Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
Message from discussion closure of a subspace of l-infinity (space of bounded sequences)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
The World Wide Wade  
View profile
 More options Jul 6, 12:33 am
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: The World Wide Wade <aderamey.a...@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:33:27 -0700
Local: Sun, Jul 6 2008 12:33 am
Subject: Re: closure of a subspace of l-infinity (space of bounded sequences)
In article
<4381c95b-5a17-4910-abec-e16b0b2c4...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

 "zillo...@googlemail.com" <zillo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hello,

> Could someone verify that for the following statement, the proof given
> below it is correct:

> Statement: The subspace of l-infinity (space of bounded sequences with
> the sup norm) consisting of all scalar sequences converging to zero
> [let's call this subspace c0] is closed.

> Proof:

> For any point x in cl(c0) (the closure of c0) there exists a sequence
> (x_n) such that x_n -> x, (x_n's in c0)
> Let x be represented as (d_1, d_2, ... ) and x_n be represented as
> (d(n)_1, d(n)_2, ... )
> Then x_n -> x implies (taking into account the defn of the sup metric
> in l-infty)
> for all e > 0, there exists an N such |d_j - d(n)_j| < e for all j and
> all n > N

> Also, since every convergent sequence is Cauchy
> for all e > 0, there exists an N such that |d(n)_j - d(m)_j| < e for
> all j and all m, n > N
> Now,
> |d_j| <= |d_j - d(n)_j| + |d(n)_j - d(m)_j| +|d(m)_j|
> In RHS of the above inequality,
> 1st term can be made < e/3 for all j and all n > some N1
> 2nd term can be made < e/3 for all j and all m, n > some N2
> 3rd term < e/3 for all j > some Nj, since x_d -> 0

> Hence |d_j| < e for all n > max(N1, N2) and all j > Nj
> implying that x -> 0, hence x in c0
> Since x was chosen arbitrarily, every x in cl(c0) is in c0
> => c0 is closed

> End of proof

> Thanks...

I haven't read your proof carefully, but one thing to notice is you
are reproving a result you've probably seen before. Leaving out
details, the result is: If f_n -> f uniformly, then lim_x->a lim_n->oo
f_n(x) = lim_n->oo lim_x->a f_n(x)

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2008 Google