N of p such that p 2 N ⊂ G ⊂ E. This implies that p is an interior point of E, so p 2 E◦. Thus, G ⊂ E◦. (d) Suppose p 2 (E◦)c. Then p2 = E◦, that is, p is not an interior point of E. Hence, for any neighborhood N of p, necessarily N \ Ec 6= ;, otherwise N ⊂ E that contradicts to p2 = E◦. It follows that either p 2 Ec or there exists x 2 N \ Ec, with x 6= p. Equivalently, either p 2 Ec or p 2 (Ec)0. Thus, p 2 Ec [ (Ec)0 = Ec. This concludes that (E◦)c ⊂ Ec. The other inclusion Ec ⊂ (E◦)c can be obtained exactly by reversing the above arguments. (e) In general, E◦ 6= (E)◦. For example, take E = (−1; 0) [ (0; 1) ⊂ R. Then Ec = (−1; 0) [ (0; 1), and (E)◦ = [−1; 1]. (f) In general, E 6= E◦. For example, take E = Q. Then E = R, and E◦ = ;. 2.6 Let X be an infinite set. For p 2 X and q 2 X, define Rudin's Ex. 10 1; if p 6= q, d(p; q) = 0; if p = q. Prove that this is a metric. Which subsets of the resulting metric space are open? Which are closed? Which are compact? Proof To show that d is a metric, we only need to show the triangular inequality, since the other conditions hold obviously. Let p; q; r 2 X. If p = q, then d(p; q) = 0 ≤ d(p; r) + d(r; q). If p 6= q, then d(p; q) = 1, and d(p; r) + d(r; q) ≥ 1 since p; q; r cannot all be the same element. Hence again we have d(p; q) ≤ d(p; r) + d(r; q). Thus, d is a metric. 1 We claim that every subset A of X is open. In fact, if A = ;, then it is open. If A 6= ;, for any p 2 A, the neighborhood N 1 (p) = fpg ⊂ A. Again, A is open. 2 For any set A, from A = X − (X − A), since X − A is open, so A is closed. We claim that A is compact if and only if A is a finite set. It is clear from the definition that any finite set of X is compact. On the other hand, since N 1 (p) = fpg, 2 every point is isolated. Hence an infinite set of X has no any limit point, so cannot be compact, by Theorem 2.37. 2.7 For x 2 R and y 2 R, define Rudin's Ex. 11 2 d1(x; y) = (x − y) ; p d2(x; y) = jx − yj; 2 2 d3(x; y) = jx − y j; d4(x; y) = jx − 2yj; jx − yj d (x; y) = : 5 1 + jx − yj Determine, for each of these, whether it is a metric or not. Proof For each of these we must determine whether d(x; y) > 0 for x 6= y; d(x; x) = 0 for any x 2 R; d(x; y) = d(y; x); and d(x; y) ≤ d(x; z) + d(z; y). d1 is not a metric because it does not satisfy the triangle inequality. For example, d1(0; 2) = 4 > d1(0; 1) + d1(1; 2) = 1 + 1 = 2. p d2 is a metric. d2(x; y) = jx − yj > 0 if x 6= y; and d2(x; x) = 0 for all x 2 R. p p d2(x; y) = jx − yj = jy − xj = d2(y; x). Since jx − yj ≤ jx − zj + jz − yj, we have pjx − yj ≤ pjx − zj + jz − yj ≤ pjx − zj + pjz − yj: This is the triangular inequality for d2. 2 2 d3 is not a metric, since d3(1; −2) = j1 − (−1) j = 0. d4 is not a metric, since d4(1; 1) = j1 − 2j = 1 6= 0. d5 is a metric. In fact, it is known that d(x; y) = jx − yj is a metric of R. We shall show that whenever d is a metric, then d(x; y) D(x; y) = 1 + d(x; y) is a metric. We only check the triangular inequality for D since the other conditions are easy to be verified. 2 In fact, since d(x; y) ≤ d(x; z) + d(z; y), we have d(x; y) d(x; z) + d(z; y) d(x; y) d(x; z) + d(z; y) = + − 1 + d(x; y) 1 + d(x; z) + d(z; y) 1 + d(x; y) 1 + d(x; z) + d(z; y) d(x; z) d(z; y) ≤ + 1 + d(x; z) + d(z; y) 1 + d(x; z) + d(z; y) d(x; y) − [d(x; z) + d(z; y)] + [1 + d(x; y)][1 + d(x; z) + d(z; y)] d(x; z) d(z; y) ≤ + ; 1 + d(x; z) 1 + d(z; y) that is, D(x; y) ≤ D(x; z) + D(z; y). 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uniform Boundedness Principle for Unbounded Operators
    UNIFORM BOUNDEDNESS PRINCIPLE FOR UNBOUNDED OPERATORS C. GANESA MOORTHY and CT. RAMASAMY Abstract. A uniform boundedness principle for unbounded operators is derived. A particular case is: Suppose fTigi2I is a family of linear mappings of a Banach space X into a normed space Y such that fTix : i 2 Ig is bounded for each x 2 X; then there exists a dense subset A of the open unit ball in X such that fTix : i 2 I; x 2 Ag is bounded. A closed graph theorem and a bounded inverse theorem are obtained for families of linear mappings as consequences of this principle. Some applications of this principle are also obtained. 