Boundary of the union of two sets

In summary, the question asks whether the formula \partial(A\cup B) = (\partial(A)\cap \mbox{int}(X-B))\cup (\partial(B)\cap \mbox{int}(X-A)) holds true, where A and B are subsets of the topological space X, \partial(A) is the boundary of A, and int(A) is the interior of A. While the first part of the formula can be proven to be a subset of the second part, there is an example where the equality does not hold. Further analysis and examples are needed to determine the exact value of \partial(A\cup B).
  • #1
painfive
24
0
is it true that:

[tex]\partial(A\cup B) = (\partial(A)\cap \mbox{int}(X-B))\cup (\partial(B)\cap \mbox{int}(X-A))[/tex]

? (where [itex]\partial(A)[/itex] is the boundary of A, int(A) is the interior, and A and B are two subsets of the topological space X)

I can prove that:

[tex]\partial(A\cup B) \subset (\partial(A)\cap (X-\mbox{int}(B)))\cup (\partial(B)\cap (X-\mbox{int}(A)))[/tex]

But I have an example where the equality doesn't hold. (I can show all this if anyone wants). But in the example, the first equalitiy does hold, and it seems like it would always hold, but I can't prove it.

Edit: Actually, now I think I have an example where the first equality doesn't hold. Now I have no idea what [itex]\partial(A\cup B)[/itex] is. (It also isn't [itex](\partial(A)\cap (X-B))\cup (\partial(B)\cap (X-A))[/itex], because I have a counterexample of that too)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I might as well show the counterexample I found. For these two sets, none of the above equalities hold (here X is [itex]\Re^2[/itex]):

[tex]A= {0\le x < 1,0\le y \le 1}[/tex]
[tex]B= {1\le x \le 2,0\le y \le 1}[/tex]

Here, the first equality should actually be a "contains" and the second two should be "is a subset of".
 
  • #3


It is not necessarily true that \partial(A\cup B) = (\partial(A)\cap \mbox{int}(X-B))\cup (\partial(B)\cap \mbox{int}(X-A)). This equality only holds if both A and B are open sets or both are closed sets.

To see why, let's consider the definitions of the interior and boundary of a set. The interior of a set A, denoted by int(A), is the largest open set contained in A. The boundary of a set A, denoted by \partial(A), is the set of points that are neither in the interior nor the exterior of A.

Now, if A and B are both open sets, then (\partial(A)\cap \mbox{int}(X-B))\cup (\partial(B)\cap \mbox{int}(X-A)) will contain all the points that are in the boundary of A and B, since both A and B are open and therefore their boundaries are contained in their respective interiors.

Similarly, if A and B are both closed sets, then (\partial(A)\cap \mbox{int}(X-B))\cup (\partial(B)\cap \mbox{int}(X-A)) will contain all the points that are in the boundary of A and B, since both A and B are closed and therefore their boundaries are contained in their respective exteriors.

However, if A is open and B is closed (or vice versa), then this equality will not hold. In this case, the boundary of A\cup B will contain points that are in the interior of A and the exterior of B (since A is open and B is closed), but these points will not be in (\partial(A)\cap \mbox{int}(X-B))\cup (\partial(B)\cap \mbox{int}(X-A)). Similarly, points in the interior of B and the exterior of A will not be in this set either.

So, in conclusion, the equality \partial(A\cup B) = (\partial(A)\cap \mbox{int}(X-B))\cup (\partial(B)\cap \mbox{int}(X-A)) only holds when both A and B are either open or closed sets. In other cases, the boundary of the union of A and B will contain additional points that are not in this set.
 

1. What is the definition of the boundary of the union of two sets?

The boundary of the union of two sets is the set of all points that are either in one set or the other, but not in both. In other words, it is the set of all points that lie on the edge or boundary between the two sets.

2. How is the boundary of the union of two sets different from the boundary of each individual set?

The boundary of the union is the combination of the boundaries of each individual set. This means that some points that are on the boundary of the union may not be on the boundary of either set individually.

3. Can the boundary of the union of two sets be empty?

Yes, it is possible for the boundary of the union of two sets to be empty. This means that the two sets do not share any common points on their boundaries, and all points in the union are either fully inside or outside of both sets.

4. How is the boundary of the union of two sets related to the intersection of the two sets?

The boundary of the union of two sets is always contained within the intersection of the two sets. This means that any point on the boundary of the union must also be on the boundary of the intersection, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

5. Is the boundary of the union of two sets always equal to the union of the boundaries of the individual sets?

No, the boundary of the union of two sets is not always equal to the union of the boundaries of the individual sets. It is only equal when the two sets share all points on their boundaries, otherwise the boundary of the union will contain additional points that are not on the boundaries of the individual sets.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
760
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
11
Views
3K
Back
Top