Constructing an Open Cover for the Rational Numbers in the Interval [0, 1]

  • Thread starter Bachelier
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Set
In summary, the rational points x1 = 1/2 and √2 are close but never reach it. With this new cover, x1 and √2 are in R_n and there is a rational number between them, x2. So when x2 is subtracted from √2, you get the difference between x1 and √2, which is 1/sqrt(2).
  • #1
Bachelier
376
0
Need an open cover with NO FINITE subcovers

{x ∈ Q : 0 ≤ x ≤ 2}

I was thinking: {A_n} n = 1 to infinity s.t.

A_n = (1/(sqrt 2^n) - 1/(2^10) , 3)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The following answer was given, I think it's wrong, for one, x=0 is not covered, and x= 2 is not neither. I think a way to correct it would be to choose A_n = (-1, X_n) and instead of √2 we should choose 2√2. What do you think?

The answer:
Because the rationals are dense in R we can construct an infinite collection of rational points that
get close to √2, but never reach it. Let x1 = 1/2 . Since x1 and √2 are real numbers, there is a rational number between them, call it x2. Now since x2 ∈ R, there is some rational number between x2 and √2, call it x3. Continue to get x1 < x2 < x3 < · · · < xn < · · · < √2. Now let An = (1, xn). Then J = {An} is an open cover of our set, but it has no finite subcover.
 
  • #3
Bachelier said:
{x ∈ Q : 0 ≤ x ≤ 2}

I was thinking: {A_n} n = 1 to infinity s.t.

A_n = (1/(sqrt 2^n) - 1/(2^10) , 3)

Hmmm...well, [itex]\mathbb R[/itex] is an open cover of this set! After all, an open cover of [itex]S[/itex] is just a collection [itex]U_\alpha[/itex] of open sets such that [itex]S\subset \bigcup_\alpha U_\alpha[/itex]. Are you looking for an open cover with no finite subcover?
 
  • #4
AxiomOfChoice said:
Hmmm...well, [itex]\mathbb R[/itex] is an open cover of this set! After all, an open cover of [itex]S[/itex] is just a collection [itex]U_\alpha[/itex] of open sets such that [itex]S\subset \bigcup_\alpha U_\alpha[/itex]. Are you looking for an open cover with no finite subcover?

exactly. With no finite subcovers
 
  • #5
Try covering it with disjoint open intervals. E.g. ( [0,r_1) U (r_1,r_2) U (r_2,r_3) U ... ) U (r,2].

[tex]r_n = \sum^{n}_{k=1}sqrt(2)/2^k, \ \ r = \lim r_n[/tex]
 
  • #6
Jarle said:
Try covering it with disjoint open intervals. E.g. ( [0,r_1) U (r_1,r_2) U (r_2,r_3) U ... ) U (r,2].

[tex]r_n = \sum^{n}_{k=1}sqrt(2)/2^k, \ \ r = \lim r_n[/tex]

How does that work? [itex][0,r_1)[/itex] and [itex](r,2][/itex] are not open sets. (By the way...what's your [itex]r[/itex] there?)
 
  • #7
AxiomOfChoice said:
How does that work? [itex][0,r_1)[/itex] and [itex](r,2][/itex] are not open sets. (By the way...what's your [itex]r[/itex] there?)

I assume he is giving [0,2] cap Q the subspace topology of R. In which case e.g. [0,r_1) = (-1,r_1) cap ([0,2] cap Q), where (-1,r_1) is an open interval in R. Or just: if [0,2] cap Q has the order topology, then [0,a) is open since 0 is the least element.

I defined r as the limit of the r_n's above.
 
  • #8
Jarle said:
I assume he is giving [0,2] cap Q the subspace topology of R. In which case e.g. [0,r_1) = (-1,r_1) cap ([0,2] cap Q), where (-1,r_1) is an open interval in R. Or just: if [0,2] cap Q has the order topology, then [0,a) is open since 0 is the least element.

I defined r as the limit of the r_n's above.

So the limit r in this case will approach sqrt 2, right?
 
  • #9
Is there an intuition behind using the Sqrt 2?
 
  • #10
What would you recommend for {x ∈ Q : 0 ≤ x ≤ 1}?

with respect to another summation series
 
  • #11
[tex]
r_n = \sum^{n}_{k=1}sqrt(2)/2^k * 1/1.4141..., \ \ r = \lim r_n
[/tex]

to cover interval [0,1]
 
  • #12
Bachelier said:
Is there an intuition behind using the Sqrt 2?

The r_n's and r are irrational, so they are not in your set. If they were, it wouldn't be a cover. And yes, r = sqrt(2).

For your other set you could just divide the r_n's by 2...

Bachelier said:
[tex]
r_n = \sum^{n}_{k=1}sqrt(2)/2^k * 1/1.4141..., \ \ r = \lim r_n
[/tex]

to cover interval [0,1]



I don't know what you're trying to say here.
 
  • #13
Jarle said:
The r_n's and r are irrational, so they are not in your set. If they were, it wouldn't be a cover. And yes, r = sqrt(2).

For your other set you could just divide the r_n's by 2...I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Thanks Jarle. great work.

I think I found another cover for {x ∈ Q : 0 ≤ x ≤ 1}

Basically the union of R_n U R_0 such that R_n = (-1 , 1/sqrt(2) - 1/n ) and R_0 = ( 1/sqrt(2) , 2)
 

What is an open cover for a set?

An open cover for a set is a collection of open sets that completely cover the given set. This means that every point in the set is contained in at least one of the open sets in the cover.

Why is an open cover important?

An open cover is important because it allows us to study the properties of a set by considering its subparts, or open sets. This is useful in many areas of mathematics, such as topology and analysis.

How do you determine if a set has an open cover?

A set has an open cover if there exists a collection of open sets that completely cover the set. This can be determined by checking if every point in the set is contained in at least one of the open sets in the cover.

What is the difference between an open cover and a closed cover?

An open cover is a collection of open sets that completely cover a set, while a closed cover is a collection of closed sets that completely cover a set. The main difference is that open covers use open sets and closed covers use closed sets.

Can a set have more than one open cover?

Yes, a set can have multiple open covers. In fact, there are often many different open covers for a given set. This is because there are often many ways to divide a set into open sets that cover it.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
651
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
909
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
849
Back
Top