ກຸ່ມສົນທະນາ ຮູບພາບ ສາລະບົບ ເວັບ
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion Real Valued and Alternative Definition of Metrics
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Hatto von Aquitanien  
View profile  
 More options Jun 16 2007, 12:54 pm
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: Hatto von Aquitanien <ab...@AugiaDives.hre>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:54:29 -0400
Local: Sat, Jun 16 2007 12:54 pm
Subject: Re: Real Valued and Alternative Definition of Metrics

 markw...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2:57 pm, Hatto von Aquitanien <a...@AugiaDives.hre> wrote:
>> This, however, tells me that I could define a metric as a rational-valued
>> function:

>> http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/AlternativeDefinitionOfMetricSpace...

>> Is there any fundamental problem in doing so in order to enable the
>> completion of Q to R?

> That article you said you were going to read sometime later?

I'm not sure what you mean.  Which article?

> The
> answer was sitting right there. A metric space is any space such that
> every two points A, B has a distance AB, such that
> (1) AA = 0
> (2) AB > 0 if A, B are distinct points
> (3) AB = BA
> (4) AB + BC >= AC.

> Now, for rationals, A, B take the distance AB to be the absolute value
> of their difference |A-B|.

> Is (1) true? |A-A| = 0. Yes.
> Is (2) true? |...| is always non-negative. If |A-B| = 0, then A = B.
> So, by exclusion |A-B| > 0 if A and B are different numbers. So, yes.
> Is (3) true? |A-B| = }-(A-B)| = |B-A|. So, yes here too.
> Finally, is (4) true? |A-B| + |B-C| = |A-C| if (A-B) and (B-C) have
> the same sign (or if either A = B or B = C); otherwise |A-B| + |B-C| =
> |A+C-2B| > |A-C| if (A-B) and (B-C) has opposite signs. Hence,
> property (4) is true, too. Either AB + BC = AC (if B lies on or
> between A and C), or else AB + BC < AC.

> To see, by the way, that the latter equality |A+C-2B| > |A-C| *does*
> actually follow if (A-B) and (B-C) have opposite signs, consider the
> ratio r = (C-B)/(A-B). Then |A+C-2B| = |A-B+C-B| = (1+r)|A-B|, while |
> A-C| = |A-B+B-C| = |(1-r)(A-B)| = |1-r||A-B|. Since 1+r > |1-r| for
> all positive r, then the result follows.

> Thus, the rationals with this distance function satisfies the defining
> properties of a metric space.

That's not the part I was asking about.  Almost every definition of "metric
space" I have found requires that the metric be a real-valued function.  It
has been suggested that I can't talk about metrics and Cauchy sequences
until I have defined the real numbers.  But then the question arrises: how
do I define real numbers using fundamental sequences?  
--
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-u...
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis

    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2010 Google