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

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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.










share|cite|improve this question

























    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.










    share|cite|improve this question























      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.










      share|cite|improve this question













      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






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 5 hours ago









      Zeng

      454




      454




















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
            – Zeng
            4 hours ago

















          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 $xinoverline K$.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            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 $x+K=K=0_X/K$.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















              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',
              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%2f2994221%2fwhy-should-k-be-closed-to-ensure-x-k-is-complete%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















              • Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
                – Zeng
                4 hours ago














              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















              • Thanks! But it has been a long time since my last topology class, so would you give me some hint?
                – Zeng
                4 hours ago












              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer














              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.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              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
















              • 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










              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 $xinoverline K$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                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 $xinoverline K$.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  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 $xinoverline K$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  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 $xinoverline K$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  Saucy O'Path

                  5,1941424




                  5,1941424




















                      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 $x+K=K=0_X/K$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        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 $x+K=K=0_X/K$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                          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 $x+K=K=0_X/K$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          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 $x+K=K=0_X/K$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 4 hours ago









                          Alonso Delfín

                          3,6591932




                          3,6591932



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              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













































































                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Peggy Mitchell

                              Palaiologos

                              The Forum (Inglewood, California)