Convergence with respect to $d_1(x,y)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i-y_i|}{1+|x_i-y_i|}$ is equivalent...
$begingroup$
This was part of an exercise given to the students in my class last week which I wasn't sure how to do. The question starts by studying the metric $d_1$ defined on $mathbb{R}^infty={x=(x_i)mid iinmathbb{N}}$ given by
$$d_1(x,y)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i-y_i|}{1+|x_i-y_i|},qquad x,yinmathbb{R}^infty.$$
The students are asked to show that this is indeed a metric and compare it with another metric defined on the same space, none of which is difficult. Finally the question asks to show that if $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}subseteqmathbb{R}^infty$ is a sequence, then its convergence to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$ with respect to $d_1$ is equivalent to its pointwise convergence to the same point.
As I understand it, pointwise convergence should mean that for each $iinmathbb{N}$, and each real $epsilon>0$ there exists $N=N(epsilon,i)inmathbb{N}$ such that $|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|<epsilon$ whenever $n>N$.
Now one direction is clear to me, but proving that pointwise convergence implies $d_1$-convergence is not. Can anyone help me out with this direction?
What I need to show is that given any real $delta>0$ there exists $M=M(delta)inmathbb{N}$ such that
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|}{1+|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|}<delta$$
whenever $n>M$, using the assumption of pointwise convergence which I believe to have interpreted correctly just above. The problem seems to be that whilst a suitable $M=M(epsilon,i)$ exists for each $i$, it is by no means clear to me that this collection of $M$s is bounded above.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
sequences-and-series metric-spaces
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This was part of an exercise given to the students in my class last week which I wasn't sure how to do. The question starts by studying the metric $d_1$ defined on $mathbb{R}^infty={x=(x_i)mid iinmathbb{N}}$ given by
$$d_1(x,y)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i-y_i|}{1+|x_i-y_i|},qquad x,yinmathbb{R}^infty.$$
The students are asked to show that this is indeed a metric and compare it with another metric defined on the same space, none of which is difficult. Finally the question asks to show that if $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}subseteqmathbb{R}^infty$ is a sequence, then its convergence to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$ with respect to $d_1$ is equivalent to its pointwise convergence to the same point.
As I understand it, pointwise convergence should mean that for each $iinmathbb{N}$, and each real $epsilon>0$ there exists $N=N(epsilon,i)inmathbb{N}$ such that $|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|<epsilon$ whenever $n>N$.
Now one direction is clear to me, but proving that pointwise convergence implies $d_1$-convergence is not. Can anyone help me out with this direction?
What I need to show is that given any real $delta>0$ there exists $M=M(delta)inmathbb{N}$ such that
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|}{1+|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|}<delta$$
whenever $n>M$, using the assumption of pointwise convergence which I believe to have interpreted correctly just above. The problem seems to be that whilst a suitable $M=M(epsilon,i)$ exists for each $i$, it is by no means clear to me that this collection of $M$s is bounded above.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
sequences-and-series metric-spaces
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Is it okay that $d_1$ can be infinite? For example, define $x^{(n)}$ to be a sequence starting with $n$ zeros and then all ones. Its point-wise limit is a sequence consisting only of zeros. But the $d_1$-distance from any $x^{(n)}$ to the limit is infinite
$endgroup$
– Sasha Kozachinskiy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:25
$begingroup$
Usually the "mimic metric" for pointwise convergence is taken to be $$d(x,y)=sum_{n=1}^{infty}2^{-n}frac{|x_n-y_n|}{1+|x_n-y_n|}.$$
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
$begingroup$
@SashaKozachinskiy, sorry about that, and thank you for pointing out the error. I have fixed the correct definition of the metric. Sorry for the confusion. metamorphy, I have corrected the mistake. Than you for pointing it out.
$endgroup$
– Tyrone
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
1
$begingroup$
The crucial point to observe is that the $n$-th term in the series is always bounded above by $2^{-n}$, so you can make the tail of this series as small as you want, say smaller than $epsilon/2$...
$endgroup$
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 18 '18 at 17:33
$begingroup$
(Now you don't need the "boundedness" of $M$'s...)
