compactness of a set where am I going wrongIn a metric space, compactness implies completnessClosure and compactness of the set of real eigenvalues ​​of a real matrix.Proving the compactness of a subset of a compact setThe union of finitely many compact subsets of $mathbbR^n$ must be compact.A question about local compactness and $sigma$-compactnessWeakly compactness of a set of finitely additive measuresIf $Y$ is closed subspace of $(X,|cdot|)$, then subspace $<Ycup x_0>$ is closed in $X$.“Decreasing” sequence of nonempty compact sets has a nonempty intersection.Show that $F = lambdain mathbbR_+, xin K$ is closed where $K$ is a compact set.Closed & boundedness, sequentially compactness and Completeness

Did Ender ever learn that he killed Stilson and/or Bonzo?

How to simplify this time periods definition interface?

how to write formula in word in latex

What do Xenomorphs eat in the Alien series?

Happy pi day, everyone!

Employee lack of ownership

Credit cards used everywhere in Singapore or Malaysia?

Why is the President allowed to veto a cancellation of emergency powers?

Unexpected result from ArcLength

Gantt Chart like rectangles with log scale

Recruiter wants very extensive technical details about all of my previous work

If I can solve Sudoku can I solve Travelling Salesman Problem(TSP)? If yes, how?

Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor breaks the "no parallel octaves" rule?

A Cautionary Suggestion

What exactly is this small puffer fish doing and how did it manage to accomplish such a feat?

Does someone need to be connected to my network to sniff HTTP requests?

Time travel from stationary position?

How to change two letters closest to a string and one letter immediately after a string using notepad++

Instead of Universal Basic Income, why not Universal Basic NEEDS?

Does Wild Magic Surge trigger off of spells on the Sorcerer spell list, if I learned them from another class?

Have researchers managed to "reverse time"? If so, what does that mean for physics?

My Graph Theory Students

Should we release the security issues we found in our product as CVE or we can just update those on weekly release notes?

Professor being mistaken for a grad student



compactness of a set where am I going wrong


In a metric space, compactness implies completnessClosure and compactness of the set of real eigenvalues ​​of a real matrix.Proving the compactness of a subset of a compact setThe union of finitely many compact subsets of $mathbbR^n$ must be compact.A question about local compactness and $sigma$-compactnessWeakly compactness of a set of finitely additive measuresIf $Y$ is closed subspace of $(X,|cdot|)$, then subspace $<Ycup x_0>$ is closed in $X$.“Decreasing” sequence of nonempty compact sets has a nonempty intersection.Show that $F = lambdain mathbbR_+, xin K$ is closed where $K$ is a compact set.Closed & boundedness, sequentially compactness and Completeness













7












$begingroup$


I have a proof of the following false fact :




Let $E$ be normed vector space. Let $K subset E$ be a compact set. Then the set $B = lambda x mid lambda in mathbbR^+, x in K $ is closed (where $mathbbR^+$ are the positive real numbers including $0$).




This fact is true when $0 not in K$ yet it can be false when $0 in K$. For example by taking the semi-circle in the plane centered at $(1,0)$ of radius $1$.



So I made a proof a of this fact. My proof is thus obviously false yet I don't see where the mistake is :



Let $(lambda_n k_n)$ be a sequence in $B$ which converges to a vector $x in E$. We want to prove that $x in B$.



Since $K$ is compact there is $phi : mathbbN to mathbbN$ strictly increasing such that $(k_phi(n))$ converges to a vector $k in K$. If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done. So we can suppose $k ne 0$.



Since the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $x$ we must have $k in span x $. So there is $mu in mathbbR^*$ such that $k = mu x$. From here we can deduce that the sequence $(lambda_n)$ necessarily converges to $frac1mu$. Yet since $mathbbR^+$ is closed the sequence $(lambda_n)$ converges to a positive real number, so $frac1mu geq 0$ so $mu geq 0$.
So the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to the vector $frac1mu k in B$ since $k in K$ and $frac1mu geq 0$. Hence $B$ is closed.



