Prove that $f$ has a unique fixed point.

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This is a practice problem for an exam I am taking.
Let $(X,rho )$ be a complete metric space and $f: X rightarrow X$ a function. Writing $f^n$ for the $n$-th iterate of $f$, denote
$$c_n := sup_x,y in X, x neq y fracrho(f^n(x),f^n(y))rho(x,y).$$
Assuming that $Sigma _n=1^infty c_n < infty $, prove that $f$ has a unique fixed point in $X$.
Since we are dealing with a complete metric space, I only need to show that $f$ is a contraction mapping. I know that given $x$ and $y$ in $X$,
$$ rho(f^n(x),f^n(y)) leq c_n rho(x,y).$$
Ultimately , I want to find some $lambda < 1$ such that $rho(f(x),f(y)) leq lambda rho(x,y).$ Any suggestions on how to proceed?
real-analysis fixed-point-theorems
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This is a practice problem for an exam I am taking.
Let $(X,rho )$ be a complete metric space and $f: X rightarrow X$ a function. Writing $f^n$ for the $n$-th iterate of $f$, denote
$$c_n := sup_x,y in X, x neq y fracrho(f^n(x),f^n(y))rho(x,y).$$
Assuming that $Sigma _n=1^infty c_n < infty $, prove that $f$ has a unique fixed point in $X$.
Since we are dealing with a complete metric space, I only need to show that $f$ is a contraction mapping. I know that given $x$ and $y$ in $X$,
$$ rho(f^n(x),f^n(y)) leq c_n rho(x,y).$$
Ultimately , I want to find some $lambda < 1$ such that $rho(f(x),f(y)) leq lambda rho(x,y).$ Any suggestions on how to proceed?
real-analysis fixed-point-theorems
Since we don't know $c_1<1$, it might not be possible to show such $lambda$ exists. The easier way to deal with this problem is to define a sequence by letting $x_0$ to be arbitrary and $x_n+1=f(x_n)$. Then show the sequence is Cauchy using the hypothesis.
â Marco
Aug 31 at 0:10
Got it, thanks!
â Mike D
Aug 31 at 0:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This is a practice problem for an exam I am taking.
Let $(X,rho )$ be a complete metric space and $f: X rightarrow X$ a function. Writing $f^n$ for the $n$-th iterate of $f$, denote
$$c_n := sup_x,y in X, x neq y fracrho(f^n(x),f^n(y))rho(x,y).$$
Assuming that $Sigma _n=1^infty c_n < infty $, prove that $f$ has a unique fixed point in $X$.
Since we are dealing with a complete metric space, I only need to show that $f$ is a contraction mapping. I know that given $x$ and $y$ in $X$,
$$ rho(f^n(x),f^n(y)) leq c_n rho(x,y).$$
Ultimately , I want to find some $lambda < 1$ such that $rho(f(x),f(y)) leq lambda rho(x,y).$ Any suggestions on how to proceed?
real-analysis fixed-point-theorems
This is a practice problem for an exam I am taking.
Let $(X,rho )$ be a complete metric space and $f: X rightarrow X$ a function. Writing $f^n$ for the $n$-th iterate of $f$, denote
$$c_n := sup_x,y in X, x neq y fracrho(f^n(x),f^n(y))rho(x,y).$$
Assuming that $Sigma _n=1^infty c_n < infty $, prove that $f$ has a unique fixed point in $X$.
Since we are dealing with a complete metric space, I only need to show that $f$ is a contraction mapping. I know that given $x$ and $y$ in $X$,
$$ rho(f^n(x),f^n(y)) leq c_n rho(x,y).$$
Ultimately , I want to find some $lambda < 1$ such that $rho(f(x),f(y)) leq lambda rho(x,y).$ Any suggestions on how to proceed?
real-analysis fixed-point-theorems
real-analysis fixed-point-theorems
asked Aug 31 at 0:03
Mike D
423
423
Since we don't know $c_1<1$, it might not be possible to show such $lambda$ exists. The easier way to deal with this problem is to define a sequence by letting $x_0$ to be arbitrary and $x_n+1=f(x_n)$. Then show the sequence is Cauchy using the hypothesis.
â Marco
Aug 31 at 0:10
Got it, thanks!
â Mike D
Aug 31 at 0:16
add a comment |Â
Since we don't know $c_1<1$, it might not be possible to show such $lambda$ exists. The easier way to deal with this problem is to define a sequence by letting $x_0$ to be arbitrary and $x_n+1=f(x_n)$. Then show the sequence is Cauchy using the hypothesis.
