Past exam of the metric spaces and complex analysis course of the University of Oxford / 2023 / 1

A metric space $(X,d)$ is a bounded set if there is a finite constant $M\ge 0$ such thatFor nonempty $X$, this is equivalent to containment in an open ball of finite radius: the triangle inequality converts a radius bound into a diameter bound, and conversely a diameter bound gives a ball of any slightly larger radius about a chosen point.

It is a complete metric space if every Cauchy sequence in $X$ has a limit of a sequence belonging to $X$. Explicitly, the hypothesis on $(x_n)$ isand completeness requires an $x\in X$ with $d(x_n,x)\to 0$. ThusBoundedness controls distances; completeness ensures that these limiting points remain in the space.

A subset $F\subseteq X$ is a closed set in $X$ when its complement is an open set in the metric topology. Equivalently,The open ball is taken inside the ambient metric space $X$; closedness always depends on that ambient space.

First suppose $F$ is a closed set. If $x\notin F$, the definition in part (ii) gives an open ball $B(x,r)$ disjoint from $F$. Thus every $y\in F$ has $d(x,y)\ge r$, and the distance to a set satisfies $\mathrm{dist}(x,F)\ge r>0$. Its contrapositive is the required implication.

Conversely, suppose that zero distance to a set forces membership. For $x\notin F$ we have $\mathrm{dist}(x,F)>0$. Choose $0<r<\mathrm{dist}(x,F)$. Then $B(x,r)\cap F=\varnothing$, proving $X\setminus F$ is an open set. HenceFor $F=\varnothing$, use the extended-real convention $\inf \varnothing =+\infty$: both assertions hold, with the implication vacuous. Part (b) only uses nonempty sets, so all its distances to a set are ordinary finite real numbers.

Write $h(A,B)={\sup }_{a\in A}\mathrm{dist}(a,B)$, so that $\rho (A,B)=\max \{h(A,B),h(B,A)\}$ is the Hausdorff distance. Since $X$ is a bounded set, there is a finite $M$ with $d(x,y)\le M$. Nonemptiness of $A,B$ therefore gives $0\le h(A,B)\le M$, so $\rho$ is finite. Its symmetry and nonnegativity are immediate, as is $\rho (A,A)=0$.

If $\rho (A,B)=0$, then every $a\in A$ has zero distance to a set $B$. Since $B$ is a closed set, part (a)(iii) gives $A\subseteq B$. Interchanging the sets gives $B\subseteq A$. Thus $\rho (A,B)=0$ implies $A=B$. Closedness is essential here: without it a set and its closure have Hausdorff distance zero.

For the triangle inequality, fix $a\in A$ and $ϵ>0$. The approximation property of an infimum supplies $b\in B$ with $d(a,b)<\mathrm{dist}(a,B)+ϵ$, and then $c\in C$ with $d(b,c)<\mathrm{dist}(b,C)+ϵ$. Consequently,Let $ϵ\downarrow 0$ and take the supremum over $a$ to obtain $h(A,C)\le h(A,B)+h(B,C)$. Applying this inequality in the reverse direction as well yieldsAll metric axioms follow. Boundedness was used to ensure finiteness, and closedness to distinguish different sets; neither was needed for the triangle inequality.

The intersection $G$ is a closed set because arbitrary intersections of closed sets are closed. Its nonemptiness needs a construction: bounded closed sets need not be compact sets in this setting.

Fix $n$, $x_n\in F_n$, and $\eta >0$. Recursively choose $x_{k+1}\in F_{k+1}$, for $k\ge n$, using the approximation property of an infimum so thatThis is possible because $x_k\in F_k$ and $\mathrm{dist}(x_k,F_{k+1})\le \rho (F_k,F_{k+1})\le 2^{-k}$. The two bounds form convergent geometric series, so the triangle inequality shows $(x_k{)}_{k\ge n}$ is a Cauchy sequence. By completeness it converges to some $x\in X$.

For each fixed $j$, all sufficiently late $x_k$ lie in $F_j$, by nesting. Closedness of $F_j$ gives $x\in F_j$, and hence $x\in G$. In particular, starting with any $x_1\in F_1$ proves $G\ne \varnothing$. Moreover,For each starting point $x_n$, let $\eta \downarrow 0$ in this bound on its distance to a set $G$. This does not assert that a nearest point exists. It proves $\mathrm{dist}(x_n,G)\le 2^{1-n}$. Since $G\subseteq F_n$, the other directed Hausdorff distance is zero, andThis is the Summably nested Hausdorff intersection theorem; the summable movement replaces any need for compactness.

Let $(F_n)$ be a Cauchy sequence for the Hausdorff distance, and putThe bounded set hypothesis makes ${\delta }_n$ finite, and the Cauchy sequence property gives ${\delta }_n\to 0$. Each $A_n$ is nonempty and a closed set, with $A_{n+1}\subseteq A_n$.

We need estimates that survive taking the closure. For every nonempty $F$, the distance to a set is Lipschitz continuous with constant one: the triangle inequality gives $\mathrm{dist}(x,F)\le d(x,y)+\mathrm{dist}(y,F)$, and interchanging $x,y$ provesFor every $m\ge n$, points of $F_m$ have distance at most ${\delta }_n$ from $F_n$. The same holds throughout their union and its closure, by this continuity. Since $F_n\subseteq A_n$,More generally, if $m\ge n$, every point in ${\bigcup }_{k\ge n}{F}_k$ is within ${\delta }_n$ of $F_m\subseteq A_m$. Passing to its closure again, and using $A_m\subseteq A_n$, givesChoose strictly increasing indices $n_j$ with ${\delta }_{n_j}\le 2^{-j}$. Then $(A_{n_j})$ satisfies part (ii), so it converges in Hausdorff distance to the nonempty closed set $G={\bigcap }_j{A}_{n_j}={\bigcap }_n{A}_n$, with $\rho (A_{n_j},G)\le 2^{1-j}$.

For $n\ge n_j$, the triangle inequality gives the explicit full-sequence boundIt tends to zero as $j\to \infty$. ThereforeThis proves Completeness of the Hausdorff hyperspace using the proposed tail closures, rather than assuming their diameters shrink.