3
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a metric space. Let $\{p_n\}$ be a sequence in $X$. Let $E$ be a set of all subsequential limits of $\{p_n\}$.

How do i prove that $E$ is closed in ZF?

Is there a well-ordering of convergent subsequences? I can't think of one..

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If I understand the question correctly, what you mean is: How can one prove this without using the axiom of choice? $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Aug 16 '12 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ @tomasz: If the sequence is finite then it is closed already; otherwise the sequence itself is a countable dense subset. So $E$ is Dedekind-infinite, and a separable metric space on its own accord. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Aug 16 '12 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know it is true (ie, is it an exercise, or has someone told you it is true?) $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Aug 16 '12 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Thomas It's not an exercise. The theorem is in PMA Rudin, and the argument used AC. I don't know whether this is provable in ZF $\endgroup$ – Katlus Aug 16 '12 at 16:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For any $x\in E$ you can define the sub-sequence $p_{i_1},...,p_{i_n},...$ inductively with $i_n$ the least number satisfying $i_n>i_{n-1}$ and $d(p_{i_n},x)<\frac{1}{n}$. Then given a sequence $x_1,..,x_n,...\in E$, with $x_n\to x$, you can do a "diagonalized" version of this construction, I believe to construct a sub-sequence which converges to $x$ - define $i_n$ to be the least number satisfying $i_n>i_{n-1}$ and $|x_n-p_{i_n}|<\frac{1}{n}$ $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Aug 16 '12 at 16:48
4
$\begingroup$

Let us denote $\{ p_n : n \in \mathbb{N} \}$ by $B$.

Clearly $x \in \overline{ B }$ iff $x = p_n$ for some $n$, or $( \forall m ) ( \exists n ) ( 0 < d (x,p_n ) \leq \frac{1}{m} )$. In the latter case we can construct, via induction and without any choice, a subsequence converging to $x$. (In fact, the latter condition is easily seen to be equivalent to $x$ being a subsequential limit of $(p_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$.)

Suppose $x \in \overline{ B }$ is not a subsequential limit. This means that $x = p_n$ for some $n$. But also that there is an $m \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $d ( x , p_n ) > \frac{1}{m}$ for all $n$. Therefore $x$ is an isolated point of $B$, and thence it is also an isolated point of $\overline{ B }$.

It thus suffices to show that $\overline{ B } \setminus \{ x : x\text{ is an isolated point of }B \}$ is closed, and this follows from the following:

Claim: Suppose $F \subseteq X$ is closed and $A \subseteq F$ is a set of isolated points of $F$. Then $F \setminus A$ is closed.

Proof: It suffices to show that $X \setminus ( F \setminus A)$ is open. If $x \in X \setminus ( F \setminus A )$ there are two cases: Either $x \notin F$, in which case $x \in X \setminus F$, and this is a neighbourhood of $x$ disjoint from $F \setminus A$. Otherwise $x \in A$, but as $x$ is isolated there is a neighbourhood $U$ of $x$ such that $F \cap U = \{ x \}$, and therefore $( F \setminus A ) \cap U = \emptyset$.) $\dashv$

Edit: There is a minor issue in what I have done above. I seem to have assumed that the sequence $( p_n )_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is one-to-one (silly me). This means that some of what I said above is not quite true in general. The relevant facts we still have are:

  • If $x \in \overline{B}$ then either $x \in B$ or there is a subsequence of $( p_n )_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ converging to $a$.
  • If there is a subsequence of $( p_n )_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ converging to $x$, then either $( \forall m ) ( \exists n ) ( 0 < d (x,p_n ) \leq \frac{1}{m} )$, or $( \forall N ) ( \exists n \geq N ) ( p_n = x )$.

The set we wish to show is closed is therefore $\overline{B} \setminus A$ where $$A = \{ x \in B : x\text{ is an isolated point of }A\text{ and }( \exists N ) ( \forall n \geq N ) ( p_n \neq x ) \}.$$ As $A$ is a set of isolated points, by the above $\overline{B} \setminus A$ is closed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I understand that $\overline{ B } \setminus \{ x : x\text{ is an isolated point of }B \}$ is closed. However, i don't understand why this means "every limit point of 'a set of all sequantial limits' is in the set". Help $\endgroup$ – Katlus Aug 16 '12 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Katlus: Do you see how every non-isolated point of $B$ is a limit of a subsequence of $( p_n )_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$? $\endgroup$ – user642796 Aug 16 '12 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, i was also talking about isolated points. Let $E$ be a set of all sequential limits. Then $\overline{ B } \setminus \{ x : x\text{ is an isolated point of }B \} \subset E$, but converse doesn't seem to hold.. $\endgroup$ – Katlus Aug 16 '12 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Katlus: I think I may have handled it in my edit, above. If $x \in E$, then either $x$ is the limit of a non-constant sequence, or there is a constant subsequence with values $x$. If the former case ever holds, the $x \in \overline{B}$ and cannot be an isolated point. If the former case never holds, then $x$ must appear infinitely often in the sequence, and I (no longer) remove it. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Aug 16 '12 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ Now i got it fully. Nice construction! $\endgroup$ – Katlus Aug 16 '12 at 19:39
0
$\begingroup$

Check if this is ok: $ \forall $ $ y $ in the closure of $ E $, let $ N_{y} $ be any neighbourhood of $ y $. Then, by definition of an element of the closure, for any neighbourhood of $ y $, $ N_{y} \bigcap E \neq \emptyset $.

By the same token, for any z in E, $ N_{z} $ (any neighbourhood of z) is such that $ N_{z} \bigcap \left(p_{n}\right) \neq \emptyset $.

Therefore, there is a $ z \in N_{y} \bigcap E $ so that $ N_{z} \bigcap \left(p_{n}\right) \neq \emptyset $.

