2
$\begingroup$

I am currently reading Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms by John Hubbard and Barbara Hubbard and am having a bit of trouble reconciling notation with definition. The book is trying to express how to set up arithmetic for the real numbers and in doing so mentions a function which I can't quite seem to follow.

It doesn't seem like I can upload an image so this might be a bit messy.

If we have a function $f: D^n\to D$ where $D$ is the set of finite decimals and a function $g:R^n\to R$ where $R$ is the set of real numbers. Then the book defines a function $$g(X) = \sup_k \inf_{l\geq k}f([X]_l)$$

$X$ is an n-tuple in $R^n$. $[X]_l$ is the n-tuple with each value truncated to the l th value after the decimal. My problem comes in at the supremum and infimum. I am not sure what these are saying about the function. I know that the supremum and infimum are the least upper bound and greatest lower bound respectively, however I am not sure of their role in this function.

I am thinking it means no value of the $f()$ is larger than $k$, but then this would also mean no value of $f()$ is smaller than $l$ which is equal to (or larger than?) $k$. Which just seems weird. How would $sup$ and $inf$ apply to a function they precede?

Sorry for text mess up there. :x

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

We are given a function $f:\>D^n\to D$ where $D$ is the set of finite decimals. This $f$ accepts any $n$-tuple ${\bf d}=(d_1,d_2,\ldots, d_n)$ of finite decimals as input and produces a finite decimal $f({\bf d})$ as output. An example: $$f(0.21,\ {-3},\ 4.533371)=12.62\ .$$ It seems that there no further assumptions about this $f$ are made. In the following I shall assume that it is bounded.

Using this $f$ and the truncation operators $$T_l:\quad {\mathbb R}^n\to D^n,\qquad {\bf x}\to[{\bf x}]_l$$ a new function $g:\>{\mathbb R}^n\to{\mathbb R}$ is created as follows: Let an ${\bf x}\in{\mathbb R}^n$ be given. For each $l\geq0$ the number $\alpha_l:=f\bigl([{\bf x}]_l\bigr)$ is a finite decimal, hopefully with more decimal places as $l$ increases. We fix a "gauge" $k$ and consider only the $\alpha_l$ with $l\geq k$. The $\inf$ of these $\alpha_l$, i.e., the number $$\rho_k:=\inf_{l\geq k}f\bigl([{\bf x}]_l\bigr)$$ is a weak form of limit of the $f\bigl([{\bf x}]_l\bigr)$ when $l\to\infty$. But taking the $\inf$, which we can do without any further assumptions, has a serious drawback: If, e.g., the $\alpha_l$ were actually increasing with $l$ then $\rho_k=\alpha_k$, and the increased precision when $l\to\infty$ is lost. That's where the gauge $k$ comes in: The $\rho_k$ contain only information about the $\alpha_l$ with $l\geq k$; furthermore they form an increasing sequence. It follows that $$g({\bf x}):=\lim_{k\to\infty}\rho_k=\lim_{k\to\infty}\>\inf_{l\geq k}f\bigl([{\bf x}]_l\bigr) $$ is on the one hand a well defined real number, and on the other hand the $\alpha_l$ with small $l$ have no influence on the value $g({\bf x})$ anymore. (Remark: Since $(\rho_k)_{k\geq0}$ is an increasing sequence one has $\lim_{k\to\infty}\rho_k=\sup_k\rho_k$.)

Don't ask me why the Hubbards set such a thing up. I guess their motivation would come out of the context.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the thorough dissection of the function as it definitely helped. My only question is where the limit involving k comes in as it seems as though a supremum k should be there. The purpose of g is to show that there is a unique function for each f that satisfies the continuity condition. $\endgroup$ – OhLawdyLawdy Jun 28 '15 at 13:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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