Space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ with compact support are dense in...












0












$begingroup$


I have the following statements



At first, theorem 1:

Let
$A$ be a complete metric space,
$B$ a separable metric space,
$M$ in $Atimes B$ open and dense set, then



the room $A$ contains a dense set $N$ with the property, that for every point $a$ of $N$ in $B$ exists a dense set of points $y$, such that all points $(a,y)$ belongs to $M$. End theorem 1.



Let $F_n(X):={f:Xrightarrow mathbb{R}^n ;|;f;continuous }$ the space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ on a compact metric space $X$ provided with sup-metric and
$G_n(X):={f:Xrightarrow mathbb{R}^n ;|; f; continuous,; f(r)neq 0, ; forall ; xin X}$ the space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ without functions with zeros, on a compact metric space $X$ provided with sup-metric.



So $F_n(X)$ is a complete, separable metric space, $G_n(X)$ is open in $F_n(X)$ and we can write $F_n(X)$ as $F_1(X)times F_{n-1}(X)$.



So if $G_n(X)$ is dense in $F_n(X)$ we can use theorem 1.

Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$



If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.



I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.
Because, let us start with $F_1(X)times F_1(X)$. Have a look a my picture (sorry for ugly writing). Visualisation of my imagination



so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.



Can anyone help me to find my logic mistake? Thanks










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    I have the following statements



    At first, theorem 1:

    Let
    $A$ be a complete metric space,
    $B$ a separable metric space,
    $M$ in $Atimes B$ open and dense set, then



    the room $A$ contains a dense set $N$ with the property, that for every point $a$ of $N$ in $B$ exists a dense set of points $y$, such that all points $(a,y)$ belongs to $M$. End theorem 1.



    Let $F_n(X):={f:Xrightarrow mathbb{R}^n ;|;f;continuous }$ the space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ on a compact metric space $X$ provided with sup-metric and
    $G_n(X):={f:Xrightarrow mathbb{R}^n ;|; f; continuous,; f(r)neq 0, ; forall ; xin X}$ the space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ without functions with zeros, on a compact metric space $X$ provided with sup-metric.



    So $F_n(X)$ is a complete, separable metric space, $G_n(X)$ is open in $F_n(X)$ and we can write $F_n(X)$ as $F_1(X)times F_{n-1}(X)$.



    So if $G_n(X)$ is dense in $F_n(X)$ we can use theorem 1.

    Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

    a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$



    If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.



    I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.
    Because, let us start with $F_1(X)times F_1(X)$. Have a look a my picture (sorry for ugly writing). Visualisation of my imagination



    so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.



    Can anyone help me to find my logic mistake? Thanks










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      I have the following statements



      At first, theorem 1:

      Let
      $A$ be a complete metric space,
      $B$ a separable metric space,
      $M$ in $Atimes B$ open and dense set, then



      the room $A$ contains a dense set $N$ with the property, that for every point $a$ of $N$ in $B$ exists a dense set of points $y$, such that all points $(a,y)$ belongs to $M$. End theorem 1.



      Let $F_n(X):={f:Xrightarrow mathbb{R}^n ;|;f;continuous }$ the space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ on a compact metric space $X$ provided with sup-metric and
      $G_n(X):={f:Xrightarrow mathbb{R}^n ;|; f; continuous,; f(r)neq 0, ; forall ; xin X}$ the space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ without functions with zeros, on a compact metric space $X$ provided with sup-metric.



      So $F_n(X)$ is a complete, separable metric space, $G_n(X)$ is open in $F_n(X)$ and we can write $F_n(X)$ as $F_1(X)times F_{n-1}(X)$.



      So if $G_n(X)$ is dense in $F_n(X)$ we can use theorem 1.

      Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

      a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$



      If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.



      I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.
      Because, let us start with $F_1(X)times F_1(X)$. Have a look a my picture (sorry for ugly writing). Visualisation of my imagination



      so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.



