2
$\begingroup$

Let $S=\{\{x_n\}\in \ell^2|\forall n\;x_n>0\}$. I have to evaluate whether or not S is open. I believe it's not the case. However, I think my proof includes fallacious reasoning and would appreciate some feedback.

Consider the sequence $x_n=\frac{1}{n}$, which is in $\ell^2$ and, $x_n >0$ $\forall n$. Now, in $\mathbb{R}$, we have that $\frac{1}{n}\to 0$. Thus, $\forall \varepsilon>0, \exists N \in \mathbb{N}$ s.t. $m>N \implies \left\lvert \frac{1}{m}\right\rvert <\varepsilon$. Let's now consider the sequence

$$y_n=\begin{cases} \frac{1}{n}-\frac{1}{m}, & \text{if $n=m+1$} \\ \frac{1}{n}, & {\forall n \ne m+1 } \end{cases}$$

Again, $y_n \in \ell^2$.

Let $r>0$ be arbitrary. We have that $y_n \in B_{r}(x_n)$. Indeed, $$d(x_n, y_n)=\sqrt{\sum_{i=0}^\infty \left(x_n - y_n\right)^2 }=\frac{1}{m}$$

and, for all radii r, we can chose the appropriate sequence $y_n$ such that $\frac{1}{m}<r$. However, when $n=m+1$, $y_n \ngtr 0$. Thus, $y_n \notin S$, and $B_{r}(x_n) \nsubseteq S$. Since r was arbitrary, we conclude that S is not open.

I have a feeling that, since $y_n$ depends on the radius, my proof is incorrect. Any comments? Corrections? Am I totally offtrack?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Looks fine to me. A rephrasing of your proof: $1/n$ for large $n$ is tiny, so for any $\epsilon>0$, you can poke it at the $m$th coordinate for $m\gg 1$ by $\epsilon$ to get $$y = x - \epsilon \mathbf e^m,$$ where $(\mathbf e^m)_n = \delta_{mn}$ is the 'standard basis vector', so that the $m$th coordinate of $y$ is negative. Notice $m=m(\epsilon)$, so there is no $\epsilon$ ball around $x$ for any $\epsilon>0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see. Thanks for the interpretation, I now understand how there is no logical error. $\endgroup$ – Grizzly0111 Feb 27 '18 at 23:59
1
$\begingroup$

Your proof is correct, you have shown that for $x = \left(\frac1n\right)_n \in S$ there does not exist $r > 0$ such that the open ball $B(x, r)$ is contained in $S$. This means that $S$ is not open.

Another approach would be to show that $S^c = \{(x_n)_n \in \ell^2 : x_n \le 0 \text{ for some } n \in \mathbb{N }\}$ is not closed in $\ell^2$.

Indeed, again take $x = \left(\frac1n\right)_n \in S$ and define a sequence $\left(y^{(n)}\right)_n$ of vectors in $S^c$ defined as

$$y^{(n)}_k = \begin{cases} \frac1k, & \text{if $k\ne n$} \\ 0, & \text{if $k = n$} \end{cases}$$

We have that $$\left\|x - y^{(n)}\right\|_2 = \left|x_n - y^{(n)}_n\right| = \frac1n \xrightarrow{n\to\infty} 0$$

so $x = \lim_{n\to\infty} y^{(n)}$. We conclude that $S^c$ cannot be closed because we have found a convergent sequence in $S^c$ whose limit is not in $S^c$.

$\endgroup$

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.