0

I asked a similar question here: Does $d(A,B) := \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^n}\cdot \frac{d_n(A,B)}{1+d_n(A,B)}$ define a metric $d$? and got an answer. I will explain the situation below:

Suppose we have a set $X$ of objects $A,B,C\cdots$, which we wish to compare pairwise. Furthermore we are given a set $M$ and to each object $A \in X$ a map $\phi_A:M \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$. We call the objects $A,B$ equivalent if $\phi_A(x) = \phi_B(x) $ for all $x \in M$. Define a metric $d(A,B) = \sup_{x \in M} |\phi_A(x) - \phi_B(x)|$ on the space of equivalence classes of $X$.

Now I am asking myself if this metric space is complete? I have thought about it, and have come to the conclusion, that it must be complete since every Cauchy sequence must get stationary, that is for every Cauchy sequence $A_1,\cdots,A_n\cdots$ there exists an $N$ such that $A_n \equiv A_N$ for all $n > N$. But I am struggling a bit with the details of the proof. Does somebody know if the metric space defined above is complete or not? If so, how does one prove it. Thanks for your help!

This is what I got so far: Let $A_1,A_2,\cdots$ be a Cauchy - sequence. Then for all $\epsilon>0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $m,n>N$ we have $\sup_{x \in M} |\phi_{A_n}(x) - \phi_{A_m}(x)|< \epsilon$. Choose $\epsilon = 1/2$. Since $\sup_{x \in M} |\phi_{A_n}(x) - \phi_{A_m}(x)|$ is a natural number $<1/2$ it must be equal to $0$. Hence $\sup_{x \in M} |\phi_{A_n}(x) - \phi_{A_m}(x)| = 0$ and it follows that $\forall x \in M: \phi_{A_n}(x) = \phi_{A_m}(x)$ for $m,n>N$. Hence we have for $A_n \equiv A_m$ for $m,n>N_{1/2}$. How does one proceed from here?

  • You're almost done: choose any $K > N_{1/2}$ and verify that the sequence $A_n$ converges to $A_K$. – Nate Eldredge Jul 31 '16 at 15:26
  • By the way, there is a minor issue in your definition of $d(A,B)$: what if the supremum is infinite? A metric isn't allowed to take the value $\infty$. – Nate Eldredge Jul 31 '16 at 15:26
  • Thank you for your comment. Ok, I thought about that, but do you know any way on how to bypass that? –  Jul 31 '16 at 15:29
  • A common way is just to "cap" the metric; if the supremum is infinite or greater than 47, set the distance to be 47 (or whatever positive number you like; even 1 would work). You get the same topology on the space. (In this case it's just the discrete topology.) – Nate Eldredge Jul 31 '16 at 15:32
  • Ok, that seems like a good idea. Is the metric space defined then still a complete metric space? –  Jul 31 '16 at 15:36
  • I am asking this, because I have a candidate function on the set of equivalence classes, which might be a contraction and I want to apply the banach fix point theorem to show the existence of an object. –  Jul 31 '16 at 15:38
  • Yes, it's complete; intuitively, completeness only depends on what happens at "small" distances, and this capping operation doesn't change them at all. However, this metric is so trivial that I have a hard time believing you are going to get any nontrivial results by using it. – Nate Eldredge Jul 31 '16 at 15:46
  • Can I contact you at your email address? I would like to explain what I have in mind, maybe you have a better idea. –  Jul 31 '16 at 15:52
  • You should probably post it here instead. I'm not likely to have much time to look at it in the near future, sorry. – Nate Eldredge Jul 31 '16 at 15:53
  • Ok, thanks anyway! –  Jul 31 '16 at 15:54
  • Dear Nate, I posted the question I had in mind here: –  Jul 31 '16 at 16:22
  • http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/36307/a-metric-space-on-turing-machines maybe you can have a look at it. –  Jul 31 '16 at 16:23

0 Answers0