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.

Let $X = C([0; 1])$. For all $f, g \in X$, we define the metric $d$ by $d(f; g) = \sup_x |f(x) - g(x)|$. Show that $S := \{ f\in X : f(0) = 0 \}$ is closed in $(X; d)$. I am trying to show that $X \setminus S$ is open but I don't know where to start showing that.

I wanna add something more, I have not much knowledge about analysis and I am just self taught of it, what I have learnt so far is just some basic topology and open/closed sets.

share|improve this question
add comment

4 Answers 4

Prove that the map $\varphi : X \to \mathbb{R}$ defined by $\varphi(f) = f(0)$ is continuous. ($\varphi$ is even Lipschitz-continuous)

Then notice that $S = \varphi^{-1}(\{0\})$.

share|improve this answer
    
Plus one! Very nice. Now I feel quite stupid. : ) –  Matt N. Sep 6 '12 at 14:24
    
I don't quite understand the method. What i have learn't so far is just some basic topology and open close sets.Is that enough to understand it? –  Mathematics Sep 6 '12 at 14:28
    
@Matt Your proof works well too, and puts the emphasis on the fact that the topology of a metric space is completely characterized by converging sequences. My proof can be adapted to the topology of simple convergence though, which is not metrisable. –  Ahriman Sep 6 '12 at 14:29
    
@Mathematics Do you know what is a continuous map between metric spaces ? Do you know that a map $f$ from $X$ to $Y$ is continuous iff the preimage of every closed set in $Y$ is closed in $X$ ? –  Ahriman Sep 6 '12 at 14:31
    
After reading your proof I added the functional-analysis tag to the OP. I like your proof better than mine because it's functional analysis flavour whereas mine is just metric space flavour : ) –  Matt N. Sep 6 '12 at 14:32
show 4 more comments

Here's a direct argument: Suppose $f\in X\setminus S$. Let $d=|f(0)|\ne 0$. Then the open ball of radius $d$ around $f$ is disjoint from $S$.

share|improve this answer
    
i have tried to do in a similar way but i don't know how to show it is disjoint from S –  Mathematics Sep 6 '12 at 14:36
    
@Mathematics If $d(f,g)<d$ then in particular $|f(0)-g(0)|<d$, so $g(0)\ne 0$. –  Sean Eberhard Sep 6 '12 at 14:38
    
I don't know if i get it right. Do you try to show that for any $g \in B(f, \epsilon)$ $g$ doesn't in $S$ and hence the set $B(f,\epsilon)$ is in $X-S$ ??? –  Mathematics Sep 6 '12 at 14:55
    
@Mathematics Yes. –  Sean Eberhard Sep 6 '12 at 15:15
add comment

You can try to show that $X \backslash S$ is open by a contradiction argument. This proof will only assume the very basics of analysis and topology, namely open sets and metrics.

Suppose $X\backslash S$ is not open. That means there is an $f \in X\backslash S$ such that $B_r(f) \cap S \neq \emptyset$ for all $r$. You probably know this, but $B_r(f) = \{g \in C[0,1] : d(f, g) < r\}$ and is called the "open ball of radius $r$". Now, let $f(0) = y \neq 0$. Since $B_r(f) \cap S \neq \emptyset$ for all $r$, we can take a sequence $\{r_n\}$ such that $r_n \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. This gives rise to a sequence of $g_n \in S$ such that $d(f, g_n) < r_n$, which is equivalent to saying that $\sup_x|f(x) - g_n(x)| < r_n$. Recall that $g_n(0) = 0$, which means that $|f(0) - g_n(0)| < r_n$. This could definitely be the case, but remember that $f(0)$ is a fixed number $y \neq 0$. Since $\{r_n\} \to 0$, we can choose one specific radius $r_N$ such that $r_N < y$. By our assumption, there exists a $g_N \in S$ such that $|f(0) - g_N(0)| < r_N < y = |f(0) - g_N(0)|$. This is a contradiction and so $X\backslash S$ is open.

share|improve this answer
    
I think this one is a nice method but i feel quite confusing at the same time because when i am not looking to the solution, i don't know how to get the contrary. Is the contrary always linked to $r$ for this type of question? –  Mathematics Sep 8 '12 at 8:00
    
I don't know if it is "always" linked but this question offers us a natural link. Try thinking about it like this. We suppose $S$ is not open. That means there is a "point" (really a function) that you cannot draw a ball around so the ball is inside $S$. This is equivalent to saying that every ball we draw is not completely contained in $S$, and must therefore partially be in $X\backslash S$. We draw smaller and smaller balls, and that is how we get the sequence of radiuses going to 0. –  Shankara Pailoor Sep 8 '12 at 15:35
    
I think in this way after reading your solution. What i am surprised is how you linked the inequality |f(0)-g(0)|<$r_N$<y=|f(0)-g(0)| that's why i guess whether it always link to a similar inequality for this type of question. Anyway, thx for your detailed explaination. –  Mathematics Sep 9 '12 at 13:16
add comment

I'd try to show that $S$ contains all its limit points. To this end let $f$ be a limit point of $S$. Let $f_n$ be a sequence in $S$ converging to $f$ in the sup norm.

Now we show that $f$ is also in $S$:

By assumption, for $\varepsilon > 0$ you have that $\sup_{z \in [0,1]}|f_n(z) - f(z)| < \varepsilon$ for $n$ large enough. In particular, $|f_n(0) - f(0)| = | f(0)| < \varepsilon$ for $n$ large enough. Now let $\varepsilon \to 0$.

share|improve this answer
    
This is just an idea and I have not worked it out in full detail. If you try this and get stuck let me know, then I'll try to work it out in full detail. –  Matt N. Sep 6 '12 at 14:21
2  
Uniform convergence implies pointwise convergence, so a classical argument justify your method. –  Seirios Sep 6 '12 at 14:35
    
I added a full proof. But I'd try to see what it looks like. Imagine an $\varepsilon$-tube around $f$ in which all $f_n$ are for $n$ large enough. But all the $f_n$ are $0$ at $0$. As you let $\varepsilon$ tend to zero you see that $f$ has got to be zero at zero, too. –  Matt N. Sep 6 '12 at 17:39
1  
Why go for a contradiction? $|f(0)| = \lim_{n \to \infty}|f_n(0)| = 0$, as $|f(z) - f_n(z)| \leq \lVert f-f_n\rVert = d(f,f_n)\xrightarrow{n\to\infty} 0$ for every $z$ and in particular for $z = 0$ (note that $X$ was used for the space $C[0,1]$, so $x$ isn't a very good choice). Now go and enjoy your risotto... –  t.b. Sep 6 '12 at 17:41
1  
The second part of my argument doesn't even need that, just plug in $z = 0$ and get $0 \leq |f(z)| \leq d(f,f_n) \to 0$ which is basically your contradiction without contradiction. Glad to hear about risotto :) –  t.b. Sep 6 '12 at 21:14
show 4 more comments

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.