0

I'm working on a real analysis homework problem and my approach depends on the following claim being true:

Let $(S,d)$ be a metric space, $(z_n)$ a sequence in $S$ converging to $x$ for which $d(z_n,x)\geq d(z_{n+1},x)$ for all $n$ (i.e. $z_n$ is always getting closer to $x$), and let $r_n=\sup\{d(z_m,z_n): m\geq n\}$. Then $$\overline{B}(z_n, r_n) \supset \overline{B}(z_{n+1}, r_{n+1}),$$ i.e. $$d(y,z_{n+1})\leq r_{n+1} \Rightarrow d(y,z_n)\leq r_n$$ for all $y,n$. Intuitively (i.e. by sketching examples in $\mathbb{R}$), this seems true, but I'm having trouble proving it. Any hints would be much appreciated!

  • I'm not so sure it holds in $\mathbb{R}$. Take the sequence $(1, -1/2, 1/4, -1/8, \ldots)$. Then $z_n \rightarrow 0$, $d(z_n, 0) = \frac{1}{2^n}$ so $z_n$ is always getting closer. Notice $r_0 = d(1, -1/2) = 3/2$, $r_1 = d(-1/2, 1/4) = 3/4$. Take $\bar{B}(1,3/2)$, $\bar{B}(-1/2, 3/4)$. Then $-5/4 \in \bar{B}(-1/2, 3/4)$ but $-5/4 \notin \bar{B}(1,3/2)$. – User203940 Oct 28 '20 at 16:21
  • At the very least, I think the best you can do is using the triangle inequality. So $y \in \bar{B}(z_{n+1}, r_{n+1})$ implies $d(z_n, y) \leq d(z_n, z_{n+1}) + d(z_{n+1}, y) \leq r_n + r_{n+1}$ and this tells you that $\bar{B}(z_{n+1}, r_{n+1}) \subseteq \bar{B}(z_n, r_n + r_{n+1})$. – User203940 Oct 28 '20 at 16:26
  • oop, you're right. I need to think of a better $(r_n)$.. back to the drawing board! – Archie Gertsman Oct 28 '20 at 16:30
  • What's the original problem? – User203940 Oct 28 '20 at 16:34
  • Prove that $S$ is complete if for every sequence of nested closed balls $\overline{B}(x_n, r_n)\supset \overline{B}(x_{n+1}, r_{n+1})$ with $\lim r_n = 0$, we have that $\bigcap \overline{B}(x_n,r_n) \neq \varnothing$. – Archie Gertsman Oct 28 '20 at 16:40
  • My idea is to take an arbitrary Cauchy sequence that converges to $x$, take a subsequence with "getting closer" property (which is meant to make the construction of $(r_n)$ easier), and construct $(r_n)$ so that I can use the assumption to show that $x$ is in the intersection which implies that $x\in S$. – Archie Gertsman Oct 28 '20 at 16:44

1 Answers1

0

Claim: If $(x_n)_{n=0}^\infty$ a Cauchy sequence, then for any $N > 0$ we have $(x_n)_{n=N}^\infty$ is Cauchy as well.

Proof: Fix $\epsilon > 0$. Since $(x_n)_{n=0}^\infty$ Cauchy, there exists $M$ so that for $n,m \geq M$ we have $d(x_n, x_m) < \epsilon$. If $M \geq N$, then choose the same $M$ for $(x_n)_{n=N}^\infty$. If $N > M$, then notice that for all $n,m \geq N > M$ we have that $d(x_n, x_m) < \epsilon$, so there still exists such an $N$. So if we let $N' = \max\{N, M\}$, then we have that for all $n,m \geq N'$ $d(x_n, x_m) < \epsilon$, proving the subsequence $(x_n)_{n=N}^\infty$ is Cauchy.

Claim: Suppose that for every sequence of nested closed balls $\overline{B}(x_{n+1}, r_{n+1}) \subseteq \overline{B}(x_n, r_n)$ with $r_n \rightarrow 0$, we have $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty \overline{B}(x_n, r_n) \neq \varnothing$. If $(x_n)$ is Cauchy, then there is an $x$ so that $x_n \rightarrow x$.

Proof: Take $(x_n)$ a Cauchy sequence. Notice there exists an $N_1$ so that for all $n,m \geq N_1$, we have $d(x_n, x_m) < 1/2$. Let $z_1 = x_{N_1}$. Notice that $(x_n)_{n=N_1}^\infty \subseteq \overline{B}(z_1, 1)$ is a Cauchy sequence by the above claim. Thus there exists an $N_2 > N_1$ so that for all $n,m \geq N_2$, we have $d(x_n, x_m) < 1/4$. Let $z_2 = x_{N_2}$. We claim that $\overline{B}(z_2, 1/2) \subseteq \overline{B}(z_1, 1)$. Taking $y \in \overline{B}(z_2, 1/2)$, we see

$$d(y,z_1) \leq d(y,z_2) + d(z_2, z_1) \leq 1/2 + 1/2 = 1,$$ so $y \in \overline{B}(z_1, 1)$. Continue inductively like this. Suppose we have $z_r$ and $N_r$ so that $(x_n)_{n=N_r}^\infty \subseteq \overline{B}(z_r, 1/2^r)$ and for all $n,m \geq N_r$ we have $d(x_n, x_m) < 1/2^{r+1}$. This sequence is Cauchy, and so we find $N_{r+1} > N_r$ so that for $n,m \geq N_{r+1}$ we have $d(x_n, x_m) < 1/2^{r+2}$. Letting $z_{r+1} = x_{N_{r+1}},$ we take $\overline{B}(z_{r+1}, 1/2^{r+1})$. We claim that $\overline{B}(z_{r+1}, 1/2^{r+1}) \subseteq \overline{B}(z_r, 1/2^r)$. Take $y \in \overline{B}(z_{r+1}, 1/2^{r+1})$, and note

$$d(z_r, y) \leq d(z_r, z_{r+1}) + d(z_{r+1}, y) \leq \frac{1}{2^{r+1}} + \frac{1}{2^{r+1}} = \frac{1}{2^r},$$ so $y \in \overline{B}(z_r, 1/2^r)$.

Using this, we have constructed a decreasing sequence of closed balls, so using the property we get that $\bigcap_{r=0}^\infty \overline{B}(z_r, 1/2^r) \neq \varnothing$. Take $x$ in the intersection. We claim $x_n \rightarrow x$. This will follow if we show that the subsequence $z_r \rightarrow x$. To see this, fix $\epsilon > 0$. There exists $R$ sufficiently large so that $1/2^R < \epsilon$, so for $r \geq R$ we have that $d(z_r, x) \leq 1/2^r < \epsilon$ (since $x \in \overline{B}(z_r, 1/2^r)$). Thus $z_r \rightarrow x$, and since we have a convergent subsequence of a Cauchy sequence this implies that $x_n \rightarrow x$.

For this last fact, see Cauchy sequence is convergent iff it has a convergent subsequence.

User203940
  • 2,789