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:36
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This was part of an exercise given to the students in my class last week which I wasn't sure how to do. The question starts by studying the metric $d_1$ defined on $mathbb{R}^infty={x=(x_i)mid iinmathbb{N}}$ given by
$$d_1(x,y)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i-y_i|}{1+|x_i-y_i|},qquad x,yinmathbb{R}^infty.$$
The students are asked to show that this is indeed a metric and compare it with another metric defined on the same space, none of which is difficult. Finally the question asks to show that if $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}subseteqmathbb{R}^infty$ is a sequence, then its convergence to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$ with respect to $d_1$ is equivalent to its pointwise convergence to the same point.
As I understand it, pointwise convergence should mean that for each $iinmathbb{N}$, and each real $epsilon>0$ there exists $N=N(epsilon,i)inmathbb{N}$ such that $|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|<epsilon$ whenever $n>N$.
Now one direction is clear to me, but proving that pointwise convergence implies $d_1$-convergence is not. Can anyone help me out with this direction?
What I need to show is that given any real $delta>0$ there exists $M=M(delta)inmathbb{N}$ such that
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|}{1+|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|}<delta$$
whenever $n>M$, using the assumption of pointwise convergence which I believe to have interpreted correctly just above. The problem seems to be that whilst a suitable $M=M(epsilon,i)$ exists for each $i$, it is by no means clear to me that this collection of $M$s is bounded above.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
sequences-and-series metric-spaces
$endgroup$
This was part of an exercise given to the students in my class last week which I wasn't sure how to do. The question starts by studying the metric $d_1$ defined on $mathbb{R}^infty={x=(x_i)mid iinmathbb{N}}$ given by
$$d_1(x,y)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i-y_i|}{1+|x_i-y_i|},qquad x,yinmathbb{R}^infty.$$
The students are asked to show that this is indeed a metric and compare it with another metric defined on the same space, none of which is difficult. Finally the question asks to show that if $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}subseteqmathbb{R}^infty$ is a sequence, then its convergence to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$ with respect to $d_1$ is equivalent to its pointwise convergence to the same point.
As I understand it, pointwise convergence should mean that for each $iinmathbb{N}$, and each real $epsilon>0$ there exists $N=N(epsilon,i)inmathbb{N}$ such that $|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|<epsilon$ whenever $n>N$.
Now one direction is clear to me, but proving that pointwise convergence implies $d_1$-convergence is not. Can anyone help me out with this direction?
What I need to show is that given any real $delta>0$ there exists $M=M(delta)inmathbb{N}$ such that
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|}{1+|x^{(n)}_i-x_i|}<delta$$
whenever $n>M$, using the assumption of pointwise convergence which I believe to have interpreted correctly just above. The problem seems to be that whilst a suitable $M=M(epsilon,i)$ exists for each $i$, it is by no means clear to me that this collection of $M$s is bounded above.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
sequences-and-series metric-spaces
sequences-and-series metric-spaces
edited Dec 18 '18 at 17:30
Tyrone
asked Dec 18 '18 at 17:11
TyroneTyrone
5,26711226
5,26711226
1
$begingroup$
Is it okay that $d_1$ can be infinite? For example, define $x^{(n)}$ to be a sequence starting with $n$ zeros and then all ones. Its point-wise limit is a sequence consisting only of zeros. But the $d_1$-distance from any $x^{(n)}$ to the limit is infinite
$endgroup$
– Sasha Kozachinskiy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:25
$begingroup$
Usually the "mimic metric" for pointwise convergence is taken to be $$d(x,y)=sum_{n=1}^{infty}2^{-n}frac{|x_n-y_n|}{1+|x_n-y_n|}.$$
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
$begingroup$
@SashaKozachinskiy, sorry about that, and thank you for pointing out the error. I have fixed the correct definition of the metric. Sorry for the confusion. metamorphy, I have corrected the mistake. Than you for pointing it out.
$endgroup$
– Tyrone
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
1
$begingroup$
The crucial point to observe is that the $n$-th term in the series is always bounded above by $2^{-n}$, so you can make the tail of this series as small as you want, say smaller than $epsilon/2$...
