How does the given proof is a spoof? [Completeness is a topological property of metric spaces]
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $f:(X,d)to (Y,e)$ homeomorphism. So, $f^{-1}$ is continuous. So $f^{-1}$ is continuous at $y in Y$, For any $epsilon in mathbb R^+$, $exists deltain mathbb R^+$:$e(x,y)<delta implies d(f^{-1}(x),f^{-1}(y))<epsilon. $ Let ${y_n}$ be a cauchy sequence in $(Y,e)$. For the same $delta$, There is a $Nin mathbb N$: $forall m,nge Nimplies e(y_n,y_m)<delta$. Define a sequence ${x_n=f^{-1}(y_n)}$. $forall m,nge N implies d(f^{-1}(y_n),f^{-1}(y_m))<epsilon.$ Hence ${x_n}$ converges in $(X,d)$. So $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$. Since $f$ is continuous. Hence ${y_n}$ converges to $f(x)$. How do my argument go wrong?
general-topology metric-spaces
asked Nov 20 at 14:55
Math geek
37419
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $f:(X,d)to (Y,e)$ homeomorphism. So, $f^{-1}$ is continuous. So $f^{-1}$ is continuous at $y in Y$, For any $epsilon in mathbb R^+$, $exists deltain mathbb R^+$:$e(x,y)<delta implies d(f^{-1}(x),f^{-1}(y))<epsilon. $ Let ${y_n}$ be a cauchy sequence in $(Y,e)$. For the same $delta$, There is a $Nin mathbb N$: $forall m,nge Nimplies e(y_n,y_m)<delta$. Define a sequence ${x_n=f^{-1}(y_n)}$. $forall m,nge N implies d(f^{-1}(y_n),f^{-1}(y_m))<epsilon.$ Hence ${x_n}$ converges in $(X,d)$. So $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$. Since $f$ is continuous. Hence ${y_n}$ converges to $f(x)$. How do my argument go wrong?
general-topology metric-spaces
asked Nov 20 at 14:55
Math geek
37419
Given $epsilon$, the $delta$ that you introduced will, in general, depend on $y$. Your argument needs the same $delta$ to work for infinitely many $y_n$'s.
– Andreas Blass
Nov 20 at 15:26
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $f:(X,d)to (Y,e)$ homeomorphism. So, $f^{-1}$ is continuous. So $f^{-1}$ is continuous at $y in Y$, For any $epsilon in mathbb R^+$, $exists deltain mathbb R^+$:$e(x,y)<delta implies d(f^{-1}(x),f^{-1}(y))<epsilon. $ Let ${y_n}$ be a cauchy sequence in $(Y,e)$. For the same $delta$, There is a $Nin mathbb N$: $forall m,nge Nimplies e(y_n,y_m)<delta$. Define a sequence ${x_n=f^{-1}(y_n)}$. $forall m,nge N implies d(f^{-1}(y_n),f^{-1}(y_m))<epsilon.$ Hence ${x_n}$ converges in $(X,d)$. So $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$. Since $f$ is continuous. Hence ${y_n}$ converges to $f(x)$. How do my argument go wrong?
general-topology metric-spaces
asked Nov 20 at 14:55
Math geek
37419
Let $f:(X,d)to (Y,e)$ homeomorphism. So, $f^{-1}$ is continuous. So $f^{-1}$ is continuous at $y in Y$, For any $epsilon in mathbb R^+$, $exists deltain mathbb R^+$:$e(x,y)<delta implies d(f^{-1}(x),f^{-1}(y))<epsilon. $ Let ${y_n}$ be a cauchy sequence in $(Y,e)$. For the same $delta$, There is a $Nin mathbb N$: $forall m,nge Nimplies e(y_n,y_m)<delta$. Define a sequence ${x_n=f^{-1}(y_n)}$. $forall m,nge N implies d(f^{-1}(y_n),f^{-1}(y_m))<epsilon.$ Hence ${x_n}$ converges in $(X,d)$. So $f(x_n)$ converges to $f(x)$. Since $f$ is continuous. Hence ${y_n}$ converges to $f(x)$. How do my argument go wrong?
general-topology metric-spaces
general-topology metric-spaces
asked Nov 20 at 14:55
Math geek
37419
asked Nov 20 at 14:55
Math geek
37419
asked Nov 20 at 14:55
Math geek
37419
asked Nov 20 at 14:55
Math geek
37419
asked Nov 20 at 14:55
Math geek
37419
37419
Given $epsilon$, the $delta$ that you introduced will, in general, depend on $y$. Your argument needs the same $delta$ to work for infinitely many $y_n$'s.
– Andreas Blass
Nov 20 at 15:26
add a comment |
Given $epsilon$, the $delta$ that you introduced will, in general, depend on $y$. Your argument needs the same $delta$ to work for infinitely many $y_n$'s.
– Andreas Blass
Nov 20 at 15:26
Given $epsilon$, the $delta$ that you introduced will, in general, depend on $y$. Your argument needs the same $delta$ to work for infinitely many $y_n$'s.
– Andreas Blass
Nov 20 at 15:26
Given $epsilon$, the $delta$ that you introduced will, in general, depend on $y$. Your argument needs the same $delta$ to work for infinitely many $y_n$'s.
– Andreas Blass
Nov 20 at 15:26
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
In your argument, you are using the uniform continuity criteria. In general, given $epsilon gt 0$, same $delta $ will not work for every point.
answered Nov 20 at 15:13
Thomas Shelby
16011
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
In your argument, you are using the uniform continuity criteria. In general, given $epsilon gt 0$, same $delta $ will not work for every point.
answered Nov 20 at 15:13
Thomas Shelby
16011
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
In your argument, you are using the uniform continuity criteria. In general, given $epsilon gt 0$, same $delta $ will not work for every point.
answered Nov 20 at 15:13
Thomas Shelby
16011
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
In your argument, you are using the uniform continuity criteria. In general, given $epsilon gt 0$, same $delta $ will not work for every point.
answered Nov 20 at 15:13
Thomas Shelby
16011
In your argument, you are using the uniform continuity criteria. In general, given $epsilon gt 0$, same $delta $ will not work for every point.
answered Nov 20 at 15:13
Thomas Shelby
16011
answered Nov 20 at 15:13
Thomas Shelby
16011
answered Nov 20 at 15:13
Thomas Shelby
16011
answered Nov 20 at 15:13
Thomas Shelby
16011
16011
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006410%2fhow-does-the-given-proof-is-a-spoof-completeness-is-a-topological-property-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Given $epsilon$, the $delta$ that you introduced will, in general, depend on $y$. Your argument needs the same $delta$ to work for infinitely many $y_n$'s.
– Andreas Blass
Nov 20 at 15:26