      Can anyone help me to find my logic mistake? Thanks










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I have the following statements



      At first, theorem 1:

      Let
      $A$ be a complete metric space,
      $B$ a separable metric space,
      $M$ in $Atimes B$ open and dense set, then



      the room $A$ contains a dense set $N$ with the property, that for every point $a$ of $N$ in $B$ exists a dense set of points $y$, such that all points $(a,y)$ belongs to $M$. End theorem 1.



      Let $F_n(X):={f:Xrightarrow mathbb{R}^n ;|;f;continuous }$ the space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ on a compact metric space $X$ provided with sup-metric and
      $G_n(X):={f:Xrightarrow mathbb{R}^n ;|; f; continuous,; f(r)neq 0, ; forall ; xin X}$ the space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ without functions with zeros, on a compact metric space $X$ provided with sup-metric.



      So $F_n(X)$ is a complete, separable metric space, $G_n(X)$ is open in $F_n(X)$ and we can write $F_n(X)$ as $F_1(X)times F_{n-1}(X)$.



      So if $G_n(X)$ is dense in $F_n(X)$ we can use theorem 1.

      Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

      a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$



      If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.



      I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.
      Because, let us start with $F_1(X)times F_1(X)$. Have a look a my picture (sorry for ugly writing). Visualisation of my imagination



      so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.



      Can anyone help me to find my logic mistake? Thanks







      general-topology functional-analysis






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 4 '18 at 19:58









      GeoRieGeoRie

      102




      102






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$


          Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

          a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$




          That is there exists a dense set $N$ of $F_1(x)$ such that for each $fin N$ the set $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}$ is dense. Note that the set $G_f$ depends on the function $f$ and it may be not the same for distinct $fin F_1(X)$.




          If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.




          Right.




          I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.




          Note, that we still speak about pairs $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$. And if $xin E(f)$ and $varphi(x)=0$ then $(f(x),varphi(x))=0$, which contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$.




          so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.




          We are allowed to use $varphi$ means $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ for a given fixed $f$. This doesn’t imply that we are allowed to use $varphi$ with a different function, say $f’in F_1(X)$. For a particular choice of $f$, when $f(x)=1$ for each $xin X$, a set $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty. Then $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}=F_{n-1}(X)$. But this does not mean that $G_{f’}=F_{n-1}(X)$ for any function $f’in F_1(X).$



          Remark that in this case also $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty, so we cannot "use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$", because there is no such $x$. But if $f’in F_1(X)$ is an other function then we are allowed to use a function $varphiin F_{n-1}$ with the function $f’$, that is $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ iff $varphi(x)ne 0$ for each $xin E(f’)$.



          PS. It seems that the picture is not needed.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            And what about if only one $f$ is constant e.g. $f=1$ and the other have zeros. So one can write $(1,varphi)$ with $varphi$ abitrary. Then it did not contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 6 '18 at 14:28










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie Looking for $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, we cannot pair arbitrary $f$ with arbitrary $varphi$, we need a restriction $varphi(x)ne(0,0,dots,0)inBbb R^{n-1}$ for each $xin E(f)$, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 6 '18 at 16:09












          • $begingroup$
            Yes. That's my question. Why we need a restriction to $varphi$ if we combine it with those $f$ who did not have zeros. Then we don't need a restriction for $varphi$? Thrn, if we choose such $f$, $varphi$ can be mapped to zero in $mathbb{R}$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 7 '18 at 9:21












          • $begingroup$
            Do you understand my thoughts? Are my thoughts wrong? Could you explain it more exact, please. Thanks a lot.
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 9 '18 at 11:40










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie I expanded my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 9 '18 at 12:16











          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%2f3026078%2fspace-of-continuous-functions-with-mapping-to-mathbbrn-with-compact-suppor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$


          Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

          a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$




          That is there exists a dense set $N$ of $F_1(x)$ such that for each $fin N$ the set $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}$ is dense. Note that the set $G_f$ depends on the function $f$ and it may be not the same for distinct $fin F_1(X)$.




          If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.




          Right.




          I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.




          Note, that we still speak about pairs $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$. And if $xin E(f)$ and $varphi(x)=0$ then $(f(x),varphi(x))=0$, which contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$.




          so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.