So where am I going wrong here ?



Thank you !










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I guess you mean $B$ to be the union of the $lambda K$ rather than the set of them?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey By this notation I mean the set of $lambda x$ for all $x in K$ and $lambda geq 0$, so my notation is wrong ?
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your notation meant that $B$ is the set whose elements are the sets $lambda K$ (so an element of $B$ is a subset of $E$, not a point of $E$).
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey You are right thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note that you state that $mathbbR^+$ is closed, which isn’t the case
    $endgroup$
    – Santana Afton
    51 mins ago















7












$begingroup$


I have a proof of the following false fact :




Let $E$ be normed vector space. Let $K subset E$ be a compact set. Then the set $B = lambda x mid lambda in mathbbR^+, x in K $ is closed (where $mathbbR^+$ are the positive real numbers including $0$).




This fact is true when $0 not in K$ yet it can be false when $0 in K$. For example by taking the semi-circle in the plane centered at $(1,0)$ of radius $1$.



So I made a proof a of this fact. My proof is thus obviously false yet I don't see where the mistake is :



Let $(lambda_n k_n)$ be a sequence in $B$ which converges to a vector $x in E$. We want to prove that $x in B$.



Since $K$ is compact there is $phi : mathbbN to mathbbN$ strictly increasing such that $(k_phi(n))$ converges to a vector $k in K$. If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done. So we can suppose $k ne 0$.



Since the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $x$ we must have $k in span x $. So there is $mu in mathbbR^*$ such that $k = mu x$. From here we can deduce that the sequence $(lambda_n)$ necessarily converges to $frac1mu$. Yet since $mathbbR^+$ is closed the sequence $(lambda_n)$ converges to a positive real number, so $frac1mu geq 0$ so $mu geq 0$.
So the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to the vector $frac1mu k in B$ since $k in K$ and $frac1mu geq 0$. Hence $B$ is closed.



So where am I going wrong here ?



Thank you !










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I guess you mean $B$ to be the union of the $lambda K$ rather than the set of them?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey By this notation I mean the set of $lambda x$ for all $x in K$ and $lambda geq 0$, so my notation is wrong ?
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your notation meant that $B$ is the set whose elements are the sets $lambda K$ (so an element of $B$ is a subset of $E$, not a point of $E$).
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey You are right thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note that you state that $mathbbR^+$ is closed, which isn’t the case
    $endgroup$
    – Santana Afton
    51 mins ago













7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


I have a proof of the following false fact :




Let $E$ be normed vector space. Let $K subset E$ be a compact set. Then the set $B = lambda x mid lambda in mathbbR^+, x in K $ is closed (where $mathbbR^+$ are the positive real numbers including $0$).




This fact is true when $0 not in K$ yet it can be false when $0 in K$. For example by taking the semi-circle in the plane centered at $(1,0)$ of radius $1$.



So I made a proof a of this fact. My proof is thus obviously false yet I don't see where the mistake is :



Let $(lambda_n k_n)$ be a sequence in $B$ which converges to a vector $x in E$. We want to prove that $x in B$.



Since $K$ is compact there is $phi : mathbbN to mathbbN$ strictly increasing such that $(k_phi(n))$ converges to a vector $k in K$. If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done. So we can suppose $k ne 0$.



Since the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $x$ we must have $k in span x $. So there is $mu in mathbbR^*$ such that $k = mu x$. From here we can deduce that the sequence $(lambda_n)$ necessarily converges to $frac1mu$. Yet since $mathbbR^+$ is closed the sequence $(lambda_n)$ converges to a positive real number, so $frac1mu geq 0$ so $mu geq 0$.
So the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to the vector $frac1mu k in B$ since $k in K$ and $frac1mu geq 0$. Hence $B$ is closed.



So where am I going wrong here ?



Thank you !