Let $ N = N_{z} \bigcap N_{y} $. Then N is a neighbourhood of z and $ N \subset N_{y} $ (intersections of neighbourhoods are neighbourhoods and z is in both)

Therefore $ N_{y} \bigcap \left(p_{n}\right) \neq \emptyset $. And $ y $ is in $ E $, so that $ E $ is closed, since $ N_{y} $ is arbitrary

Since in this construction there are only intersections of sets, I think it is independent from AC.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

How about my proof?

proof: Let $(p_n)$ be a sequence in metric space $X.$ If $q\in X$ is a subsequential limit of sequence $(p_n),$ then there exists a subsequence $(p_{\sigma_q(m)})_{m\in\mathbb{N}}$ of $(p_n),$ such that $\lim\limits_{m\to\infty} p_{\sigma_{q}(m)}=q,$ where $\sigma_{q} : \mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}$ is increasing strictly. Put $$E=\{q\in X\mid \exists \text{ subsequence }(p_{\sigma_q(m)})_{m\in\mathbb{N}} \text{ of $(p_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ } : \lim\limits_{m\to\infty} p_{\sigma_q(m)}=q \}.$$ To show $E$ is closed, let $x\in E',$ and we shall prove that $x\in E.$

For $n=1,$ since $\hat{\mathbb{B}}(x,\frac{1}{2\cdot 1})\cap E\neq\emptyset,$ pick $q_1\in\hat{\mathbb{B}}(x,\frac{1}{2\cdot 1})\cap E,$ then $q_1\in E$ and $d(q_1,x)<\frac{1}{2}.$ Hence there exists subsequence $(p_{\sigma_1(m)})_{m\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\lim_{m\to\infty} p_{\sigma_1(m)}=q_1.$ Hence there exists $M_1\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $m\geq M_1, d(p_{\sigma_1(m)}, q_1)<\frac{1}{2},$ thus $ d(x,p_{\sigma_1(M_1)})\leq d(x,q_1)+d(q_1, p_{\sigma_1(M_1)})<1.$ For $n=2,$ since $\hat{\mathbb{B}}(x,\frac{1}{2\cdot 2})\cap E\neq\emptyset,$ pick $q_2\in\hat{\mathbb{B}}(x,\frac{1}{2\cdot 2})\cap E,$ then $q_2\in E$ and $d(q_2,x)<\frac{1}{2\cdot 2}.$ Hence there exists subsequence $(p_{\sigma_2(m)})_{m\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\lim_{m\to\infty} p_{\sigma_2(m)}=q_2.$ Hence there exists $M_2\in\mathbb{N}$ with $M_2>\sigma_1(M_1)$ such that for all $m\geq M_2,$ $d(p_{\sigma_2(m)}, q_2)<\frac{1}{2\cdot 2},$ thus $$d(x,p_{\sigma_2(M_2)})\leq d(x,q_2)+d(q_2, p_{\sigma_2(M_2)})<\frac{1}{2}$$ and $\sigma_2(M_2)\geq M_2>\sigma_1(M_1)$ (note that $\sigma_2$ is increasing strictly). Now assume we have constructed $p_{\sigma_1(M_1)}, \dots, p_{\sigma_k(M_k)},$ such that \begin{gather*} d(x, p_{\sigma_i(M_i)})<\frac{1}{i}, \qquad \forall i=1,\dots,k \end{gather*} with $\sigma_1(M_1)<\cdots<\sigma_{k}(M_k).$ As for $n=k+1,$ Since $x\in E',$ $\hat{\mathbb{B}}(x,\frac{1}{2(k+1)})\cap E\neq\emptyset.$ Pick $q_{k+1}\in \hat{\mathbb{B}}(x,\frac{1}{2(k+1)})\cap E,$ then $q_{k+1}\in E$ with $d(q_{k+1}, x)<\frac{1}{2(k+1)}.$ Hence there exists subsequence $(p_{\sigma_{k+1}(m)})_{m\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\lim\limits_{m\to\infty} p_{\sigma_{k+1}(m)}=q_{k+1}.$ Hence, there exists $M_{k+1}\in\mathbb{N}$ with $M_{k+1}>\sigma_{k}(M_k)$ such that for all $m\geq M_{k+1},$ $d(p_{\sigma_{k+1}(m)}, q_{k+1})<\frac{1}{2(k+1)}.$ Thus \begin{gather*} d(x,p_{\sigma_{k+1}(M_{k+1})})\leq d(x,q_{k+1})+d(q_{k+1}, p_{\sigma_{k+1}(M_{k+1})})<\frac{1}{k+1}, \end{gather*}
with $\sigma_{k+1}(M_{k+1})\geq M_{k+1}>\sigma_{k}(M_k).$ Hence, let $\eta: i\mapsto\sigma_i(M_i)\in \{p_n\mid n\in\mathbb{N}\}, \forall i\in\mathbb{N},$ then the mapping $\eta : \mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N} $ is increasing strictly, and the principle of induction follows that we have constructed a subsequence $(p_{\eta(n)})_{n\in\mathbb{N}},$ such that \begin{gather*} d(x,p_{\eta(n)})<\frac{1}{n},\qquad \forall n\in\mathbb{N} \end{gather*} holds. Since $1/n\to 0, $ as $n\to\infty, $ we see that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty} p_{\eta(n)}=x,$ hence $x\in E.$ Since $x$ is chosen arbitrary, we conclude that $E$ is closed.

Note that we write $\mathbb{B}(x,r):=\{y\in X\mid d(x,y)<r\}$ and $\hat{\mathbb{B}}(x,r)=\mathbb{B}(x,r)\backslash\{x\}.$

$\endgroup$

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.