          We are allowed to use $varphi$ means $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ for a given fixed $f$. This doesn’t imply that we are allowed to use $varphi$ with a different function, say $f’in F_1(X)$. For a particular choice of $f$, when $f(x)=1$ for each $xin X$, a set $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty. Then $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}=F_{n-1}(X)$. But this does not mean that $G_{f’}=F_{n-1}(X)$ for any function $f’in F_1(X).$



          Remark that in this case also $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty, so we cannot "use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$", because there is no such $x$. But if $f’in F_1(X)$ is an other function then we are allowed to use a function $varphiin F_{n-1}$ with the function $f’$, that is $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ iff $varphi(x)ne 0$ for each $xin E(f’)$.



          PS. It seems that the picture is not needed.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            And what about if only one $f$ is constant e.g. $f=1$ and the other have zeros. So one can write $(1,varphi)$ with $varphi$ abitrary. Then it did not contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 6 '18 at 14:28










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie Looking for $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, we cannot pair arbitrary $f$ with arbitrary $varphi$, we need a restriction $varphi(x)ne(0,0,dots,0)inBbb R^{n-1}$ for each $xin E(f)$, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 6 '18 at 16:09












          • $begingroup$
            Yes. That's my question. Why we need a restriction to $varphi$ if we combine it with those $f$ who did not have zeros. Then we don't need a restriction for $varphi$? Thrn, if we choose such $f$, $varphi$ can be mapped to zero in $mathbb{R}$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 7 '18 at 9:21












          • $begingroup$
            Do you understand my thoughts? Are my thoughts wrong? Could you explain it more exact, please. Thanks a lot.
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 9 '18 at 11:40










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie I expanded my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 9 '18 at 12:16
















          0












          $begingroup$


          Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

          a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$




          That is there exists a dense set $N$ of $F_1(x)$ such that for each $fin N$ the set $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}$ is dense. Note that the set $G_f$ depends on the function $f$ and it may be not the same for distinct $fin F_1(X)$.




          If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.




          Right.




          I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.




          Note, that we still speak about pairs $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$. And if $xin E(f)$ and $varphi(x)=0$ then $(f(x),varphi(x))=0$, which contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$.




          so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.




          We are allowed to use $varphi$ means $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ for a given fixed $f$. This doesn’t imply that we are allowed to use $varphi$ with a different function, say $f’in F_1(X)$. For a particular choice of $f$, when $f(x)=1$ for each $xin X$, a set $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty. Then $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}=F_{n-1}(X)$. But this does not mean that $G_{f’}=F_{n-1}(X)$ for any function $f’in F_1(X).$



          Remark that in this case also $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty, so we cannot "use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$", because there is no such $x$. But if $f’in F_1(X)$ is an other function then we are allowed to use a function $varphiin F_{n-1}$ with the function $f’$, that is $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ iff $varphi(x)ne 0$ for each $xin E(f’)$.



          PS. It seems that the picture is not needed.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            And what about if only one $f$ is constant e.g. $f=1$ and the other have zeros. So one can write $(1,varphi)$ with $varphi$ abitrary. Then it did not contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 6 '18 at 14:28










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie Looking for $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, we cannot pair arbitrary $f$ with arbitrary $varphi$, we need a restriction $varphi(x)ne(0,0,dots,0)inBbb R^{n-1}$ for each $xin E(f)$, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 6 '18 at 16:09












          • $begingroup$
            Yes. That's my question. Why we need a restriction to $varphi$ if we combine it with those $f$ who did not have zeros. Then we don't need a restriction for $varphi$? Thrn, if we choose such $f$, $varphi$ can be mapped to zero in $mathbb{R}$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 7 '18 at 9:21












          • $begingroup$
            Do you understand my thoughts? Are my thoughts wrong? Could you explain it more exact, please. Thanks a lot.
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 9 '18 at 11:40










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie I expanded my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 9 '18 at 12:16














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$


          Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

          a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$




          That is there exists a dense set $N$ of $F_1(x)$ such that for each $fin N$ the set $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}$ is dense. Note that the set $G_f$ depends on the function $f$ and it may be not the same for distinct $fin F_1(X)$.




          If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.




          Right.




          I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.




          Note, that we still speak about pairs $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$. And if $xin E(f)$ and $varphi(x)=0$ then $(f(x),varphi(x))=0$, which contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$.




          so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.




          We are allowed to use $varphi$ means $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ for a given fixed $f$. This doesn’t imply that we are allowed to use $varphi$ with a different function, say $f’in F_1(X)$. For a particular choice of $f$, when $f(x)=1$ for each $xin X$, a set $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty. Then $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}=F_{n-1}(X)$. But this does not mean that $G_{f’}=F_{n-1}(X)$ for any function $f’in F_1(X).$



          Remark that in this case also $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty, so we cannot "use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$", because there is no such $x$. But if $f’in F_1(X)$ is an other function then we are allowed to use a function $varphiin F_{n-1}$ with the function $f’$, that is $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ iff $varphi(x)ne 0$ for each $xin E(f’)$.



          PS. It seems that the picture is not needed.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




          Therefore there exists a everywhere dense of functions $fin F_1(X)$ such that:

          a) For all functions $varphiin F_{n-1}$ who combined with $f$ yield an element $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, form a dense set in $F_{n-1}$




          That is there exists a dense set $N$ of $F_1(x)$ such that for each $fin N$ the set $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}$ is dense. Note that the set $G_f$ depends on the function $f$ and it may be not the same for distinct $fin F_1(X)$.




          If we define for $fin F_1(X)$ with $E(f)$ as set of points $xin X$ with $f(x)=0$, then for $varphiin F_{n-1}$ is the relation $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ equivalent, that no point of $E(f)$ will be mapped through $varphi$ in the point $(0,0,ldots, 0)in mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.




          Right.




          I don't understand why $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ can't be mapped to the zero vector.




          Note, that we still speak about pairs $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$. And if $xin E(f)$ and $varphi(x)=0$ then $(f(x),varphi(x))=0$, which contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$.




          so if we take one constant $f$ in $G_2(X)$ e.g. $f(x)=1$, then $varphi$ can be mapped to $0$ in $G_2$ (because the constraint that functions with zeros in $G_2$ are not allowed are not broken) and therefore it is allowed to use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$ if $f$ is not a function with zero.




          We are allowed to use $varphi$ means $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ for a given fixed $f$. This doesn’t imply that we are allowed to use $varphi$ with a different function, say $f’in F_1(X)$. For a particular choice of $f$, when $f(x)=1$ for each $xin X$, a set $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty. Then $G_f={varphiin F_{n-1}(X):(f,varphi)in G_{n}(X)}=F_{n-1}(X)$. But this does not mean that $G_{f’}=F_{n-1}(X)$ for any function $f’in F_1(X).$



          Remark that in this case also $E(f)={xin X :f(x)=0}$ is empty, so we cannot "use $varphi(x)$ with $xin E(f)$", because there is no such $x$. But if $f’in F_1(X)$ is an other function then we are allowed to use a function $varphiin F_{n-1}$ with the function $f’$, that is $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$ iff $varphi(x)ne 0$ for each $xin E(f’)$.



          PS. It seems that the picture is not needed.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 1 at 9:36

























          answered Dec 5 '18 at 16:27









          Alex RavskyAlex Ravsky

          40.4k32282




          40.4k32282












          • $begingroup$
            And what about if only one $f$ is constant e.g. $f=1$ and the other have zeros. So one can write $(1,varphi)$ with $varphi$ abitrary. Then it did not contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 6 '18 at 14:28










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie Looking for $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, we cannot pair arbitrary $f$ with arbitrary $varphi$, we need a restriction $varphi(x)ne(0,0,dots,0)inBbb R^{n-1}$ for each $xin E(f)$, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 6 '18 at 16:09












          • $begingroup$
            Yes. That's my question. Why we need a restriction to $varphi$ if we combine it with those $f$ who did not have zeros. Then we don't need a restriction for $varphi$? Thrn, if we choose such $f$, $varphi$ can be mapped to zero in $mathbb{R}$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 7 '18 at 9:21












