Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Math Help - Density in the unit circle

  1. #31
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Defunkt View Post
    The suggestion that the thread be locked was because you were not reading the posts explaining the proofs.

    Here is a detailed explanation of Fernando's proof. If there is something you do not understand, say exactly what is not clear.

    Let \lambda \in \mathbb{R} be an arbitrary irrational number, and let T_{\lambda} : S^1 \to S^1 be a function which maps an element of the unit circle to an element of the unit circle.
    Define the mapping by T_{\lambda} (e^{i \theta}) = e^{i ( \theta + 2 \pi \lambda ) } and note that, since each element of S^1 is uniquely determined by its angle \theta with the positive x axis, this mapping is the same as the mapping that Fernando has defined.

    Note that we will use the notation T_{\lambda}^k(e^{i \theta}) to abbreviate \left( T_{\lambda}(e^{i \theta}) \right)^k = =  T_{\lambda}(e^{i \theta}) \circ T_{\lambda}(e^{i \theta}) \circ \overbrace{\ldots}^{\text{k times}} \circ T_{\lambda}(e^{i \theta})

    First, we will show that if m,n are distinct integers ( m \ne n), then T_{\lambda}^m(\theta) - T_{\lambda}^n(\theta) \ne 0 \text{ or } 2 \pi k, \ k \in \mathbb{N} :
    T_{\lambda}^m(\theta) - T_{\lambda}^n(\theta) = (\theta + 2 \pi m \lambda) - (\theta + 2 \pi n \lambda) = \theta - \theta + 2 \pi (m - n) \lambda = 2 \pi (m-n) \lambda
    Now, that equals 0 or  2 \pi k iff m=n or m - n is irrational, but we chose them so that  m \ne n and m - n \in \mathbb{N}, and so T_{\lambda}^m(\theta) - T_{\lambda}^n(\theta) \ne 0 \text{ or }  2 \pi k, \ k \in \mathbb{N}, \ \forall m \ne n \in \mathbb{N}.

    Now, this means that all the elements of the sequence \{T_{\lambda}^k(\theta)\}_{k=1}^{\infty} are distinct, and therefore this sequence has a limit point (by sequential compactness), ie. a convergent subsequence.

    Since that subsequence is cauchy, for any \epsilon>0 there exist integers m<n such that |T_{\lambda}^n(\theta) - T_{\lambda}^m(\theta)| < \epsilon, but then note that T_{\lambda}^n(\theta) - T_{\lambda}^m(\theta) = \theta + 2 \pi n \lambda - \theta - 2 \pi m \lambda = 2 \pi (n-m) \lambda = T_{\lambda}^{n-m}(\theta) - \theta, so let k = n-m to have |T_{\lambda}^k(\theta) - \theta| < \epsilon.

    Now, note that T_{\lambda} is a length-preserving map (ie. it maps an interval of length t to an interval of length t).

    Also, note that T_{\lambda}^k maps the arc connecting the point \theta with T_{\lambda}^k(\theta) to the arc connecting T_{\lambda}^{k}(\theta) with T_{\lambda}^{2k}(\theta).
    Consequently, since |T_{\lambda}^k(\theta) - \theta| < \epsilon and T_{\lambda} preserves lengths, we have that |T_{\lambda}^{2k}(\theta) - T_{\lambda}^k(\theta)| < \epsilon, and by the same fashion |T_{\lambda}^{mk}(\theta) - T_{\lambda}^{(m-1)k}(\theta)| < \epsilon for any m \in \mathbb{N}.

    Now, since all elements of \{T_{\lambda}^k(\theta)\}_{k=1}^{\infty} are distinct, we have that for every \theta \in S^1 there exists an integer n \in \mathbb{N}, such that |\theta - T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta)| < \epsilon, and so we have that \{T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta)\}_{n=1}^{\infty} is dense in S^1, and in particular any set containing it is dense in S^1 - and such is \{T_{\lambda}^m(\theta)\}_{m=1}^{\infty}.

    Now, if we take \lambda = \frac{1}{2 \pi} (which is clearly irrational) and take \theta = 0, we get that \{T_{\lambda}^m(\theta)\}_{m=1}^{\infty} = \{e^{im}\}_{m=1}^{\infty} is dense in S^1, as conjectured.
    Everything up to the first underline was covered by me in post #15:
    "If I proceed around the unit circle in steps of k radians do I ever hit the same point again, ie, after m steps do I move a multiple of 2pi? Or, does k exist such that m=2pik? Is pi rational? No. So I have a countably infinite number of points on the circle." With the obvious application of Cauchy to exprdess the limit

    After the second underline you make the statement: we have that for every \theta \in S^1 there exists an integer n \in \mathbb{N}, such that...
    You do not know that such an n exists for an arbitrary theta. You are doing the same thing that I have been complaining about all along, you are assuming that in a bounded infinite collection of distinct points, every point is a limit point. In such a situation all that Bolzano Weirstrass guarantees is the existence of a limit point, not that every point is a limit point. If you can't grasp that, then this discussion is indeed futile.

    (This post was particularly difficult because of the small edit box. Is there a way to enlarge it?)

    EDIT: Whoops! Almost forgot. Thanks for taking the trouble to write out the above proof in more detail. Some of it was quite helpful
    Last edited by Hartlw; February 9th 2011 at 08:53 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #32
    Super Member
    Joined
    Aug 2009
    From
    Israel
    Posts
    976
    You are doing the same thing that I have been complaining about all along, you are assuming that in a bounded infinite collection of distinct points, every point is a limit point.
    I did not assume that.

