Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on What does it mean by saying that $C([0,1])$ is a subset of $L^\infty([0,1])$?

Parent

What does it mean by saying that $C([0,1])$ is a subset of $L^\infty([0,1])$?

+1
−0

Question. What does it mean by saying that $C([0,1])$ is a subset of $L^\infty([0,1])$?

Notes. This is an example of questions that are quite "obvious" to experienced readers in analysis but may be very confusing to beginners who take the statement "literally": an element in $C([0,1])$ is a completely different object than an element in $L^\infty([0,1])$: the former is a function on $[0,1]$ while the latter is an equivalence class of functions on $[0,1]$, how can one say $C([0,1])$ is a subset of $L^\infty([0,1])$?

I will write my own answer below. Answers with other perspectives are all welcome.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+1
−0

We say that a measurable function $f: [0,1] \to {\mathbf C}$ is essentially bounded if there exists an M such that ${|f(x)| \leq M}$ for almost every $x\in[0,1]$, and define $\\\|f\\\|_{L^\infty}$ to be the least $M$ that serves as such a bound.

Let $\mathscr{L}^\infty([0,1])$ denote the set of measurable functions on $[0,1]$ that are essentially bounded and let $\sim$ be the equivalent relation on the set (two measurable functions are equivalent if they agree almost everywhere on $[0,1]$). Then $$L^\infty([0,1]) =\mathscr{L}^\infty([0,1])/\sim.$$ Here, we only care about the set structure, so the quotient is a "quotient set."

Clearly, $C([0,1])$ is a subset of $\mathscr{L}^\infty([0,1])$. So one can define the map $\iota:C([0,1])\to L^\infty([0,1])$ with $\iota(f)= [f]$ where $[f]$ denote an equivalent class in $L^\infty([0,1])$.

By continuity of functions in $C([0,1])$, one can show that the map $\iota$ is injective. In other words, there is a bijection between the set $C([0,1])$ and its image $\iota(C([0,1]))\subset L^\infty([0,1])$. Note that "bijection" is "set isomorphism." In this sense, one can say that $C([0,1])$ is a subset of $L^\infty([0,1])$.

With more structures on $L^\infty([0,1])$, say a normed vector space equipped with the norm topology, one can show that $C([0,1])$ is not dense in $L^\infty([0,1])$, which really means $\iota(C([0,1]))$ is not dense in $L^\infty([0,1])$.

Such identification is so common in analysis that people just use the short version.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Categorical perspective (again...) (1 comment)
Categorical perspective (again...)
Derek Elkins‭ wrote 4 months ago

In category theory, where it doesn't make sense to talk about "elements" of objects, as they need not be sets, all concepts must be defined in terms of how arrows relate to each other. In this case, the relevant concept is a subobject which is an equivalence class of monos, the categorical generalization of an injective function. This tends to better reflect what mathematicians mean. For example, this same problem occurs in the much simpler context of the formal definition of $\mathbb Z$. A common definition is $\mathbb N\times\mathbb N/{\sim}$ where $(a,b)\sim(x,y)\iff a+y=b+x$. $\mathbb N$ is definitely not a subset of this set, but it is a subobject, or rather $n\mapsto[(n,0)]$ gives rise to a subobject.

Admittedly, categorists are mathematicians too and typically will treat a mono as a subobject even though it's only a representative of the equivalence class that is the subobject which is the exact same kind of conflation happening here.