The problem statements are:

Consider the space $A=\{ \{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N} \in l_{\infty} : \{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N} \text { is not convergent }\}$

$a)$ Prove that $A$ is open and dense in $(l_{\infty},d_{\infty})$

$b)$ Decide if $A$ is a separable metric subspace of $(l_{\infty},d_{\infty})$.

My attempt at a solution:

For $a)$, I found it easy to prove density:

Take $\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ and let $\epsilon>0$, if $\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N} \in A$, then it's immediate that $B(\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}, \epsilon) \cap A \neq \emptyset$. Now, suppose $\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N} \in A^c$, i.e., $\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ is a convergent sequence. Define $\{y_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ as $y_1=a_1 + \dfrac{\epsilon}{2}$, $y_n=a_n+\dfrac{\epsilon}{4}$ if $n$ is even and $y_n=x_n+\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}$ if $n$ is odd and $n>1$.

We have that $|a_n-y_n|\leq |a_1-y_1|=\dfrac{\epsilon}{2}$, which means $d_{\infty}(\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N},\{y_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N})=\sup_{n \in \mathbb N} |a_n-y_n|=\dfrac{\epsilon}{2}<\epsilon$.

The sequence $\{y_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ can be expressed as $\{y_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}=\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}+\{b_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$, where $\{b_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ is defined as $b_1=\dfrac{\epsilon}{2}$, $b_n=\dfrac{\epsilon}{4}$ if $n$ is even, and $b_n=\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}$ if $n$ is odd and $n>1$. We want to show that $\{y_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N} \in A$, so suppose not, then $\{y_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ is a convergent sequence, so $\{y_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}-\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}=\{b_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ is a convergent sequence, which is clearly absurd. This proves that $B(\{a_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N},\epsilon) \cap A \neq \emptyset$

Now it remains to prove $A$ is open, but this is equivalent to prove that $A^c$ is closed: Let $x=\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ be a limit point of $A^c$, I want to show that $x \in A^c$, i.e., that $x$ is a convergent sequence. By hypothesis, there is $\{y^n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ (I'm using superscripts here because each $y^n$ is a sequence itself). It's sufficient to show that $x$ is a Cauchy sequence. Here I am not so sure if what I've done is correct, I got confused with so many sequences and inequalities:

Let $\epsilon>0$

By hypothesis, $y^n \to x$, so there is $N : \space \forall \space n \geq N$, $sup_{k \in \mathbb N}|y_{k}^n-x_k|=d_{\infty}(y^n,x)<\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}$.

$|x_k-x_j|\leq |x_k-y_{k}^N|+|y_{k}^N-y_{j}^N|+|y_{j}^N-x_j|<\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}+\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}+|y_{k}^N-y_{j}^N|$, Now, the sequence $\{y_{n}^N\}_{n \in \mathbb N} \in A^c$, which means it is a convergent sequence $\implies$ it is a Cauchy sequence. So, there is $n_0 \in \mathbb N$: if $k,j\geq n_0 \implies |y_{k}^N-y_{j}^N|<\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}$

Then, for all $k,j \geq n_0$, we have that

$|x_k-x_j|\leq |x_k-y_{k}^N|+|y_{k}^N-y_{j}^N|+|y_{j}^N-x_j|<\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}+\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}+\dfrac{\epsilon}{3}=\epsilon$.

We've proved $x$ is a Cauchy sequence $\implies$ it is convergent $\implies x \in A^c$. Since $A^c$ is closed, then $A$ is open.

For part $b)$ I would appreciate some help. I think that $A$ is not separable, I've tried to choose $S \subset A$ such as $S$ the space of sequences of ones and zeros that are not eventually $1$ or eventually $0$, but I got stuck trying to show by absurd that $S$ is not separable. Any ideas or suggestions for this point?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You could look at what you've already done in part (a). If $A$ is dense in $\ell^\infty$, and $A$ is separable, what does that say about $\ell^\infty$? Alternatively, you could certainly also try to construct uncountably many divergent 0/1-valued sequences in $\ell^\infty$ that all have mutual distance at least one, as you suggest. This approach will work, if you find a clever choice of sequences. $\endgroup$ – GCD Dec 8 '13 at 22:03
  • $\begingroup$ Hey, thanks! We've proved $A$ is dense in $l_{\infty}$, then $\overline A=l_{\infty}$. Could it be that if a space $S$ is separable, then $\overline S$ is also separable? How could I prove this? If that statement is true, suppose $A$ is separable, then $\overline A=l_{\infty}$ is separable, which is clearly absurd (I can choose $S$ the subspace of sequences of ones and zeros, both convergent and divergent,and it's easy to prove $S$ is not separable, then I would conclude $l_{\infty}$ is not separable by the statement "every subspace of a separable space is separable"). $\endgroup$ – user100106 Dec 8 '13 at 22:24
  • $\begingroup$ The first thing I've tried was your alternative suggestion, but I couldn't find a clever choice of sequences. $\endgroup$ – user100106 Dec 8 '13 at 22:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the first approach: In a metric space, if $A\subset B$ is dense in $B$, and $B\subset C$ is dense in $C$, then $A$ is dense in $C$. Try to prove this! It's not too hard, just hammer at the definition of "dense". This should allow you to complete the argument. $\endgroup$ – GCD Dec 8 '13 at 23:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the second approach, the one you originally tried, try considering binary expansions of real numbers. This gives you a large supply of 0/1-valued sequences. Which ones diverge? Are there uncountably many distinct diverging ones? $\endgroup$ – GCD Dec 8 '13 at 23:33

a) Openness is usually easier to prove than closedness. If a sequence $(a_n)$ is not Cauchy, then there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that for every $N$ there are $n,m\ge N$ with $|a_n-a_m|\ge \epsilon$. Now if $\|b-a\|_\infty<\epsilon/3$, then with the above indices $|b_n-b_m|\ge \epsilon/3$ by the reverse triangle inequality. Thus, the set of all non-Cauchy sequences is open.

(Note: for real- or complex- valued sequences "non-Cauchy" is equivalent to "non-convergent". But we can imagine a metric space $\ell_\infty(X)$ of bounded sequences in some general metric space $X$; then the openness still holds for non-Cauchy sequences, but may fail for non-convergent ones.)

For density, it suffices to observe that for every $a\in \ell_\infty$ and every $\epsilon>0$ at least one of two sequences $(a_n)$ and $(a_n+(-1)^n\epsilon)$ fails to converge.

b) was settled in comments: since "being dense in" is a transitive relation, a dense subset of $\ell_\infty$ cannot contain a countable dense subset.


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.