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I have a proof of the following false fact :




Let $E$ be normed vector space. Let $K subset E$ be a compact set. Then the set $B = lambda x mid lambda in mathbbR^+, x in K $ is closed (where $mathbbR^+$ are the positive real numbers including $0$).




This fact is true when $0 not in K$ yet it can be false when $0 in K$. For example by taking the semi-circle in the plane centered at $(1,0)$ of radius $1$.



So I made a proof a of this fact. My proof is thus obviously false yet I don't see where the mistake is :



Let $(lambda_n k_n)$ be a sequence in $B$ which converges to a vector $x in E$. We want to prove that $x in B$.



Since $K$ is compact there is $phi : mathbbN to mathbbN$ strictly increasing such that $(k_phi(n))$ converges to a vector $k in K$. If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done. So we can suppose $k ne 0$.



Since the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $x$ we must have $k in span x $. So there is $mu in mathbbR^*$ such that $k = mu x$. From here we can deduce that the sequence $(lambda_n)$ necessarily converges to $frac1mu$. Yet since $mathbbR^+$ is closed the sequence $(lambda_n)$ converges to a positive real number, so $frac1mu geq 0$ so $mu geq 0$.
So the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to the vector $frac1mu k in B$ since $k in K$ and $frac1mu geq 0$. Hence $B$ is closed.



So where am I going wrong here ?



Thank you !







real-analysis general-topology proof-verification compactness






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago







mouargmouarg













New contributor




mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 6 hours ago









mouargmouargmouargmouarg

533




533




New contributor




mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






mouargmouarg is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    I guess you mean $B$ to be the union of the $lambda K$ rather than the set of them?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey By this notation I mean the set of $lambda x$ for all $x in K$ and $lambda geq 0$, so my notation is wrong ?
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your notation meant that $B$ is the set whose elements are the sets $lambda K$ (so an element of $B$ is a subset of $E$, not a point of $E$).
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey You are right thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note that you state that $mathbbR^+$ is closed, which isn’t the case
    $endgroup$
    – Santana Afton
    51 mins ago
















  • $begingroup$
    I guess you mean $B$ to be the union of the $lambda K$ rather than the set of them?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey By this notation I mean the set of $lambda x$ for all $x in K$ and $lambda geq 0$, so my notation is wrong ?
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, your notation meant that $B$ is the set whose elements are the sets $lambda K$ (so an element of $B$ is a subset of $E$, not a point of $E$).
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey You are right thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note that you state that $mathbbR^+$ is closed, which isn’t the case
    $endgroup$
    – Santana Afton
    51 mins ago















$begingroup$
I guess you mean $B$ to be the union of the $lambda K$ rather than the set of them?
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
I guess you mean $B$ to be the union of the $lambda K$ rather than the set of them?
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
@EricWofsey By this notation I mean the set of $lambda x$ for all $x in K$ and $lambda geq 0$, so my notation is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– mouargmouarg
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
@EricWofsey By this notation I mean the set of $lambda x$ for all $x in K$ and $lambda geq 0$, so my notation is wrong ?
$endgroup$
– mouargmouarg
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
Yes, your notation meant that $B$ is the set whose elements are the sets $lambda K$ (so an element of $B$ is a subset of $E$, not a point of $E$).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Yes, your notation meant that $B$ is the set whose elements are the sets $lambda K$ (so an element of $B$ is a subset of $E$, not a point of $E$).
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
@EricWofsey You are right thank you.
$endgroup$
– mouargmouarg
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
@EricWofsey You are right thank you.
$endgroup$
– mouargmouarg
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
Note that you state that $mathbbR^+$ is closed, which isn’t the case
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
51 mins ago




$begingroup$
Note that you state that $mathbbR^+$ is closed, which isn’t the case
$endgroup$
– Santana Afton
51 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

In this situation, try to apply your argument to the counter-example you found, to see where it goes wrong.



