Lower semi-continious, compactum, minimum
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ be a topological space, $Ksubset M$ compact, $fcolon Mtomathbb{R}cupleft{+inftyright}$ lower semi-continious. Show that $f$ takes its minimum on $K$.
Good day,
we defined lower semi-continuity as follows: $f$ is lower semi-continious on $M$ if for any $xin M$ and any $alpha < f(x)$ there is a neighbourhood $Usubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha<f(y)$ for all $yin U$.
So my idea is the following.
$f$ is lower semi-continious on $K$. Take any $xin K$ and $alpha < f(x)$, then there is a neighbourhood $U_xsubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha < f(y)~forall yin U$.
So it is
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{xin K}U_x.
$$
Because of the compactness of $K$ there is a finite index set $I$ such that
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}.
$$
It is $f(y)>alpha~forall yin U_{x_i}, iin I$.
So for all $alpha <infty$ it is $f(x)>alpha$ for all $xin K$.
This means that it is $inf_{xin K}f(x)=-infty$.
But do not know what to do with this result, is it helpful at all??
continuity
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ be a topological space, $Ksubset M$ compact, $fcolon Mtomathbb{R}cupleft{+inftyright}$ lower semi-continious. Show that $f$ takes its minimum on $K$.
Good day,
we defined lower semi-continuity as follows: $f$ is lower semi-continious on $M$ if for any $xin M$ and any $alpha < f(x)$ there is a neighbourhood $Usubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha<f(y)$ for all $yin U$.
So my idea is the following.
$f$ is lower semi-continious on $K$. Take any $xin K$ and $alpha < f(x)$, then there is a neighbourhood $U_xsubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha < f(y)~forall yin U$.
So it is
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{xin K}U_x.
$$
Because of the compactness of $K$ there is a finite index set $I$ such that
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}.
$$
It is $f(y)>alpha~forall yin U_{x_i}, iin I$.
So for all $alpha <infty$ it is $f(x)>alpha$ for all $xin K$.
This means that it is $inf_{xin K}f(x)=-infty$.
But do not know what to do with this result, is it helpful at all??
continuity
I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:13
1
$alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:16
@Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
– mathfemi
May 23 '14 at 15:17
@mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:18
1
Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:23
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ be a topological space, $Ksubset M$ compact, $fcolon Mtomathbb{R}cupleft{+inftyright}$ lower semi-continious. Show that $f$ takes its minimum on $K$.
Good day,
we defined lower semi-continuity as follows: $f$ is lower semi-continious on $M$ if for any $xin M$ and any $alpha < f(x)$ there is a neighbourhood $Usubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha<f(y)$ for all $yin U$.
So my idea is the following.
$f$ is lower semi-continious on $K$. Take any $xin K$ and $alpha < f(x)$, then there is a neighbourhood $U_xsubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha < f(y)~forall yin U$.
So it is
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{xin K}U_x.
$$
Because of the compactness of $K$ there is a finite index set $I$ such that
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}.
$$
It is $f(y)>alpha~forall yin U_{x_i}, iin I$.
So for all $alpha <infty$ it is $f(x)>alpha$ for all $xin K$.
This means that it is $inf_{xin K}f(x)=-infty$.
But do not know what to do with this result, is it helpful at all??
continuity
Let $M$ be a topological space, $Ksubset M$ compact, $fcolon Mtomathbb{R}cupleft{+inftyright}$ lower semi-continious. Show that $f$ takes its minimum on $K$.
Good day,
we defined lower semi-continuity as follows: $f$ is lower semi-continious on $M$ if for any $xin M$ and any $alpha < f(x)$ there is a neighbourhood $Usubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha<f(y)$ for all $yin U$.
So my idea is the following.
$f$ is lower semi-continious on $K$. Take any $xin K$ and $alpha < f(x)$, then there is a neighbourhood $U_xsubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha < f(y)~forall yin U$.
So it is
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{xin K}U_x.
$$
Because of the compactness of $K$ there is a finite index set $I$ such that
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}.
$$
It is $f(y)>alpha~forall yin U_{x_i}, iin I$.
So for all $alpha <infty$ it is $f(x)>alpha$ for all $xin K$.
This means that it is $inf_{xin K}f(x)=-infty$.
But do not know what to do with this result, is it helpful at all??
continuity
continuity
asked May 23 '14 at 15:10
mathfemi
708520
708520
I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:13
1
$alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:16
@Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
– mathfemi
May 23 '14 at 15:17
@mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:18
1
Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:23
|
show 5 more comments
I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:13
1
$alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:16
@Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
– mathfemi
May 23 '14 at 15:17
@mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:18
1
Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:23
I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:13
I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:13
1
1
$alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:16
$alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:16
@Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
– mathfemi
May 23 '14 at 15:17
@Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
– mathfemi
May 23 '14 at 15:17
@mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:18
@mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:18
1
1
Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:23
Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:23
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.
However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.
Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).
Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.
Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
$$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.
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
As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.
However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.
Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).
Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.
Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
$$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.
However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.
Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).
Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.
Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
$$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.
However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.
Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).
Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.
Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
$$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.
As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.
However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.
Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).
Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.
Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
$$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.
answered May 23 '14 at 15:54
Etienne
11.4k11340
11.4k11340
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f806760%2flower-semi-continious-compactum-minimum%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
I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:13
1
$alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:16
@Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
– mathfemi
May 23 '14 at 15:17
@mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:18
1
Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:23