Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I need to prove that given a sequence of points $\{a_n\}$ in $(\Bbb R^k,d_m)$ that converges to $a$, then it converges to the same limit in both $(\Bbb R^k,d_e)$ and $(\Bbb R^k,d_t)$ (and conversely), where

$$ d_m(x,a)=\max_{1\leq i \leq k} \{|x_i-a_i|\} \;;\;\text{ the max metric}$$

$$d_e(x,a)=\sqrt{\sum_{1\leq i \leq k}(x_i-a_i)^2} \;;\;\text{ the Euclidean metric}$$

$$d_t(x,a)={\sum_{1\leq i \leq k}|x_i-a_i|} \;;\;\text{ the so-called taxicab metric}$$

There is a nice characterization of a point $a$ being a limit of a sequence $\{ a_n\}$ which is

Given a sequence of points $\{a_n\}$ in a metric space $(X,d)$ then $\lim a_n = a$ if and only if for every neighborhood $V$ of $a$, only but finitely many of the $a_n$ are not contained in $V$, or equivalently $a_n \in V$ for almost all of the $a_n$.

More formally, one can say that for every nbhd $V$ of $a$ there is an $N$ such that whenever $n>N$, $a_n \in V$.

This said, one can prove:

THEOREM Let $\{a_n\}$ be a sequence of points in $\Bbb R^k$. Then if $\lim a_n=a$ under either one of the metrics $d_t,d_e,d_m$, it follows $\lim a_n=a$ for the other two.

(NEW) PROOF We have that

$$\tag a d_m(a,x) \leq d_e(a,x) \leq \sqrt{k}\cdot d_m(a,x) $$ $$\tag b d_m(a,x) \leq d_t(a,x) \leq {k}\cdot d_m(a,x) $$

Let $\lim a_n=a$ in $(\Bbb R^k,d_m)$. Let $T$,$E$ be neighborhoods of $a$ in $(\Bbb R^k,d_t)$ and $(\Bbb R^k,d_e)$ respectively. Then they contain an open $t$-ball and an open $e$-ball about $a$ for a $\delta>0$. $(a)$ and $(b)$ guarantee that each of these balls contain an open $m$-ball about $a$. But this ball $B_m$ is a neighborhood of $a$ in $(\Bbb R^k,d_m)$ so $a_n\in B_m$ whenever $n>N$ for a some $N$. This in turn means that $a_n \in B_t$ and $a_n \in B_e$ whenever $n>N$ so $\lim a_n=a$ in both the two other metrics.

The other two cases follow analogously.

share|improve this question
    
It seems a bit off. First, at the outset, you should state which case you are proving. I surmise you are starting by assuming that you have convergence in the $m$-metric. Now you have to prove you have convergence in, say, the $e$-metric. So you need to start with an arbitrary $e$-nhood of $a$ (not with an arbitrary $m$-nhood of $a$) and show it contains a tail of the sequence. To do this, you can use your inequalities to show such an nhood contains an $m$-ball centered at $a$, and thus a tail of the sequence. –  David Mitra Jul 16 '12 at 2:34
    
@DavidMitra That was precisely what was haunting me. You're right. Thanks. –  Pedro Tamaroff Jul 16 '12 at 2:37
    
@DavidMitra I've rewritten the proof. –  Pedro Tamaroff Jul 16 '12 at 3:06
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Optionally, you could structure the proof by preceding it with a definition and a lemma.

Definition: Two metrics $d$ and $d'$ are comparable if there exists a constant $C$ such that $d/C\le d'\le Cd $.

Lemma. Two comparable metrics have the same convergent sequences.

This way the neighborhoods and sequences appear only in the lemma and the rest becomes a matter of estimating metrics up to multiplicative constants.

share|improve this answer
    
Does it necessarily have to be the case we take $C$ and $C^{-1}$? I Think $$K\cdot d(x,y) \leq d'(x,y) \leq C d(x,y)$$ is good enough. Peeking some pages ahead, I read that the identity mapping defines a topological equivalence between to metric spaces with the same underlying set and metrics $d'$ and $d$ if there exist $K$ and $K'$ such that $$\eqalign{ & d'\left( {x,y} \right) \leqslant K \cdot d\left( {x,y} \right) \cr & d\left( {x,y} \right) \leqslant K' \cdot d'\left( {x,y} \right) \cr} $$ –  Pedro Tamaroff Jul 16 '12 at 3:26
    
@Peter Using C and 1/C is just a device to reduce the number of constants flying around in the proof. It makes no difference otherwise. If your inequalities hold then so does mine, with C being the maximum of K and K'. –  user31373 Jul 16 '12 at 3:33
    
@PeterTamaroff, you are correct, but there is no change in results given by finding optimal constants. Furthermore, if there are constants $K, K'$ as your book writes, there is also a $1/C,C$ as Leonid writes. More generally, two comparable metrics have the same Cauchy sequences. If the metric space is complete in either metric, you get the same results as for $\mathbb R^n.$ –  Will Jagy Jul 16 '12 at 3:34
    
@WillJagy Right. Both you and Leonid are right. Thank you. –  Pedro Tamaroff Jul 16 '12 at 3:55
    
We are filled with rightness. –  Will Jagy Jul 16 '12 at 4:19
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.