â Marco
Aug 31 at 0:10
Got it, thanks!
â Mike D
Aug 31 at 0:16
Since we don't know $c_1<1$, it might not be possible to show such $lambda$ exists. The easier way to deal with this problem is to define a sequence by letting $x_0$ to be arbitrary and $x_n+1=f(x_n)$. Then show the sequence is Cauchy using the hypothesis.
â Marco
Aug 31 at 0:10
Since we don't know $c_1<1$, it might not be possible to show such $lambda$ exists. The easier way to deal with this problem is to define a sequence by letting $x_0$ to be arbitrary and $x_n+1=f(x_n)$. Then show the sequence is Cauchy using the hypothesis.
â Marco
Aug 31 at 0:10
Got it, thanks!
â Mike D
Aug 31 at 0:16
Got it, thanks!
â Mike D
Aug 31 at 0:16
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
So if $sum_nc_n<+infty$, $c_nundersetninftyrightarrow0$ so there exists a $ninmathbfN$ such that $c_n<1$. So there exists $ninmathbfN$ such that $f^n$ is a contraction. So by the fixed-point theorem, $f^n$ has an unique fixed-point $x$.
Because $f^n+1(x)=f^nbig(f(x)big)=fbig(f^n(x)big)=f(x)$, we conclude that $f(x)$ is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so by unicity $f(x)=x$ and hence $f$ has a fixed-point. Unicity comes from the fact if $y$ is another fixed point of $f$, it is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so $y=x$.
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
So if $sum_nc_n<+infty$, $c_nundersetninftyrightarrow0$ so there exists a $ninmathbfN$ such that $c_n<1$. So there exists $ninmathbfN$ such that $f^n$ is a contraction. So by the fixed-point theorem, $f^n$ has an unique fixed-point $x$.
Because $f^n+1(x)=f^nbig(f(x)big)=fbig(f^n(x)big)=f(x)$, we conclude that $f(x)$ is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so by unicity $f(x)=x$ and hence $f$ has a fixed-point. Unicity comes from the fact if $y$ is another fixed point of $f$, it is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so $y=x$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
So if $sum_nc_n<+infty$, $c_nundersetninftyrightarrow0$ so there exists a $ninmathbfN$ such that $c_n<1$. So there exists $ninmathbfN$ such that $f^n$ is a contraction. So by the fixed-point theorem, $f^n$ has an unique fixed-point $x$.
Because $f^n+1(x)=f^nbig(f(x)big)=fbig(f^n(x)big)=f(x)$, we conclude that $f(x)$ is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so by unicity $f(x)=x$ and hence $f$ has a fixed-point. Unicity comes from the fact if $y$ is another fixed point of $f$, it is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so $y=x$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
So if $sum_nc_n<+infty$, $c_nundersetninftyrightarrow0$ so there exists a $ninmathbfN$ such that $c_n<1$. So there exists $ninmathbfN$ such that $f^n$ is a contraction. So by the fixed-point theorem, $f^n$ has an unique fixed-point $x$.
Because $f^n+1(x)=f^nbig(f(x)big)=fbig(f^n(x)big)=f(x)$, we conclude that $f(x)$ is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so by unicity $f(x)=x$ and hence $f$ has a fixed-point. Unicity comes from the fact if $y$ is another fixed point of $f$, it is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so $y=x$.
So if $sum_nc_n<+infty$, $c_nundersetninftyrightarrow0$ so there exists a $ninmathbfN$ such that $c_n<1$. So there exists $ninmathbfN$ such that $f^n$ is a contraction. So by the fixed-point theorem, $f^n$ has an unique fixed-point $x$.
Because $f^n+1(x)=f^nbig(f(x)big)=fbig(f^n(x)big)=f(x)$, we conclude that $f(x)$ is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so by unicity $f(x)=x$ and hence $f$ has a fixed-point. Unicity comes from the fact if $y$ is another fixed point of $f$, it is also a fixed-point of $f^n$ so $y=x$.
answered Aug 31 at 0:18
BlueCharlie
763
763
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2900156%2fprove-that-f-has-a-unique-fixed-point%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Since we don't know $c_1<1$, it might not be possible to show such $lambda$ exists. The easier way to deal with this problem is to define a sequence by letting $x_0$ to be arbitrary and $x_n+1=f(x_n)$. Then show the sequence is Cauchy using the hypothesis.
â Marco
Aug 31 at 0:10
Got it, thanks!
â Mike D
Aug 31 at 0:16