Appears so counterintuitive though. I can't visualise what's going on here
nobody can.....Appears so counterintuitive though. I can't visualise what's going on here
I assume d(x,y) is supposed to be ||x-y|| and the set is some normed vector space V with norm ||.|| (e.g. R^d). (Please specify more if this is not the intended setting.)Consider the two metrics and
(you may assume they are metrics).
i) Show that d and δ are not equivalent.
Might not be easy to visualise the graph of the function on all of R^2, but you should certainly be able to visualise what it looks like on the slices x=const. or y=const which is all that matters for seeing/proving the nonexistence of the iterated limit. It is an oscillatory expression that oscillates faster as you approach axes. One of the two summands becomes irrelevant as you get close to the axes, so the other one dominates. This thing behaves like (const).sin(1/x), which of course does not converge unless that const is zero.Appears so counterintuitive though. I can't visualise what's going on here
|sin(x)/x-1|=|x|^2 ?
There was a typo; it was meant to be a less than or equals to. I think InteGrand just ignored or figured I had typo'd and just used the correct inequality.|sin(x)/x-1|=|x|^2 ?
Surely you mean something like:
|sin(x)/x-1| = O(|x|^2).
Some rational points arbitrarily close to sqrt(2) are points where we truncate the decimal expansion of sqrt(2) arbitrarily far. I.e.There was a typo; it was meant to be a less than or equals to. I think InteGrand just ignored or figured I had typo'd and just used the correct inequality.
________________________________________________________________
As in, for every ball around 0 there's always an irrational number in it, therefore 0 is not an interior point so it cannot be open. (I hope I did not screw this up.)
____________________________
I wanted to use the floor/ceiling functions but then I realised that'd be problematic if r = 0.1, so what might be a good choice for a rational number that is in every ball B(sqrt2, r)?
(Sorry, I think I worded my question horribly)
That is one beautiful trick.Some rational points arbitrarily close to sqrt(2) are points where we truncate the decimal expansion of sqrt(2) arbitrarily far. I.e.
for positive integers n.
That set Omega is an open ball already (using the Euclidean metric), and an open ball is an open set (you should prove this as an exercise if you haven't before).That is one beautiful trick.
_____________________________________
I definitely don't want to use the Lagrange multiplier theorem to find the closest point (x,y) to work off, so any pointers on what radius I should choose my ball to be? (to prove an arbitrary point (x,y) is interior)
...?Mate, stop cheating on these assignment questions. Do it yourself ffs.
Wait, I can't see it - Can't tell how a region cut off by the rectangular hyperbola is a ballThat set Omega is an open ball already (using the Euclidean metric), and an open ball is an open set (you should prove this as an exercise if you haven't before).
Sorry misread it (saw + instead of -).Wait, I can't see it - Can't tell how a region cut off by the rectangular hyperbola is a ball