Let us take for $K$ the circle of center $(1,0)$ and radius $1$. Then $S := bigcup_lambda geq 0 lambda K = (0,0) cup (mathbbR_+^* times mathbbR)$. It is not closed because one can take the family $f(t) = (t,1)$, which belongs to $S$ for $t>0$, and converges to $(0,1) notin S$ as $t$ goes to $0$.



The corresponding family of parameters $lambda (t)$ and $k(t)$ are:



$$lambda(t) = frac1+t^22t, quad k(t) = frac2t1+t^2 (t,1).$$



As $t$ goes to $0$, we have that $k(t)$ converges to $0$. But $lambda (t) k(t)$ does not converge to $0$, because $lambda(t)$ increases fast enough to compensate for the decay of $k(t)$.



hence your mistake is there: the fact that $(k_n)$ converges to $0$ does not imply that $(lambda_n k_n)$ also converges to $0$, because $lambda_n$ has no reason to be bounded.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You are right, it's more clear to me what's happening now. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$


If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done.




This is wrong. We know $k_phi(n)to 0$, but $lambda_n$ may be getting large so $lambda_nk_n$ can converge to a nonzero value.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Oh, thank you. I should have spotted that... For example by taking : $k_n = frac1n$ and $lambda_n = n$
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






mouargmouarg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149871%2fcompactness-of-a-set-where-am-i-going-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4












$begingroup$

In this situation, try to apply your argument to the counter-example you found, to see where it goes wrong.



Let us take for $K$ the circle of center $(1,0)$ and radius $1$. Then $S := bigcup_lambda geq 0 lambda K = (0,0) cup (mathbbR_+^* times mathbbR)$. It is not closed because one can take the family $f(t) = (t,1)$, which belongs to $S$ for $t>0$, and converges to $(0,1) notin S$ as $t$ goes to $0$.



The corresponding family of parameters $lambda (t)$ and $k(t)$ are:



$$lambda(t) = frac1+t^22t, quad k(t) = frac2t1+t^2 (t,1).$$



As $t$ goes to $0$, we have that $k(t)$ converges to $0$. But $lambda (t) k(t)$ does not converge to $0$, because $lambda(t)$ increases fast enough to compensate for the decay of $k(t)$.



hence your mistake is there: the fact that $(k_n)$ converges to $0$ does not imply that $(lambda_n k_n)$ also converges to $0$, because $lambda_n$ has no reason to be bounded.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You are right, it's more clear to me what's happening now. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago















4












$begingroup$

In this situation, try to apply your argument to the counter-example you found, to see where it goes wrong.



Let us take for $K$ the circle of center $(1,0)$ and radius $1$. Then $S := bigcup_lambda geq 0 lambda K = (0,0) cup (mathbbR_+^* times mathbbR)$. It is not closed because one can take the family $f(t) = (t,1)$, which belongs to $S$ for $t>0$, and converges to $(0,1) notin S$ as $t$ goes to $0$.



The corresponding family of parameters $lambda (t)$ and $k(t)$ are:



$$lambda(t) = frac1+t^22t, quad k(t) = frac2t1+t^2 (t,1).$$



As $t$ goes to $0$, we have that $k(t)$ converges to $0$. But $lambda (t) k(t)$ does not converge to $0$, because $lambda(t)$ increases fast enough to compensate for the decay of $k(t)$.



hence your mistake is there: the fact that $(k_n)$ converges to $0$ does not imply that $(lambda_n k_n)$ also converges to $0$, because $lambda_n$ has no reason to be bounded.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    You are right, it's more clear to me what's happening now. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$

In this situation, try to apply your argument to the counter-example you found, to see where it goes wrong.



Let us take for $K$ the circle of center $(1,0)$ and radius $1$. Then $S := bigcup_lambda geq 0 lambda K = (0,0) cup (mathbbR_+^* times mathbbR)$. It is not closed because one can take the family $f(t) = (t,1)$, which belongs to $S$ for $t>0$, and converges to $(0,1) notin S$ as $t$ goes to $0$.



