Physics Forums

compactness and continuity.

I need to prove that for every continuous function f:X->X of a metric and compact space X, which satisfy for each two different x and y in X p(f(x),f(y))<p(x,y) where p is the metric on X, there's a fixed point, i.e there exist x0 s.t f(x0)=x0.

obviously i thought assuming there isnt such a point i.e that for every x in X f(x)!=x
now because X is compact and it's a metric space it's equivalent to sequence compactness, i.e that for every sequence of X there exist a subsequence of it that converges to x0.

now $$p(f(x_{n_k}),x_{n_k})$$, because they are not equal then there exist e0 such that: $$p(f(x_{n_k}),x_{n_k})>=e0$$
now if x_n_k=f(y_n_k) y_n_k!=x_n_k, we can write it as:
p(x_n_k,x0)+p(x0,y_n_k)>=p(x_n_k,y_n_k)>e0
now if y_n_k were converging to x0, it will be easier, not sure how to procceed...

what do you think?

PhysOrg.com  science news on PhysOrg.com  >> Front-row seats to climate change>> Attacking MRSA with metals from antibacterial clays>> New formula invented for microscope viewing, substitutes for federally controlled drug

Recognitions:      Homework  Help     Science  Advisor  This is a special case of the Banach contraction mapping theorem. A proof would go as follows: Let x0 be any point in X, and let xn=f(xn-1) for n>1. Claim: {x_n} converges.  Post back if you need more hints.

well cauchy sequnce obviously will do here. $$p(f(x_n),f(x_{n_k}))<p(x_n,x_n_k)=p(f(x_{n-1}),f(x_{n_k-1}))<p(x_{n-1},x_{n_k-1})<....<p(x_0,x_{n_k-n})$$ now if x_{n_k-n} converges to x_0 (which can be assumed cause it's compact and metric), it will be easy to prove your claim, cause then for every e>0 s.t k is big enough: p(x_0,x_{n_k-1})<e/2 and also p(x0,x_{n_k-n})<e/2 so p(x_n-1,x0)<=p(f(x_n),f(x_n_k))+p(f(x_n_k),x0)<...<e.  is this wrong? I have a sneaky suspicion that yes.

Recognitions:
Homework Help
Science Advisor

compactness and continuity.

If n > n_k, then $x_{n_k - n}$ doesn't make sense. Also I don't see how you can assume that "x_{n_k-n} converges to x_0", because it isn't true.

You started out with the right idea. Let n>m, and consider p(xn, xm). Show that we can make this arbitrarily small. This would imply that {xn} is Cauchy and hence convergent (because X is compact). Then we can use the continuity of f to conclude that f has a fixed point (how?).

well, p(xn,xm)<p(xn-1,xm-1)<....<p(xn-m,x0) now how do i procceed from here? I mean if I assume n-m is big enough, s.t x_n-m->x0 then that will do, not sure that this is correct...

I have another two questions, I need to answer if the next spaces satisfy S2 or Sep, the spaces are with they metrics affiliated with them, in here: http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~shustin/c...ar5top.xet.pdf in questions 4,5 (disregard the herbew words near them) there listed the spaces.  well what i think is that because if a space is metric and it satisfies S2 then it also satisifes S2, and always when S2 is satisifes then also Sep is satisifed, then it's easy to check fo Sep, i think it follows that for the first the space follows both of them, while in the second it doesnt satisify either of them.  not sure how argue that? I mean can I find a countable basis for the C^k[0,1]? or a countable dense set in it? what do you think?

Recognitions:
Homework Help
Science Advisor

Quote by loop quantum gravity 					 				 				well, p(xn,xm)<p(xn-1,xm-1)<....<p(xn-m,x0) now how do i procceed from here? I mean if I assume n-m is big enough, s.t x_n-m->x0 then that will do, not sure that this is correct...
To finish off, you can use the triangle inequality
$$\rho(x_{n-m},x_0) < \rho(x_{n-m},x_{n-m-1}) + \rho(x_{n-m-1}, x_{n-m-2}) + \cdots + \rho(x_1, x_0)$$
coupled with the observation that
$$\rho(x_n, x_{n-1}) < \rho(x_1, x_0)$$.

Recognitions:      Homework  Help     Science  Advisor  As for your other question: I'm guessing S_2 means second countable (has a countable basis) and Sep means separable (has a countable dense subset), right?  And you have the right idea: a metric space is separable iff it's second countable. I would use separability here. For C^k[0,1], try to see if Weierstrauss's theorem is helpful. For l_2, I would think about the subspace consisting of sequences with only finitely many terms. This is certainly dense in l_2, but is it countable? No. So how about we restrict these sequences to those with rational terms?

it seems eventually that munkres has a similar questions with hints which were helpful.

Thread Tools

Similar Threads for: compactness and continuity.
Thread                                            Forum                          Replies
General Math                   12
Calculus & Beyond Homework     1
Calculus                       5
Calculus                       6
Introductory Physics Homework  0
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 1, "mathjax_display_tex": 5, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": false, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9136365056037903, "perplexity_flag": "middle"}