31
$\begingroup$

$l^p (1≤p<{\infty})$ and $L^p (1≤p<∞)$ are separable spaces.

What on earth has changed when the value of $p$ turns from a finite number to ${\infty}$?

Our teacher gave us some hints that there exists an uncountable subset such that the distance of any two elements in it is no less than some $\delta>0$.

Actually I don't understand the question very well, but I hope I have made the question clear enough.

Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ When you say that you don't understand the question very well, which part is unclear? Do you know what it means for a metric space to be separable, or inseparable? Do you know the definition of the $\ell^\infty$-norm? $\endgroup$ – user16299 Jan 9 '12 at 16:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Andylang: if you think Yemon Choi's comment is good, how about answering some of the clarifying questions he asked? $\endgroup$ – Henning Makholm Jan 9 '12 at 16:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ Henning Makholm :Yes,I know the definition of inseparable space.And the norm of $l^p$ (p is finite) is clear for me.I will google the norm of $l^{\infty}$.Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Andylang Jan 9 '12 at 16:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Asking the question before knowing the definition of the norm on $\ell^\infty$ seems premature. $\endgroup$ – user16299 Jan 9 '12 at 16:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Here's a thread containing the answer math.stackexchange.com/questions/33044/… (I earlier voted to close as a duplicate but given that the closed question is closed too, I'm a bit unsure if closure is a good idea). $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jan 9 '12 at 16:29
53
$\begingroup$

To be separable means to have a countable dense subset. Suppose that $(M, d)$ is a metric space and that $U\subseteq M$ be an uncountable subset and $r > 0$. Suppose that for all $x \neq y \in U$, $d(x,y) \ge r$. Let $C$ be any countable subset of $M$. Then $C$ can only meet a countable number of the balls $B_{r/2}(x)$ for $x\in U$. Let $G$ be the union of all $B_{r/2}(x)$ for $x\in U$ that do not meet $C$. $G$ is a nonempty open subset of $M$ that does not meet $C$.

There can be no countable dense subset of $M$.

Consider the case of $\ell^\infty$. For each subset $Q$ of the integers, let $x_Q$ be the sequence that is 1 on $G$ and 0 off of it. The $x_Q$ are uncountable and any two elements of this collection are distance 1 apart. We have just shown that $\ell^\infty$ is not separable.

You can generate a similar construct for $L^\infty$. Consider the uncountable subclass of characteristic functions $\{\chi_{B_r(0)}\}_{r>0}\subseteq L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Then each pair of distinct elements in it would be 1 unit distance apart. Ergo there cannot be any countable subset of $L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$ that is dense in it.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ (+1) Why do we have to let $G$ be the union of all $B_{r/2}(x)$ that do not meet $C$? Isn't choosing one such $B_{r/2}(x)$ that does not meet $C$ suffice to show that $C$ is not dense? (using this definition: A is dense in X if for any point x in X, any neighborhood of x contains at least one point from A) $\endgroup$ – yoyostein Nov 14 '16 at 16:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you ncmathsadist and I would like to see an answer to the comment of @yoyostein, thanks again $\endgroup$ – The_lost Jul 12 at 20:49
4
$\begingroup$

With the topology $\|f-g\|_{l^\infty}=\sup_i |f_i-g_i|$ it is easy to show if C is any countable set, and $(f_{ij})_j$ a sequence of elements of $C$, you can take an element $h\in l^\infty$ so that $h_i= 0$ if $|f_{ii}|>1$, $h_i=2$ otherwise, hence $\|f_{j}-h\|>1/2$ for all $j$. Then no ball of radius $1/2$ around $h$ can contain an element of $C$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it should be $\|f_j-h\|\geq\|f_{jj}-h_j\|\geq1$ (which, of course, doesn't change the result). $\endgroup$ – Elmar Zander Jul 21 '15 at 9:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also "no ball" is a bit misleading since there is just one ball of radius 1/2 around $h$. May "no ball of radius smaller 1" would fit here better. $\endgroup$ – Elmar Zander Jul 21 '15 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you say topology? Isn't that just the norm? $\endgroup$ – Viktor Glombik Apr 30 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ The norm induces the topology. $\endgroup$ – ncmathsadist Apr 30 at 19:33

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.