Why should K be closed to ensure X/K is complete?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
If $K$ is a closed subspace of Banach space $X$, then $X/K$ is complete. But I think the usual proof of this theorem doesn't make use of the fact that $K$ is closed. Would anyone explain it to me? Thanks a lot.
functional-analysis
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
If $K$ is a closed subspace of Banach space $X$, then $X/K$ is complete. But I think the usual proof of this theorem doesn't make use of the fact that $K$ is closed. Would anyone explain it to me? Thanks a lot.
functional-analysis
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
If $K$ is a closed subspace of Banach space $X$, then $X/K$ is complete. But I think the usual proof of this theorem doesn't make use of the fact that $K$ is closed. Would anyone explain it to me? Thanks a lot.
functional-analysis
If $K$ is a closed subspace of Banach space $X$, then $X/K$ is complete. But I think the usual proof of this theorem doesn't make use of the fact that $K$ is closed. Would anyone explain it to me? Thanks a lot.
functional-analysis
functional-analysis
asked 5 hours ago
Zeng
454
454
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
If the subspace $K$ is not closed, then the quotient $X/K$ is not even Hausdorff, so does not meet the usual requirements of a topological vector space at all!
(It's not about completeness or not, as $X/K$ is not metric in that case!)
EDIT: In more detail, for $K$ not closed, and for $x$ in the closure of $K$ but not in $K$ itself, every neighborhood of $0$ in the quotient (with the quotient topology) contains $x$, but $xnot=0$ in the quotient. So the quotient would be non-Hausdorff (since two distinct points, $0$ and $x$, do not have disjoint neighborhoods).
A Banach space, or even a normed space, is Hausdorff, as is every metric space.
Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
– Zeng
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
If $K$ is not closed, then the function $lVert x+KrVert=inf_yin K lVert x-yrVert$ is not a norm on the quotient space, but just a seminorm, because $lVert x+KrVert=0$ for all $xinoverline K$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You do need closure of $K$. In particular, you need it to show that $X/K$ is in fact a normed space: If $| x + K |=0$, closure of $K$ implies that $x+K=K=0_X/K$.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
If the subspace $K$ is not closed, then the quotient $X/K$ is not even Hausdorff, so does not meet the usual requirements of a topological vector space at all!
(It's not about completeness or not, as $X/K$ is not metric in that case!)
EDIT: In more detail, for $K$ not closed, and for $x$ in the closure of $K$ but not in $K$ itself, every neighborhood of $0$ in the quotient (with the quotient topology) contains $x$, but $xnot=0$ in the quotient. So the quotient would be non-Hausdorff (since two distinct points, $0$ and $x$, do not have disjoint neighborhoods).
A Banach space, or even a normed space, is Hausdorff, as is every metric space.
Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
– Zeng
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
If the subspace $K$ is not closed, then the quotient $X/K$ is not even Hausdorff, so does not meet the usual requirements of a topological vector space at all!
(It's not about completeness or not, as $X/K$ is not metric in that case!)
EDIT: In more detail, for $K$ not closed, and for $x$ in the closure of $K$ but not in $K$ itself, every neighborhood of $0$ in the quotient (with the quotient topology) contains $x$, but $xnot=0$ in the quotient. So the quotient would be non-Hausdorff (since two distinct points, $0$ and $x$, do not have disjoint neighborhoods).
A Banach space, or even a normed space, is Hausdorff, as is every metric space.
Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
– Zeng
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
If the subspace $K$ is not closed, then the quotient $X/K$ is not even Hausdorff, so does not meet the usual requirements of a topological vector space at all!
(It's not about completeness or not, as $X/K$ is not metric in that case!)
EDIT: In more detail, for $K$ not closed, and for $x$ in the closure of $K$ but not in $K$ itself, every neighborhood of $0$ in the quotient (with the quotient topology) contains $x$, but $xnot=0$ in the quotient. So the quotient would be non-Hausdorff (since two distinct points, $0$ and $x$, do not have disjoint neighborhoods).
A Banach space, or even a normed space, is Hausdorff, as is every metric space.
If the subspace $K$ is not closed, then the quotient $X/K$ is not even Hausdorff, so does not meet the usual requirements of a topological vector space at all!
(It's not about completeness or not, as $X/K$ is not metric in that case!)
EDIT: In more detail, for $K$ not closed, and for $x$ in the closure of $K$ but not in $K$ itself, every neighborhood of $0$ in the quotient (with the quotient topology) contains $x$, but $xnot=0$ in the quotient. So the quotient would be non-Hausdorff (since two distinct points, $0$ and $x$, do not have disjoint neighborhoods).
A Banach space, or even a normed space, is Hausdorff, as is every metric space.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
paul garrett
31.2k361117
31.2k361117
Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
– Zeng
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
– Zeng
4 hours ago
Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
– Zeng
4 hours ago
Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
– Zeng
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
If $K$ is not closed, then the function $lVert x+KrVert=inf_yin K lVert x-yrVert$ is not a norm on the quotient space, but just a seminorm, because $lVert x+KrVert=0$ for all $xinoverline K$.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
If $K$ is not closed, then the function $lVert x+KrVert=inf_yin K lVert x-yrVert$ is not a norm on the quotient space, but just a seminorm, because $lVert x+KrVert=0$ for all $xinoverline K$.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
If $K$ is not closed, then the function $lVert x+KrVert=inf_yin K lVert x-yrVert$ is not a norm on the quotient space, but just a seminorm, because $lVert x+KrVert=0$ for all $xinoverline K$.
If $K$ is not closed, then the function $lVert x+KrVert=inf_yin K lVert x-yrVert$ is not a norm on the quotient space, but just a seminorm, because $lVert x+KrVert=0$ for all $xinoverline K$.
answered 4 hours ago
Saucy O'Path
5,1941424
5,1941424
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You do need closure of $K$. In particular, you need it to show that $X/K$ is in fact a normed space: If $| x + K |=0$, closure of $K$ implies that $x+K=K=0_X/K$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You do need closure of $K$. In particular, you need it to show that $X/K$ is in fact a normed space: If $| x + K |=0$, closure of $K$ implies that $x+K=K=0_X/K$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You do need closure of $K$. In particular, you need it to show that $X/K$ is in fact a normed space: If $| x + K |=0$, closure of $K$ implies that $x+K=K=0_X/K$.
You do need closure of $K$. In particular, you need it to show that $X/K$ is in fact a normed space: If $| x + K |=0$, closure of $K$ implies that $x+K=K=0_X/K$.
answered 4 hours ago
Alonso Delfín
3,6591932
3,6591932
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2994221%2fwhy-should-k-be-closed-to-ensure-x-k-is-complete%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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