The corresponding family of parameters $lambda (t)$ and $k(t)$ are:



$$lambda(t) = frac1+t^22t, quad k(t) = frac2t1+t^2 (t,1).$$



As $t$ goes to $0$, we have that $k(t)$ converges to $0$. But $lambda (t) k(t)$ does not converge to $0$, because $lambda(t)$ increases fast enough to compensate for the decay of $k(t)$.



hence your mistake is there: the fact that $(k_n)$ converges to $0$ does not imply that $(lambda_n k_n)$ also converges to $0$, because $lambda_n$ has no reason to be bounded.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



In this situation, try to apply your argument to the counter-example you found, to see where it goes wrong.



Let us take for $K$ the circle of center $(1,0)$ and radius $1$. Then $S := bigcup_lambda geq 0 lambda K = (0,0) cup (mathbbR_+^* times mathbbR)$. It is not closed because one can take the family $f(t) = (t,1)$, which belongs to $S$ for $t>0$, and converges to $(0,1) notin S$ as $t$ goes to $0$.



The corresponding family of parameters $lambda (t)$ and $k(t)$ are:



$$lambda(t) = frac1+t^22t, quad k(t) = frac2t1+t^2 (t,1).$$



As $t$ goes to $0$, we have that $k(t)$ converges to $0$. But $lambda (t) k(t)$ does not converge to $0$, because $lambda(t)$ increases fast enough to compensate for the decay of $k(t)$.



hence your mistake is there: the fact that $(k_n)$ converges to $0$ does not imply that $(lambda_n k_n)$ also converges to $0$, because $lambda_n$ has no reason to be bounded.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 6 hours ago









D. ThomineD. Thomine

7,7491538




7,7491538











  • $begingroup$
    You are right, it's more clear to me what's happening now. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    You are right, it's more clear to me what's happening now. Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago















$begingroup$
You are right, it's more clear to me what's happening now. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– mouargmouarg
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
You are right, it's more clear to me what's happening now. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– mouargmouarg
6 hours ago











1












$begingroup$


If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done.




This is wrong. We know $k_phi(n)to 0$, but $lambda_n$ may be getting large so $lambda_nk_n$ can converge to a nonzero value.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Oh, thank you. I should have spotted that... For example by taking : $k_n = frac1n$ and $lambda_n = n$
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago















1












$begingroup$


If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done.




This is wrong. We know $k_phi(n)to 0$, but $lambda_n$ may be getting large so $lambda_nk_n$ can converge to a nonzero value.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Oh, thank you. I should have spotted that... For example by taking : $k_n = frac1n$ and $lambda_n = n$
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$


If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done.




This is wrong. We know $k_phi(n)to 0$, but $lambda_n$ may be getting large so $lambda_nk_n$ can converge to a nonzero value.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




If $ k = 0$ then the sequence $(lambda_n k_n)$ converges to $0 in B$ and we are done.




This is wrong. We know $k_phi(n)to 0$, but $lambda_n$ may be getting large so $lambda_nk_n$ can converge to a nonzero value.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 6 hours ago









Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

189k14216347




189k14216347











  • $begingroup$
    Oh, thank you. I should have spotted that... For example by taking : $k_n = frac1n$ and $lambda_n = n$
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Oh, thank you. I should have spotted that... For example by taking : $k_n = frac1n$ and $lambda_n = n$
    $endgroup$
    – mouargmouarg
    6 hours ago















$begingroup$
Oh, thank you. I should have spotted that... For example by taking : $k_n = frac1n$ and $lambda_n = n$
$endgroup$
– mouargmouarg
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Oh, thank you. I should have spotted that... For example by taking : $k_n = frac1n$ and $lambda_n = n$
$endgroup$
– mouargmouarg
6 hours ago










mouargmouarg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















mouargmouarg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












mouargmouarg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











mouargmouarg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149871%2fcompactness-of-a-set-where-am-i-going-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar