Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Question about fixed points (metric spaces) watch

1. http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~tsorense...blemSheet9.pdf

5(ii). This question looks terribly difficult. Compact implies complete but I can't seem to get anywhere if I try to use a proof similar to that of Banach's fixed point theorem (since we can't construct a Cauchy sequence with that condition). So we need to use a different property of compact spaces. But what? I don't know where to begin.
2. Define a sequence by letting be any point and for . As is compact, what can you say about this sequence? This will tell you about the existence of a fixed point. For uniqueness, you need to use the fact that for .
3. (Original post by nuodai)
Define a sequence by letting be any point and for . As is compact, what can you say about this sequence? This will tell you about the existence of a fixed point. For uniqueness, you need to use the fact that for .
Convergent subsequence! Ok, but then how do we prove that the limit of this subsequence is a fixed point? Call the limit y. So the subsequence x_n_k -> y, as k-> infinity. We know that since f is continuous (it's uniformly continuous), the sequence f(x_n_k) -> f(y) as k-> infinity. But this doesn't seem to help because if we take f of the subsequence, we may get something that is not in the original subsequence, and then its limit could be anything, not necessarily the same limit y.
4. (Original post by gangsta316)
Convergent subsequence! Ok, but then how do we prove that the limit of this subsequence is a fixed point? Call the limit y. So the subsequence x_n_k -> y, as k-> infinity. We know that since f is continuous (it's uniformly continuous), the sequence f(x_n_k) -> f(y) as k-> infinity. But this doesn't seem to help because if we take f of the subsequence, we may get something that is not in the original subsequence, and then its limit could be anything, not necessarily the same limit y.
For the sake of simplicity, relabel the as instead (because subscripts of subscripts are ugly). Then by the triangle inequality, , but if for large enough, what is this bounded by? This proves that ; next you just need to show that is the only point of with the property that , which you can deduce using the other inequality.

Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 4, 2011
Today on TSR

### Four things top students are doing

Over the Easter break

Poll
Useful resources

## Make your revision easier

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.