1. Introduction There are many forms for uniform boundedness principle. There is no known evidence for this principle for unbounded operators which generalizes classical uniform boundedness principle for bounded operators. The second section presents a uniform boundedness principle for unbounded operators. An application to derive Hellinger-Toeplitz theorem is also obtained in this section. A JJ J I II closed graph theorem and a bounded inverse theorem are obtained for families of linear mappings in the third section as consequences of this principle. Go back Let us assume the following: Every vector space X is over R or C. An α-seminorm (0 < α ≤ 1) is a mapping p: X ! [0; 1) such that p(x + y) ≤ p(x) + p(y), p(ax) ≤ jajαp(x) for all x; y 2 X Full Screen Close Received November 7, 2013. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 46A32, 47L60. Key words and phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Boundary Between Mereology and Topology
    On the Boundary Between Mereology and Topology Achille C. Varzi Istituto per la Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica, I-38100 Trento, Italy [email protected] (Final version published in Roberto Casati, Barry Smith, and Graham White (eds.), Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences. Proceedings of the 16th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Vienna, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1994, pp. 423–442.) 1. Introduction Much recent work aimed at providing a formal ontology for the common-sense world has emphasized the need for a mereological account to be supplemented with topological concepts and principles. There are at least two reasons under- lying this view. The first is truly metaphysical and relates to the task of charac- terizing individual integrity or organic unity: since the notion of connectedness runs afoul of plain mereology, a theory of parts and wholes really needs to in- corporate a topological machinery of some sort. The second reason has been stressed mainly in connection with applications to certain areas of artificial in- telligence, most notably naive physics and qualitative reasoning about space and time: here mereology proves useful to account for certain basic relation- ships among things or events; but one needs topology to account for the fact that, say, two events can be continuous with each other, or that something can be inside, outside, abutting, or surrounding something else. These motivations (at times combined with others, e.g., semantic transpar- ency or computational efficiency) have led to the development of theories in which both mereological and topological notions play a pivotal role. How ex- actly these notions are related, however, and how the underlying principles should interact with one another, is still a rather unexplored issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Baire Category Theorem and Uniform Boundedness Principle)
    Functional Analysis (WS 19/20), Problem Set 3 (Baire Category Theorem and Uniform Boundedness Principle) Baire Category Theorem B1. Let (X; k·kX ) be an innite dimensional Banach space. Prove that X has uncountable Hamel basis. Note: This is Problem A2 from Problem Set 1. B2. Consider subset of bounded sequences 1 A = fx 2 l : only nitely many xk are nonzerog : Can one dene a norm on A so that it becomes a Banach space? Consider the same question with the set of polynomials dened on interval [0; 1]. B3. Prove that the set L2(0; 1) has empty interior as the subset of Banach space L1(0; 1). B4. Let f : [0; 1) ! [0; 1) be a continuous function such that for every x 2 [0; 1), f(kx) ! 0 as k ! 1. Prove that f(x) ! 0 as x ! 1. B5.( Uniform Boundedness Principle) Let (X; k · kX ) be a Banach space and (Y; k · kY ) be a normed space. Let fTαgα2A be a family of bounded linear operators between X and Y . Suppose that for any x 2 X, sup kTαxkY < 1: α2A Prove that . supα2A kTαk < 1 Uniform Boundedness Principle U1. Let F be a normed space C[0; 1] with L2(0; 1) norm. Check that the formula 1 Z n 'n(f) = n f(t) dt 0 denes a bounded linear functional on . Verify that for every , F f 2 F supn2N j'n(f)j < 1 but . Why Uniform Boundedness Principle is not satised in this case? supn2N k'nk = 1 U2.( pointwise convergence of operators) Let (X; k · kX ) be a Banach space and (Y; k · kY ) be a normed space.
    [Show full text]
  • FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS 1. Banach and Hilbert Spaces in What
    FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PIOTR HAJLASZ 1. Banach and Hilbert spaces In what follows K will denote R of C. Definition. A normed space is a pair (X, k · k), where X is a linear space over K and k · k : X → [0, ∞) is a function, called a norm, such that (1) kx + yk ≤ kxk + kyk for all x, y ∈ X; (2) kαxk = |α|kxk for all x ∈ X and α ∈ K; (3) kxk = 0 if and only if x = 0. Since kx − yk ≤ kx − zk + kz − yk for all x, y, z ∈ X, d(x, y) = kx − yk defines a metric in a normed space. In what follows normed paces will always be regarded as metric spaces with respect to the metric d. A normed space is called a Banach space if it is complete with respect to the metric d. Definition. Let X be a linear space over K (=R or C). The inner product (scalar product) is a function h·, ·i : X × X → K such that (1) hx, xi ≥ 0; (2) hx, xi = 0 if and only if x = 0; (3) hαx, yi = αhx, yi; (4) hx1 + x2, yi = hx1, yi + hx2, yi; (5) hx, yi = hy, xi, for all x, x1, x2, y ∈ X and all α ∈ K. As an obvious corollary we obtain hx, y1 + y2i = hx, y1i + hx, y2i, hx, αyi = αhx, yi , Date: February 12, 2009. 1 2 PIOTR HAJLASZ for all x, y1, y2 ∈ X and α ∈ K. For a space with an inner product we define kxk = phx, xi . Lemma 1.1 (Schwarz inequality).
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Optimization in Hilbert Space
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Theses Digitization Project John M. Pfau Library 1998 A study of optimization in Hilbert Space John Awunganyi Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project Part of the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Awunganyi, John, "A study of optimization in Hilbert Space" (1998). Theses Digitization Project. 1459. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project/1459 This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the John M. Pfau Library at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses Digitization Project by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A STUDY OF OPTIMIZATIONIN HELBERT SPACE A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the Degree Master ofArts in Mathematics by John Awunganyi June 1998 A STUDY OF OPTIMIZATION IN HILBERT SPACE A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by John Awunganyi June 1998 Approved by; Dr. Chetan Prakash, Chair, Mathematics Date r. Wenxang Wang Dr. Christopher Freiling Dr. Terry Hallett, Graduate Coordinator Dr. Peter Williams, Department Chair ABSTRACT The primary objective ofthis project is to demonstrate that a certain field ofoptimization can be effectively unified by afew geometric principles ofcomplete normed linear space theory. By employing these principles, important and complex finite - dimensional problems can be interpreted and solved by methods springing from geometric insight. Concepts such as distance, orthogonality, and convexity play a fundamental and indispensable role in this development. Viewed in these terms, seemingly diverse problems and techniques often are found to be closely related.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hilbert Space Theory of Generalized Graph Signal Processing
    1 A Hilbert Space Theory of Generalized Graph Signal Processing Feng Ji and Wee Peng Tay, Senior Member, IEEE Abstract Graph signal processing (GSP) has become an important tool in many areas such as image pro- cessing, networking learning and analysis of social network data. In this paper, we propose a broader framework that not only encompasses traditional GSP as a special case, but also includes a hybrid framework of graph and classical signal processing over a continuous domain. Our framework relies extensively on concepts and tools from functional analysis to generalize traditional GSP to graph signals in a separable Hilbert space with infinite dimensions. We develop a concept analogous to Fourier transform for generalized GSP and the theory of filtering and sampling such signals. Index Terms Graph signal proceesing, Hilbert space, generalized graph signals, F-transform, filtering, sampling I. INTRODUCTION Since its emergence, the theory and applications of graph signal processing (GSP) have rapidly developed (see for example, [1]–[10]). Traditional GSP theory is essentially based on a change of orthonormal basis in a finite dimensional vector space. Suppose G = (V; E) is a weighted, arXiv:1904.11655v2 [eess.SP] 16 Sep 2019 undirected graph with V the vertex set of size n and E the set of edges. Recall that a graph signal f assigns a complex number to each vertex, and hence f can be regarded as an element of n C , where C is the set of complex numbers. The heart of the theory is a shift operator AG that is usually defined using a property of the graph.
    [Show full text]
  • HILBERT SPACES in MODELLING of SYSTEMS Jean Claude Dutailly
    HILBERT SPACES IN MODELLING OF SYSTEMS Jean Claude Dutailly To cite this version: Jean Claude Dutailly. HILBERT SPACES IN MODELLING OF SYSTEMS. 2014. hal-00974251 HAL Id: hal-00974251 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00974251 Preprint submitted on 5 Apr 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. HILBERT SPACES IN MODELLING OF SYSTEMS Jean Claude Dutailly Paris April 4, 2014 Abstract This paper studies the quantitative models which are used to represent systems, whatever the field (Physics, Economics, Finances,...). We prove that models which meet some very general conditions can be associated to Hilbert vector spaces : the state of the system is then identified with a unique vector. The measure of this state is done through observables, whose properties are studied and we show that they can take only values which are eigen vectors of the observables, and a probability law can be associated to the occurence of these measures. The effect of a change of variables in a model is related to a unitary operator. This leads to general laws for the evolution of systems, and to powerful tools for the study of transitions of phases in a system.
    [Show full text]
  • Normal Families of Holomorphic Functions and Mappings on a Banach Space
    EXPOSITIONES Expo. Math. 21 (2003): 193-218 © Urban & Fischer Verlag MATHEMATICAE www. urbanfischer.de/journals/expomath Normal Families of Holomorphic Functions and Mappings on a Banach Space Kang-Tae Kim 1 and Steven G. Krantz 2 1Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang 790-784, Korea 2 Department of Mathematics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, U.S.A. Abstract: The authors lay the foundations for the study of nor- mal families of holomorphic functions and mappings on an infinite- dimensional normed linear space. Characterizations of normal fami- lies, in terms of value distribution, spherical derivatives, and other geo- metric properties are derived. Montel-type theorems are established. A number of different topologies on spaces of holomorphic mappings are considered. Theorems about normal families are formulated and proved in the language of these various topologies. Normal functions are also introduced. Characterizations in terms of automorphisms and also in terms of invariant derivatives are presented. Keywords: holomorphic function, holomorphic mapping, Banach space, normal family, normal function. Introduction The theory of holomorphic functions of infinitely many complex variables is about forty years old. Pioneers of the subject were Nachbin [NAC1-NAC17], Gruman and Kiselman [GRK], and Mujica [MUJ]. After a quiet period of nearly two decades, the discipline is now enjoying a rebirth thanks to the ideas of Lempert [LEM1-LEM6]. Lempert has taught us that it is worthwhile to restrict attention to particular Banach spaces, and he has directed our efforts to especially fruitful questions. The work of the present paper is inspired by the results of [KIK]. That paper studied domains in a Hilbert space with an automorphism group orbit accumulating at a boundary point.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Linear Inner Structure of Topological Vector Spaces
    mathematics Article Non-Linear Inner Structure of Topological Vector Spaces Francisco Javier García-Pacheco 1,*,† , Soledad Moreno-Pulido 1,† , Enrique Naranjo-Guerra 1,† and Alberto Sánchez-Alzola 2,† 1 Department of Mathematics, College of Engineering, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, CA, Spain; [email protected] (S.M.-P.); [email protected] (E.N.-G.) 2 Department of Statistics and Operation Research, College of Engineering, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real (CA), Spain; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Inner structure appeared in the literature of topological vector spaces as a tool to charac- terize the extremal structure of convex sets. For instance, in recent years, inner structure has been used to provide a solution to The Faceless Problem and to characterize the finest locally convex vector topology on a real vector space. This manuscript goes one step further by settling the bases for studying the inner structure of non-convex sets. In first place, we observe that the well behaviour of the extremal structure of convex sets with respect to the inner structure does not transport to non-convex sets in the following sense: it has been already proved that if a face of a convex set intersects the inner points, then the face is the whole convex set; however, in the non-convex setting, we find an example of a non-convex set with a proper extremal subset that intersects the inner points. On the opposite, we prove that if a extremal subset of a non-necessarily convex set intersects the affine internal points, then the extremal subset coincides with the whole set.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 396. Interior, Closure, and Boundary We Wish to Develop Some Basic Geometric Concepts in Metric Spaces Which Make Precise C
    Math 396. Interior, closure, and boundary We wish to develop some basic geometric concepts in metric spaces which make precise certain intuitive ideas centered on the themes of \interior" and \boundary" of a subset of a metric space. One warning must be given. Although there are a number of results proven in this handout, none of it is particularly deep. If you carefully study the proofs (which you should!), then you'll see that none of this requires going much beyond the basic definitions. We will certainly encounter some serious ideas and non-trivial proofs in due course, but at this point the central aim is to acquire some linguistic ability when discussing some basic geometric ideas in a metric space. Thus, the main goal is to familiarize ourselves with some very convenient geometric terminology in terms of which we can discuss more sophisticated ideas later on. 1. Interior and closure Let X be a metric space and A X a subset. We define the interior of A to be the set ⊆ int(A) = a A some Br (a) A; ra > 0 f 2 j a ⊆ g consisting of points for which A is a \neighborhood". We define the closure of A to be the set A = x X x = lim an; with an A for all n n f 2 j !1 2 g consisting of limits of sequences in A. In words, the interior consists of points in A for which all nearby points of X are also in A, whereas the closure allows for \points on the edge of A".
