Prove the following set is compact

In summary, the author is trying to solve a problem in set theory and is having trouble understanding the set operation. He is looking for help and has completed the hard part of the proof.
  • #1
Theorem.
237
5

Homework Statement


Let K be a nonempty compact set in R2Prove that the following set is compact:
[tex]S=\lbrace{p\in R^{2}:\parallel p-q\parallel\leq 1 for some q\in K}\rbrace [/tex]

Homework Equations


I will apply Heine-Borel- i.e. a set is compact iff it is bounded and closed

The Attempt at a Solution


This is somewhat of a silly question, I know that all I have to do is split the set up into too compact sets A and B (i.e. A+B=S), I then already know how to prove that the sum of two nonempty compact sets is compact. The problem is, I am having trouble splitting the set up ( I am still fairly new to set notation, which doesn't help).

So far I have looked at
[tex]A=\lbrace {p:\parallel p \parallel \leq R, p\in R^{2}\rbrace[/tex]
This set is both closed and bounded and therefore compact. and...
[tex]A=\lbrace {q:\parallel q \parallel \leq 1-R, q\in K\rbrace[/tex]
This set is also bounded and closed.
If I add the two sets I get the right condition through the triangle inequality, but I clearly end up with
[tex]A+B=\lbrace {p+q:\parallel p-q \parallel \leq 1 \rbrace[/tex]
which isn't what I want,
I think more than anything I am just struggling with the set operation, any help would be much appreciated- I have done the hard(er) part of the proof, my understanding is that this part should be simpler, but I am struggling.
Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
the definition doesn;t quiet make sense how can |p-q|<q if q is a point in R2?
 
  • #3
What does this mean?

[tex] \Vert p - q \Vert \leq q [/tex]

I mean, isn't [itex] q \in K \subset \mathbb R^2 [/itex]?
 
  • #4
Woops sorry guys that was a typo,
should be [tex] \Vert p-q\Vert \leq 1 [/tex]
 
  • #5
I'm not sure what you mean by "add the two sets". However, to prove S is bounded, you must prove that {||x- y||}, where x and y are any two points in S, is bounded- that is, ||x- y||< A for some number A. If x is in S, there exist p in K such that ||x- p||<= 1. If y is in S, there exist q in K such that ||y- q||<= 1. Further, since K is compact, there exist R such that ||p- q||< R for all p and q in K.

Then ||x- y||= ||x- p+ p- q+ q- y||<= ||x- p||+ ||p- q||+ ||q- y||< 1+ R+ 1= R+ 2.

To show that S is closed, look at the complement of S, the set of all x such that ||x- p||> 1 for all p in K.
 
  • #6
HallsofIvy said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "add the two sets". However, to prove S is bounded, you must prove that {||x- y||}, where x and y are any two points in S, is bounded- that is, ||x- y||< A for some number A. If x is in S, there exist p in K such that ||x- p||<= 1. If y is in S, there exist q in K such that ||y- q||<= 1. Further, since K is compact, there exist R such that ||p- q||< R for all p and q in K.

Then ||x- y||= ||x- p+ p- q+ q- y||<= ||x- p||+ ||p- q||+ ||q- y||< 1+ R+ 1= R+ 2.

To show that S is closed, look at the complement of S, the set of all x such that ||x- p||> 1 for all p in K.

That makes a lot more sense Thank you! I am not sure how my professor was going about "splitting" up the set. By adding the two sets, I meant pointwise addition, [tex]S_1+S_2 =\lbrace v_1+v_2 : v_1\in S_1, v_2\in S_2}\[/tex] In his method he constructed two sets such that they account for all points in S. From there, I proved that sum of two compact sets is compact (Sequentially compact).
Using the method you laid out seems much simpler, and I can't see where it would fail. Thank you for your help : )
 

What does it mean for a set to be compact?

A set is considered compact if it is closed and bounded. This means that the set contains all of its limit points and is not infinitely large.

How do you prove that a set is compact?

To prove that a set is compact, you must show that it is both closed and bounded. This can be done through various methods, such as using the Heine-Borel theorem or the sequential compactness theorem.

What is the difference between a closed set and a bounded set?

A closed set contains all of its limit points, while a bounded set is not infinitely large. A set can be closed but not bounded, or bounded but not closed.

Can a set be compact if it is not closed?

No, a set must be both closed and bounded to be considered compact. If a set is not closed, it does not contain all of its limit points and therefore cannot be compact.

Are all subsets of a compact set also compact?

Yes, all subsets of a compact set are also compact. This is because a subset inherits the properties of the larger set, meaning it will also be closed and bounded.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
914
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
895
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
996
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
519
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top