$endgroup$
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 18 '18 at 17:33
$begingroup$
(Now you don't need the "boundedness" of $M$'s...)
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:36
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
Is it okay that $d_1$ can be infinite? For example, define $x^{(n)}$ to be a sequence starting with $n$ zeros and then all ones. Its point-wise limit is a sequence consisting only of zeros. But the $d_1$-distance from any $x^{(n)}$ to the limit is infinite
$endgroup$
– Sasha Kozachinskiy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:25
$begingroup$
Usually the "mimic metric" for pointwise convergence is taken to be $$d(x,y)=sum_{n=1}^{infty}2^{-n}frac{|x_n-y_n|}{1+|x_n-y_n|}.$$
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
$begingroup$
@SashaKozachinskiy, sorry about that, and thank you for pointing out the error. I have fixed the correct definition of the metric. Sorry for the confusion. metamorphy, I have corrected the mistake. Than you for pointing it out.
$endgroup$
– Tyrone
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
1
$begingroup$
The crucial point to observe is that the $n$-th term in the series is always bounded above by $2^{-n}$, so you can make the tail of this series as small as you want, say smaller than $epsilon/2$...
$endgroup$
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 18 '18 at 17:33
$begingroup$
(Now you don't need the "boundedness" of $M$'s...)
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:36
1
1
$begingroup$
Is it okay that $d_1$ can be infinite? For example, define $x^{(n)}$ to be a sequence starting with $n$ zeros and then all ones. Its point-wise limit is a sequence consisting only of zeros. But the $d_1$-distance from any $x^{(n)}$ to the limit is infinite
$endgroup$
– Sasha Kozachinskiy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:25
$begingroup$
Is it okay that $d_1$ can be infinite? For example, define $x^{(n)}$ to be a sequence starting with $n$ zeros and then all ones. Its point-wise limit is a sequence consisting only of zeros. But the $d_1$-distance from any $x^{(n)}$ to the limit is infinite
$endgroup$
– Sasha Kozachinskiy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:25
$begingroup$
Usually the "mimic metric" for pointwise convergence is taken to be $$d(x,y)=sum_{n=1}^{infty}2^{-n}frac{|x_n-y_n|}{1+|x_n-y_n|}.$$
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
$begingroup$
Usually the "mimic metric" for pointwise convergence is taken to be $$d(x,y)=sum_{n=1}^{infty}2^{-n}frac{|x_n-y_n|}{1+|x_n-y_n|}.$$
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
$begingroup$
@SashaKozachinskiy, sorry about that, and thank you for pointing out the error. I have fixed the correct definition of the metric. Sorry for the confusion. metamorphy, I have corrected the mistake. Than you for pointing it out.
$endgroup$
– Tyrone
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
$begingroup$
@SashaKozachinskiy, sorry about that, and thank you for pointing out the error. I have fixed the correct definition of the metric. Sorry for the confusion. metamorphy, I have corrected the mistake. Than you for pointing it out.
$endgroup$
– Tyrone
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
1
1
$begingroup$
The crucial point to observe is that the $n$-th term in the series is always bounded above by $2^{-n}$, so you can make the tail of this series as small as you want, say smaller than $epsilon/2$...
$endgroup$
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 18 '18 at 17:33
$begingroup$
The crucial point to observe is that the $n$-th term in the series is always bounded above by $2^{-n}$, so you can make the tail of this series as small as you want, say smaller than $epsilon/2$...
$endgroup$
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 18 '18 at 17:33
$begingroup$
(Now you don't need the "boundedness" of $M$'s...)
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:36
$begingroup$
(Now you don't need the "boundedness" of $M$'s...)
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:36
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
So this is the answer I ended up giving my students. I'll use the notation introduced in the question itself.
We assume that $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ is a sequence converging pointwise to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$. We also assume given a real $delta>0$. Now, since for any $n$, the value $d_1(x^{(n)},x)$ is bounded above by the absolutely convergent series $sum^infty_{n=1}frac{1}{2^n}=1$ we can find for the given sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ an integer $K$ such that the inequality
$$sup_{ninmathbb{N}}left{sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}right}<frac{delta}{2}$$
is satisfied. Notably $K$ is independent of $n$.
