Convergence of a Sequence - metric explanation












2














I am new to functional Analysis and the way convergence of a sequence is defined confuses me . I am reading the book by Kreyzig where he says :
A sequence ${(x_n)}$ in a metric space $X =(X,d)$ is said to converge if there is an $x in X$ such that
$$ lim_{n to inf} d(x_{n},x) = 0$$



x is called the limit of $x_{n}$ and we write :
$$ lim_{n to inf} x_{n} = x$$



Further , the author says that the metric d yields the sequence of real numbers : $$a_{n} = d(x_{n},x)$$ whose convergence defines that of $x_{n}$.



My Questions are

1.) When author says $x in X$ , does it mean $x$ is a sequence ? Intuitively $x$ should be a number as it is the limit of a sequence . BUT

2.) If $x$ is a number then how can we calculate the distance which is defined on sequences ,given that we are in a sequence space.

3.)How can the metric $d$ yield a sequence $a_{n}$ and not a number ?










share|cite|improve this question





























    2














    I am new to functional Analysis and the way convergence of a sequence is defined confuses me . I am reading the book by Kreyzig where he says :
    A sequence ${(x_n)}$ in a metric space $X =(X,d)$ is said to converge if there is an $x in X$ such that
    $$ lim_{n to inf} d(x_{n},x) = 0$$



    x is called the limit of $x_{n}$ and we write :
    $$ lim_{n to inf} x_{n} = x$$



    Further , the author says that the metric d yields the sequence of real numbers : $$a_{n} = d(x_{n},x)$$ whose convergence defines that of $x_{n}$.



    My Questions are

    1.) When author says $x in X$ , does it mean $x$ is a sequence ? Intuitively $x$ should be a number as it is the limit of a sequence . BUT

    2.) If $x$ is a number then how can we calculate the distance which is defined on sequences ,given that we are in a sequence space.

    3.)How can the metric $d$ yield a sequence $a_{n}$ and not a number ?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2







      I am new to functional Analysis and the way convergence of a sequence is defined confuses me . I am reading the book by Kreyzig where he says :
      A sequence ${(x_n)}$ in a metric space $X =(X,d)$ is said to converge if there is an $x in X$ such that
      $$ lim_{n to inf} d(x_{n},x) = 0$$



      x is called the limit of $x_{n}$ and we write :
      $$ lim_{n to inf} x_{n} = x$$



      Further , the author says that the metric d yields the sequence of real numbers : $$a_{n} = d(x_{n},x)$$ whose convergence defines that of $x_{n}$.



      My Questions are

      1.) When author says $x in X$ , does it mean $x$ is a sequence ? Intuitively $x$ should be a number as it is the limit of a sequence . BUT

      2.) If $x$ is a number then how can we calculate the distance which is defined on sequences ,given that we are in a sequence space.

      3.)How can the metric $d$ yield a sequence $a_{n}$ and not a number ?










      share|cite|improve this question















      I am new to functional Analysis and the way convergence of a sequence is defined confuses me . I am reading the book by Kreyzig where he says :
      A sequence ${(x_n)}$ in a metric space $X =(X,d)$ is said to converge if there is an $x in X$ such that
      $$ lim_{n to inf} d(x_{n},x) = 0$$



      x is called the limit of $x_{n}$ and we write :
      $$ lim_{n to inf} x_{n} = x$$



      Further , the author says that the metric d yields the sequence of real numbers : $$a_{n} = d(x_{n},x)$$ whose convergence defines that of $x_{n}$.



      My Questions are

      1.) When author says $x in X$ , does it mean $x$ is a sequence ? Intuitively $x$ should be a number as it is the limit of a sequence . BUT

      2.) If $x$ is a number then how can we calculate the distance which is defined on sequences ,given that we are in a sequence space.

      3.)How can the metric $d$ yield a sequence $a_{n}$ and not a number ?







      real-analysis functional-analysis analysis convergence






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 29 at 19:13

























      asked Nov 29 at 19:03









      Abhishek_04

      264




      264






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          1.) x is an element of X. If X is $mathbb{R}$ then yes, x is just one real number.



          To see why we care about $x in mathbb{R}$, consider if $X = (0,1)$. A sequence like $frac{1}{n}$ will not (and should intuitively) not converge because $0$ is not in the set $X$.



          2/3.) Kreyzig is just defining a new sequence ${a_n}$. Every metric space will have some metric d. It might be helpful to just think about this as 'distance'. How he is defining ${a_n}$ is by taking the distance from every point in the sequence ${x_n}$ and subtracting the point to which the sequence converges. See that this sequence should then converge to $0$.



          Note when he writes $a_n = d(x_n, x)$ he is defining a term of the sequence. Hence ${a_n} = {a_1, a_2,... }$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • What If X is a general sequence space not specifially R ? what about x then ?
            – Abhishek_04
            Nov 29 at 19:31










          • I understand that metric defines the notion of a distance . If we , for example, talk of an L-P space, then we have have a well defined metric which gives a number. But if want to talk of convergence of an element of that sequence space, we define another distance metric given in the book . is that correct ?
            – Abhishek_04
            Nov 29 at 19:35










          • So I'm not sure what your book says, but it might use the p-norm. I have also seen the metric $lim |m_n - k_n|$ for the space of Cauchy sequences over $mathbb{Q}$. But in general, yes it definitely depends on the metric $d$ and some might define it different than others.
            – T. Ford
            Nov 29 at 19:47



















          0














          SO i finally figured out what mistake i was doing .
          1.) A sequence can be defined in any metric space (X,d) where X does not necessarily have to be space of sequence like the $l^{p}$ . So for the case when X is R , x wil just be a number, if X is a sequence space , the limit will indeed be a sequence.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019046%2fconvergence-of-a-sequence-metric-explanation%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









            0














            1.) x is an element of X. If X is $mathbb{R}$ then yes, x is just one real number.



            To see why we care about $x in mathbb{R}$, consider if $X = (0,1)$. A sequence like $frac{1}{n}$ will not (and should intuitively) not converge because $0$ is not in the set $X$.



            2/3.) Kreyzig is just defining a new sequence ${a_n}$. Every metric space will have some metric d. It might be helpful to just think about this as 'distance'. How he is defining ${a_n}$ is by taking the distance from every point in the sequence ${x_n}$ and subtracting the point to which the sequence converges. See that this sequence should then converge to $0$.



            Note when he writes $a_n = d(x_n, x)$ he is defining a term of the sequence. Hence ${a_n} = {a_1, a_2,... }$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • What If X is a general sequence space not specifially R ? what about x then ?
              – Abhishek_04
              Nov 29 at 19:31










            • I understand that metric defines the notion of a distance . If we , for example, talk of an L-P space, then we have have a well defined metric which gives a number. But if want to talk of convergence of an element of that sequence space, we define another distance metric given in the book . is that correct ?
              – Abhishek_04
              Nov 29 at 19:35










            • So I'm not sure what your book says, but it might use the p-norm. I have also seen the metric $lim |m_n - k_n|$ for the space of Cauchy sequences over $mathbb{Q}$. But in general, yes it definitely depends on the metric $d$ and some might define it different than others.
              – T. Ford
              Nov 29 at 19:47
















            0














            1.) x is an element of X. If X is $mathbb{R}$ then yes, x is just one real number.



            To see why we care about $x in mathbb{R}$, consider if $X = (0,1)$. A sequence like $frac{1}{n}$ will not (and should intuitively) not converge because $0$ is not in the set $X$.



            2/3.) Kreyzig is just defining a new sequence ${a_n}$. Every metric space will have some metric d. It might be helpful to just think about this as 'distance'. How he is defining ${a_n}$ is by taking the distance from every point in the sequence ${x_n}$ and subtracting the point to which the sequence converges. See that this sequence should then converge to $0$.



            Note when he writes $a_n = d(x_n, x)$ he is defining a term of the sequence. Hence ${a_n} = {a_1, a_2,... }$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • What If X is a general sequence space not specifially R ? what about x then ?
              – Abhishek_04
              Nov 29 at 19:31










            • I understand that metric defines the notion of a distance . If we , for example, talk of an L-P space, then we have have a well defined metric which gives a number. But if want to talk of convergence of an element of that sequence space, we define another distance metric given in the book . is that correct ?
              – Abhishek_04
              Nov 29 at 19:35










            • So I'm not sure what your book says, but it might use the p-norm. I have also seen the metric $lim |m_n - k_n|$ for the space of Cauchy sequences over $mathbb{Q}$. But in general, yes it definitely depends on the metric $d$ and some might define it different than others.
              – T. Ford
              Nov 29 at 19:47














            0












            0








            0






            1.) x is an element of X. If X is $mathbb{R}$ then yes, x is just one real number.



            To see why we care about $x in mathbb{R}$, consider if $X = (0,1)$. A sequence like $frac{1}{n}$ will not (and should intuitively) not converge because $0$ is not in the set $X$.



            2/3.) Kreyzig is just defining a new sequence ${a_n}$. Every metric space will have some metric d. It might be helpful to just think about this as 'distance'. How he is defining ${a_n}$ is by taking the distance from every point in the sequence ${x_n}$ and subtracting the point to which the sequence converges. See that this sequence should then converge to $0$.



            Note when he writes $a_n = d(x_n, x)$ he is defining a term of the sequence. Hence ${a_n} = {a_1, a_2,... }$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            1.) x is an element of X. If X is $mathbb{R}$ then yes, x is just one real number.



            To see why we care about $x in mathbb{R}$, consider if $X = (0,1)$. A sequence like $frac{1}{n}$ will not (and should intuitively) not converge because $0$ is not in the set $X$.



            2/3.) Kreyzig is just defining a new sequence ${a_n}$. Every metric space will have some metric d. It might be helpful to just think about this as 'distance'. How he is defining ${a_n}$ is by taking the distance from every point in the sequence ${x_n}$ and subtracting the point to which the sequence converges. See that this sequence should then converge to $0$.



            Note when he writes $a_n = d(x_n, x)$ he is defining a term of the sequence. Hence ${a_n} = {a_1, a_2,... }$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 29 at 19:22









            T. Ford

            12118




            12118












            • What If X is a general sequence space not specifially R ? what about x then ?
              – Abhishek_04
              Nov 29 at 19:31










            • I understand that metric defines the notion of a distance . If we , for example, talk of an L-P space, then we have have a well defined metric which gives a number. But if want to talk of convergence of an element of that sequence space, we define another distance metric given in the book . is that correct ?
              – Abhishek_04
              Nov 29 at 19:35










            • So I'm not sure what your book says, but it might use the p-norm. I have also seen the metric $lim |m_n - k_n|$ for the space of Cauchy sequences over $mathbb{Q}$. But in general, yes it definitely depends on the metric $d$ and some might define it different than others.
              – T. Ford
              Nov 29 at 19:47


















            • What If X is a general sequence space not specifially R ? what about x then ?
              – Abhishek_04
              Nov 29 at 19:31










            • I understand that metric defines the notion of a distance . If we , for example, talk of an L-P space, then we have have a well defined metric which gives a number. But if want to talk of convergence of an element of that sequence space, we define another distance metric given in the book . is that correct ?
              – Abhishek_04
              Nov 29 at 19:35










            • So I'm not sure what your book says, but it might use the p-norm. I have also seen the metric $lim |m_n - k_n|$ for the space of Cauchy sequences over $mathbb{Q}$. But in general, yes it definitely depends on the metric $d$ and some might define it different than others.
              – T. Ford
              Nov 29 at 19:47
















            What If X is a general sequence space not specifially R ? what about x then ?
            – Abhishek_04
            Nov 29 at 19:31




            What If X is a general sequence space not specifially R ? what about x then ?
            – Abhishek_04
            Nov 29 at 19:31












            I understand that metric defines the notion of a distance . If we , for example, talk of an L-P space, then we have have a well defined metric which gives a number. But if want to talk of convergence of an element of that sequence space, we define another distance metric given in the book . is that correct ?
            – Abhishek_04
            Nov 29 at 19:35




            I understand that metric defines the notion of a distance . If we , for example, talk of an L-P space, then we have have a well defined metric which gives a number. But if want to talk of convergence of an element of that sequence space, we define another distance metric given in the book . is that correct ?
            – Abhishek_04
            Nov 29 at 19:35












            So I'm not sure what your book says, but it might use the p-norm. I have also seen the metric $lim |m_n - k_n|$ for the space of Cauchy sequences over $mathbb{Q}$. But in general, yes it definitely depends on the metric $d$ and some might define it different than others.
            – T. Ford
            Nov 29 at 19:47




            So I'm not sure what your book says, but it might use the p-norm. I have also seen the metric $lim |m_n - k_n|$ for the space of Cauchy sequences over $mathbb{Q}$. But in general, yes it definitely depends on the metric $d$ and some might define it different than others.
            – T. Ford
            Nov 29 at 19:47











            0














            SO i finally figured out what mistake i was doing .
            1.) A sequence can be defined in any metric space (X,d) where X does not necessarily have to be space of sequence like the $l^{p}$ . So for the case when X is R , x wil just be a number, if X is a sequence space , the limit will indeed be a sequence.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              0














              SO i finally figured out what mistake i was doing .
              1.) A sequence can be defined in any metric space (X,d) where X does not necessarily have to be space of sequence like the $l^{p}$ . So for the case when X is R , x wil just be a number, if X is a sequence space , the limit will indeed be a sequence.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                0












                0








                0






                SO i finally figured out what mistake i was doing .
                1.) A sequence can be defined in any metric space (X,d) where X does not necessarily have to be space of sequence like the $l^{p}$ . So for the case when X is R , x wil just be a number, if X is a sequence space , the limit will indeed be a sequence.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                SO i finally figured out what mistake i was doing .
                1.) A sequence can be defined in any metric space (X,d) where X does not necessarily have to be space of sequence like the $l^{p}$ . So for the case when X is R , x wil just be a number, if X is a sequence space , the limit will indeed be a sequence.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 30 at 7:42









                Abhishek_04

                264




                264






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019046%2fconvergence-of-a-sequence-metric-explanation%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

                    Wiesbaden

                    Marschland

                    Dieringhausen