    [Show full text]
  • A Uniquness Theorem for Twisted Groupoid C*-Algebras
    A UNIQUENESS THEOREM FOR TWISTED GROUPOID C*-ALGEBRAS BECKY ARMSTRONG Abstract. We present a uniqueness theorem for the reduced C*-algebra of a twist E over a Hausdorff ´etalegroupoid G. We show that the interior IE of the isotropy of E is a twist over the interior IG of the isotropy of G, and that the reduced twisted groupoid C*- ∗ G E ∗ algebra Cr (I ; I ) embeds in Cr (G; E). We also investigate the full and reduced twisted C*-algebras of the isotropy groups of G, and we provide a sufficient condition under which states of (not necessarily unital) C*-algebras have unique state extensions. We use these results to prove our uniqueness theorem, which states that a C*-homomorphism ∗ ∗ G E of Cr (G; E) is injective if and only if its restriction to Cr (I ; I ) is injective. We also ∗ show that if G is effective, then Cr (G; E) is simple if and only if G is minimal. 1. Introduction 1.1. Background. The purpose of this article is prove a uniqueness theorem for the reduced C*-algebra of a twist E over a second-countable locally compact Hausdorff ´etale groupoid G. The study of twisted groupoid C*-algebras was initiated by Renault [32], who generalised twisted group C*-algebras by constructing full and reduced C*-algebras ∗ ∗ C (G; σ) and Cr (G; σ) from a second-countable locally compact Hausdorff groupoid G and a continuous 2-cocycle σ on G taking values in the complex unit circle T. Renault also realised C∗(G; σ) as a quotient of the C*-algebra associated to the extension of G by T defined by the 2-cocycle σ.
    [Show full text]
  • From Imitation Games to Kakutani
    From Imitation Games to Kakutani Andrew McLennan∗ and Rabee Tourky† October 17, 2005 Abstract We give a full proof of the Kakutani (1941) fixed point theorem that is brief, elementary, and based on game theoretic concepts. This proof points to a new family of algorithms for computing approximate fixed points that have advantages over simplicial subdivision methods. An imitation game is a finite two person normal form game in which the strategy spaces for the two agents are the same and the goal of the second player is to choose the same strategy as the first player. These appear in our proof, but are also interesting from other points of view. Keywords: Imitation games, Lemke paths, Kakutani’s fixed point theo- rem, Lemke-Howson algorithm, long and short paths, approximate fixed point, approximate eigenvectors, Krylov method. 1 Introduction We give a new complete1 proof of Kakutani’s fixed point theorem. In com- parison with earlier complete proofs of Brouwer’s and Kakutani’s fixed point theorems (to a greater or lesser extent depending on the proof) our argument has several advantages. It is elementary. It is direct, arriving at Kakutani’s ∗Department of Economics, The University of Minnesota, 1035 Management and Eco- nomics, 271 19th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55455, and Discipline of Economics, H-04 Merewether Building, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia. The hospitality of the Economic Theory Center of the University of Melbourne is gratefully acknowledged. We are grateful for comments by participants of the 2004 International Conference on Economic Theory at Keio University, the 2004 Canadian Economic Theory Conference, Games 2004, the International Conference in Honor of JerzyLo´s, the 2004 UBC Summer Workshop in Economic Theory, and the University of Minnesota Combinatorics Workshop.
    [Show full text]