Hello forumites I got another question (I have a lots of them, maybe

  • Thread starter _DJ_british_?
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Hello
In summary: R is not closed, but the set {x: d(x, y) = 1} is closed.You are forgetting that sets can be neither open nor closed. Take this as your counterexample. X = R. E = [1,∞). f(x) = 1/x. Then, f(E) = (0,1] is not closed. However, it is true that the image of a compact set over a continuous function is compact.You are forgetting that sets can be neither open nor closed. Take this as your counterexample. X = R. E = [1,∞). f(x) = 1/x. Then, f(E) = (
  • #1
_DJ_british_?
42
0
Hello forumites! I got another question (I have a lots of them, maybe I should change my textbook haha).

Suppose you have a continuous real-valued function f on the metric space X and a closed set E in X. Is f(E) closed in the reals? By definition, I know that if f(A) is closed, so is the inverse image of f(A) for a set A in X if f is continuous. But if we know that E is closed, would it be correct to say that f(E) is too?

Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


No, let X = [0, 1), E = X, and f:X->R be the identity function. Then E is closed, but f(E) = [0, 1) as a subset of R is not closed.
 
  • #3


some_dude said:
No, let X = [0, 1), E = X, and f:X->R be the identity function. Then E is closed, but f(E) = [0, 1) as a subset of R is not closed.

I could be wrong, but suppose the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc. Then this is a sequence of elements of E that does not converge to an element of E. Thus E isn't closed.
 
  • #4


Let me try something (and I'm surely wrong again) : Suppose a continuous real-valued function on a metric space X and a closed set E in X. Then there is a set V in the reals such that V=f(E) (Because f maps every points in X). If V is open, so is the inverse image of V, that is, E. But E is closed so V must be closed.
 
Last edited:
  • #5


You are forgetting that sets can be neither open nor closed. Take this as your counterexample. X = R. E = [1,∞). f(x) = 1/x. Then, f(E) = (0,1] is not closed. However, it is true that the image of a compact set over a continuous function is compact.
 
  • #6


_DJ_british_? said:
I could be wrong, but suppose the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc. Then this is a sequence of elements of E that does not converge to an element of E. Thus E isn't closed.

No, that is "completeness" you are describing.

"Closed" just requires for any *convergent* sequence in X such that every element of the sequence is in E, it's limit must also be in E. But in the example I gave 1 was not in the metric space [0, 1), therefore that's not a convergent sequence. (Similar to your example, the sequence 9, 99, 999, 9999, ... does not converge in the reals, but the entire real line is still a closed set).
 
  • #7


some_dude said:
No, that is "completeness" you are describing.

"Closed" just requires for any *convergent* sequence in X such that every element of the sequence is in E, it's limit must also be in E. But in the example I gave 1 was not in the metric space [0, 1), therefore that's not a convergent sequence. (Similar to your example, the sequence 9, 99, 999, 9999, ... does not converge in the reals, but the entire real line is still a closed set).

Isn't that's weird? That the metric space is't closed but that a subset with the exact same points is? Is it because we define "closure" in respect to a specific metric space instead of, for exemple, the reals (in our case)?
 
  • #8


Tedjn said:
You are forgetting that sets can be neither open nor closed. Take this as your counterexample. X = R. E = [1,∞). f(x) = 1/x. Then, f(E) = (0,1] is not closed. However, it is true that the image of a compact set over a continuous function is compact.

Well in your exemple a "neither open nor closed" is mapped into a "neither open nor closed" set. But I'm talking about a mapping from a closed set into another one (where we don't know if it is open, closed or neither). I'm sorry if I just didn't understand where you were trying to get!
 
  • #9


_DJ_british_? said:
Isn't that's weird? That the metric space is't closed but that a subset with the exact same points is? Is it because we define "closure" in respect to a specific metric space instead of, for exemple, the reals (in our case)?

No! The metric space [0, 1) is closed! It's the entire space, so it must be open AND closed. You can also see this by applying any of the definitions of closure in a metric space.
 
  • #10


Regarding some_dude's example: I didn't even notice that. Most of the analysis I've done deals with complete metric spaces, so I took it for granted. But the example is valid. As for my example, the set [1,∞) is closed in R.
 
  • #11


_DJ_british_?, try playing around with metrics in more generality, you're taking for granted the stuff that holds for the reals holds everywhere.

I could have also given you the counter example:

(R, d) metric space where d(x, y) = 1 if x = y, and d(x, y) = 0 otherwise. Then let f be the identity function. Then f( (-1, 1) ) = (-1, 1), an open and NOT closed set, but (-1, 1) is closed (and open) with respect to the metric I gave above.
 
  • #12


Gah! The last three posts were very insightful! That cleared that up for me. Many thanks guy! And yeah, I may have a bit of difficulty trying to see the reals only as a specific metric space, since I've used them for so long. I'll get used to it, I guess. Anyway, thank you guys.
 
  • #13


Openness and closedness are actually relative concepts.
[0,1) is closed in [0,1), but not closed in R, nor in [0,1].
Every metric (topological) space is both closed and open in itself.
 

1. What is the purpose of your question?

The purpose of my question is to gather information and gain a better understanding of a particular topic or concept.

2. Can you provide more context or background information?

Yes, I can provide more context or background information to give a better understanding of my question and the topic at hand.

3. How will you use the information gathered from your question?

I will use the information gathered from my question to further my research and potentially contribute to the scientific community's understanding of the topic.

4. Are there any specific parameters or limitations to your question?

Yes, there may be specific parameters or limitations to my question, such as the scope of the topic or the availability of resources to conduct further research.

5. Can you elaborate on why this question is important?

This question is important because it addresses a gap in current knowledge and has the potential to lead to new discoveries or advancements in the field of science.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
891
Replies
4
Views
643
Replies
1
Views
832
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top