Now for each $i=1,dots,K$ we use the assumption of pointwise convergence to get integers $N_i$, $i=1,dots,K$, such that
$$|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|<frac{delta}{frac{2K}{2^i}-delta}.$$
Note that if necessary we are free to replace $K$ be any larger (but finite) integer so as to guarantee that $frac{2K}{2^i}-deltaneq 0$ for each $i$.
After a little rearranging we get from this that
$$sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<sum^K_{i=1}frac{delta}{2K}=Kcdot frac{delta}{2K}=frac{delta}{2}$$
whenever $n>N:=max_{i}n_i$, and we use this to get
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}=sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}+sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<frac{delta}{2}+frac{delta}{2}=delta$$
which is enough to conclude that the sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ converges to $x$ with respect to the metric $d_1$. This is exactly what we needed to show, so we are done.
$endgroup$
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%2f3045421%2fconvergence-with-respect-to-d-1x-y-sum-infty-i-1-frac12i-fracx-i-y%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
So this is the answer I ended up giving my students. I'll use the notation introduced in the question itself.
We assume that $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ is a sequence converging pointwise to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$. We also assume given a real $delta>0$. Now, since for any $n$, the value $d_1(x^{(n)},x)$ is bounded above by the absolutely convergent series $sum^infty_{n=1}frac{1}{2^n}=1$ we can find for the given sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ an integer $K$ such that the inequality
$$sup_{ninmathbb{N}}left{sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}right}<frac{delta}{2}$$
is satisfied. Notably $K$ is independent of $n$.
Now for each $i=1,dots,K$ we use the assumption of pointwise convergence to get integers $N_i$, $i=1,dots,K$, such that
$$|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|<frac{delta}{frac{2K}{2^i}-delta}.$$
Note that if necessary we are free to replace $K$ be any larger (but finite) integer so as to guarantee that $frac{2K}{2^i}-deltaneq 0$ for each $i$.
After a little rearranging we get from this that
$$sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<sum^K_{i=1}frac{delta}{2K}=Kcdot frac{delta}{2K}=frac{delta}{2}$$
whenever $n>N:=max_{i}n_i$, and we use this to get
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}=sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}+sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<frac{delta}{2}+frac{delta}{2}=delta$$
which is enough to conclude that the sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ converges to $x$ with respect to the metric $d_1$. This is exactly what we needed to show, so we are done.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So this is the answer I ended up giving my students. I'll use the notation introduced in the question itself.
We assume that $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ is a sequence converging pointwise to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$. We also assume given a real $delta>0$. Now, since for any $n$, the value $d_1(x^{(n)},x)$ is bounded above by the absolutely convergent series $sum^infty_{n=1}frac{1}{2^n}=1$ we can find for the given sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ an integer $K$ such that the inequality
$$sup_{ninmathbb{N}}left{sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}right}<frac{delta}{2}$$
is satisfied. Notably $K$ is independent of $n$.
Now for each $i=1,dots,K$ we use the assumption of pointwise convergence to get integers $N_i$, $i=1,dots,K$, such that
$$|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|<frac{delta}{frac{2K}{2^i}-delta}.$$
Note that if necessary we are free to replace $K$ be any larger (but finite) integer so as to guarantee that $frac{2K}{2^i}-deltaneq 0$ for each $i$.
After a little rearranging we get from this that
$$sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<sum^K_{i=1}frac{delta}{2K}=Kcdot frac{delta}{2K}=frac{delta}{2}$$
whenever $n>N:=max_{i}n_i$, and we use this to get
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}=sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}+sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<frac{delta}{2}+frac{delta}{2}=delta$$
which is enough to conclude that the sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ converges to $x$ with respect to the metric $d_1$. This is exactly what we needed to show, so we are done.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So this is the answer I ended up giving my students. I'll use the notation introduced in the question itself.
We assume that $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ is a sequence converging pointwise to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$. We also assume given a real $delta>0$. Now, since for any $n$, the value $d_1(x^{(n)},x)$ is bounded above by the absolutely convergent series $sum^infty_{n=1}frac{1}{2^n}=1$ we can find for the given sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ an integer $K$ such that the inequality
$$sup_{ninmathbb{N}}left{sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}right}<frac{delta}{2}$$
is satisfied. Notably $K$ is independent of $n$.
Now for each $i=1,dots,K$ we use the assumption of pointwise convergence to get integers $N_i$, $i=1,dots,K$, such that
$$|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|<frac{delta}{frac{2K}{2^i}-delta}.$$
Note that if necessary we are free to replace $K$ be any larger (but finite) integer so as to guarantee that $frac{2K}{2^i}-deltaneq 0$ for each $i$.
After a little rearranging we get from this that
$$sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<sum^K_{i=1}frac{delta}{2K}=Kcdot frac{delta}{2K}=frac{delta}{2}$$
whenever $n>N:=max_{i}n_i$, and we use this to get
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}=sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}+sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<frac{delta}{2}+frac{delta}{2}=delta$$
which is enough to conclude that the sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ converges to $x$ with respect to the metric $d_1$. This is exactly what we needed to show, so we are done.
$endgroup$
So this is the answer I ended up giving my students. I'll use the notation introduced in the question itself.
We assume that $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ is a sequence converging pointwise to a point $xinmathbb{R}^infty$. We also assume given a real $delta>0$. Now, since for any $n$, the value $d_1(x^{(n)},x)$ is bounded above by the absolutely convergent series $sum^infty_{n=1}frac{1}{2^n}=1$ we can find for the given sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{n}}$ an integer $K$ such that the inequality
$$sup_{ninmathbb{N}}left{sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}right}<frac{delta}{2}$$
is satisfied. Notably $K$ is independent of $n$.
Now for each $i=1,dots,K$ we use the assumption of pointwise convergence to get integers $N_i$, $i=1,dots,K$, such that
$$|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|<frac{delta}{frac{2K}{2^i}-delta}.$$
Note that if necessary we are free to replace $K$ be any larger (but finite) integer so as to guarantee that $frac{2K}{2^i}-deltaneq 0$ for each $i$.
After a little rearranging we get from this that
$$sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<sum^K_{i=1}frac{delta}{2K}=Kcdot frac{delta}{2K}=frac{delta}{2}$$
whenever $n>N:=max_{i}n_i$, and we use this to get
$$d_1(x^{(n)},x)=sum^infty_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}=sum^K_{i=1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}+sum^infty_{i=K+1}frac{1}{2^i}frac{|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}{1+|x_i^{(n)}-x_i|}<frac{delta}{2}+frac{delta}{2}=delta$$
which is enough to conclude that the sequence $(x^{(n)})_{ninmathbb{N}}$ converges to $x$ with respect to the metric $d_1$. This is exactly what we needed to show, so we are done.
answered Jan 6 at 16:10
TyroneTyrone
5,26711226
5,26711226
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%2f3045421%2fconvergence-with-respect-to-d-1x-y-sum-infty-i-1-frac12i-fracx-i-y%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
$begingroup$
Is it okay that $d_1$ can be infinite? For example, define $x^{(n)}$ to be a sequence starting with $n$ zeros and then all ones. Its point-wise limit is a sequence consisting only of zeros. But the $d_1$-distance from any $x^{(n)}$ to the limit is infinite
$endgroup$
– Sasha Kozachinskiy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:25
$begingroup$
Usually the "mimic metric" for pointwise convergence is taken to be $$d(x,y)=sum_{n=1}^{infty}2^{-n}frac{|x_n-y_n|}{1+|x_n-y_n|}.$$
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
$begingroup$
@SashaKozachinskiy, sorry about that, and thank you for pointing out the error. I have fixed the correct definition of the metric. Sorry for the confusion. metamorphy, I have corrected the mistake. Than you for pointing it out.
$endgroup$
– Tyrone
Dec 18 '18 at 17:31
1
$begingroup$
The crucial point to observe is that the $n$-th term in the series is always bounded above by $2^{-n}$, so you can make the tail of this series as small as you want, say smaller than $epsilon/2$...
$endgroup$
– Lukas Geyer
Dec 18 '18 at 17:33
$begingroup$
(Now you don't need the "boundedness" of $M$'s...)
$endgroup$
– metamorphy
Dec 18 '18 at 17:36