    To understand why that argument is correct, note that:

    (1) The arcs connecting T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta) with T_{\lambda}^{(n-1)k}(\theta) and T_{\lambda}^{mk}(\theta) with T_{\lambda}^{(m-1)k}(\theta) are pairwise disjoint, for any m \ne n \in \mathbb{N} (this is because T_{\lambda}^k maps the arc connecting the point \theta with T_{\lambda}^k(\theta) to the arc connecting T_{\lambda}^{k}(\theta) with T_{\lambda}^{2k}(\theta), and so on)

    (2) The arc connecting T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta) with T_{\lambda}^{(n-1)k}(\theta) has the same length as the arc connecting T_{\lambda}^{mk}(\theta) with T_{\lambda}^{(m-1)k}(\theta), for any m \ne n \in \mathbb{N}, which has the same length as the arc connecting T_{\lambda}^{k}(\theta) with \theta, which is < \epsilon.

    From (1) we can gather that the set consisting of all arcs connecting T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta) with T_{\lambda}^{(n-1)k}(\theta) for any n \in \mathbb{N}, will cover the whole unit circle (since the original sequence is infinite and acyclic)

    That means that for any \alpha \in S^1 there exists an integer p \in \mathbb{N}, such that \alpha is contained in the arc connecting T_{\lambda}^{pk}(\theta) with T_{\lambda}^{(p-1)k}(\theta)

    But from (2), we have that the length of that arc is less than \epsilon, and therefore (triangle inequality) we have that also the arc connecting \alpha with T_{\lambda}^{pk}(\theta) has length less than \epsilon, and this finishes the proof of the argument.

    Note that there was a mistake in the original post -

    Now, since all elements of \{T_{\lambda}^k(\theta)\}_{k=1}^{\infty} are distinct, we have that for every \theta \in S^1 there exists an integer n \in \mathbb{N}, such that |\theta - T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta)| < \epsilon, and so we have that \{T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta)\}_{n=1}^{\infty} is dense in S^1, and in particular any set containing it is dense in S^1 - and such is \{T_{\lambda}^m(\theta)\}_{m=1}^{\infty}.
    Should read, instead, as:

    Now, since all elements of \{T_{\lambda}^k(\theta)\}_{k=1}^{\infty} are distinct, we have that for every \alpha \in S^1 there exists an integer n \in \mathbb{N}, such that |\alpha - T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta)| < \epsilon, and so we have that \{T_{\lambda}^{nk}(\theta)\}_{n=1}^{\infty} is dense in S^1, and in particular any set containing it is dense in S^1 - and such is \{T_{\lambda}^m(\theta)\}_{m=1}^{\infty}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #33
    Banned
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    961
    Thanks
    98
    You write:

    "....there exists an integer , such that ..."

    You are assuming such an integer exists. You have to prove it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #34
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Hartlw View Post
    Everything up to the first underline was covered by me in post #15:
    "If I proceed around the unit circle in steps of k radians do I ever hit the same point again, ie, after m steps do I move a multiple of 2pi? Or, does k exist such that m=2pik? Is pi rational? No. So I have a countably infinite number of points on the circle." With the obvious application of Cauchy to exprdess the limit

    After the second underline you make the statement: we have that for every \theta \in S^1 there exists an integer n \in \mathbb{N}, such that...
    You do not know that such an n exists for an arbitrary theta. You are doing the same thing that I have been complaining about all along, you are assuming that in a bounded infinite collection of distinct points, every point is a limit point. In such a situation all that Bolzano Weirstrass guarantees is the existence of a limit point, not that every point is a limit point. If you can't grasp that, then this discussion is indeed futile.


    You see? You continue with your disgusting attitude: it is you that can't grasp stuff here! You, in an almost unbelievable fashion,

    continue to claim that someone (this time Defunkt) "assumes" that in an infinite collection of points every point is a limit point.

    I'm not sure anymore how to break the news for you, but NOBODY has ever claimed such a thing except. perhaps, you, and thath thing is neither needed nor

    even mentioned anywhere in the original post. Please do stop claiming the same nonsense over and over again.

    The same can be said about what the B-W theorem states: nobody thinks it promises that EVERY point of whatever is a limit point. For your own educational

    sake stop insisting in this.

    Tonio



    (This post was particularly difficult because of the small edit box. Is there a way to enlarge it?)

    EDIT: Whoops! Almost forgot. Thanks for taking the trouble to write out the above proof in more detail. Some of it was quite helpful
    .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #35
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Hartlw View Post
    You write:

    "....there exists an integer , such that ..."

    You are assuming such an integer exists. You have to prove it.


    Well, it seems obvious you can't read mathematical proofs and all this is poinless. Kudos to Defunkt, and anyone else, wasting their time trying

    to make you understand something instead of advicing you to go and study some basic maths first.

    Tonio
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #36
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Thread closed.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Unit circle help
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 17th 2011, 10:38 AM
  2. Unit Circle Help
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 1st 2009, 11:40 PM
  3. Unit circle
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 30th 2009, 04:12 AM
  4. Unit Circle Help
    Posted in the Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 24th 2009, 12:24 AM
  5. Unit Circle-Again
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 3rd 2008, 04:23 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum