Space of continuous functions with mapping to $mathbb{R}^n$ with compact support are dense in...
$begingroup$
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
general-topology functional-analysis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
general-topology functional-analysis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
general-topology functional-analysis
$endgroup$
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
general-topology functional-analysis
asked Dec 4 '18 at 19:58
GeoRieGeoRie
102
102
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
});
}
});
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%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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
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.
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%2f3026078%2fspace-of-continuous-functions-with-mapping-to-mathbbrn-with-compact-suppor%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