          • $begingroup$
            Do you understand my thoughts? Are my thoughts wrong? Could you explain it more exact, please. Thanks a lot.
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 9 '18 at 11:40










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie I expanded my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 9 '18 at 12:16


















          • $begingroup$
            And what about if only one $f$ is constant e.g. $f=1$ and the other have zeros. So one can write $(1,varphi)$ with $varphi$ abitrary. Then it did not contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 6 '18 at 14:28










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie Looking for $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, we cannot pair arbitrary $f$ with arbitrary $varphi$, we need a restriction $varphi(x)ne(0,0,dots,0)inBbb R^{n-1}$ for each $xin E(f)$, right?
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 6 '18 at 16:09












          • $begingroup$
            Yes. That's my question. Why we need a restriction to $varphi$ if we combine it with those $f$ who did not have zeros. Then we don't need a restriction for $varphi$? Thrn, if we choose such $f$, $varphi$ can be mapped to zero in $mathbb{R}$?
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 7 '18 at 9:21












          • $begingroup$
            Do you understand my thoughts? Are my thoughts wrong? Could you explain it more exact, please. Thanks a lot.
            $endgroup$
            – GeoRie
            Dec 9 '18 at 11:40










          • $begingroup$
            @GeoRie I expanded my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Dec 9 '18 at 12:16
















          $begingroup$
          And what about if only one $f$ is constant e.g. $f=1$ and the other have zeros. So one can write $(1,varphi)$ with $varphi$ abitrary. Then it did not contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$?
          $endgroup$
          – GeoRie
          Dec 6 '18 at 14:28




          $begingroup$
          And what about if only one $f$ is constant e.g. $f=1$ and the other have zeros. So one can write $(1,varphi)$ with $varphi$ abitrary. Then it did not contradicts $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$?
          $endgroup$
          – GeoRie
          Dec 6 '18 at 14:28












          $begingroup$
          @GeoRie Looking for $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, we cannot pair arbitrary $f$ with arbitrary $varphi$, we need a restriction $varphi(x)ne(0,0,dots,0)inBbb R^{n-1}$ for each $xin E(f)$, right?
          $endgroup$
          – Alex Ravsky
          Dec 6 '18 at 16:09






          $begingroup$
          @GeoRie Looking for $(f,varphi)in G_n(X)$, we cannot pair arbitrary $f$ with arbitrary $varphi$, we need a restriction $varphi(x)ne(0,0,dots,0)inBbb R^{n-1}$ for each $xin E(f)$, right?
          $endgroup$
          – Alex Ravsky
          Dec 6 '18 at 16:09














          $begingroup$
          Yes. That's my question. Why we need a restriction to $varphi$ if we combine it with those $f$ who did not have zeros. Then we don't need a restriction for $varphi$? Thrn, if we choose such $f$, $varphi$ can be mapped to zero in $mathbb{R}$?
          $endgroup$
          – GeoRie
          Dec 7 '18 at 9:21






          $begingroup$
          Yes. That's my question. Why we need a restriction to $varphi$ if we combine it with those $f$ who did not have zeros. Then we don't need a restriction for $varphi$? Thrn, if we choose such $f$, $varphi$ can be mapped to zero in $mathbb{R}$?
          $endgroup$
          – GeoRie
          Dec 7 '18 at 9:21














          $begingroup$
          Do you understand my thoughts? Are my thoughts wrong? Could you explain it more exact, please. Thanks a lot.
          $endgroup$
          – GeoRie
          Dec 9 '18 at 11:40




          $begingroup$
          Do you understand my thoughts? Are my thoughts wrong? Could you explain it more exact, please. Thanks a lot.
          $endgroup$
          – GeoRie
          Dec 9 '18 at 11:40












          $begingroup$
          @GeoRie I expanded my answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Alex Ravsky
          Dec 9 '18 at 12:16




          $begingroup$
          @GeoRie I expanded my answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Alex Ravsky
          Dec 9 '18 at 12:16


















          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3026078%2fspace-of-continuous-functions-with-mapping-to-mathbbrn-with-compact-suppor%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

          Bundesstraße 106

          Verónica Boquete

          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten