Proof that p is interior if p is not limit of complement

In summary: Yes, one small mistake ##B(p) \subseteq E## instead of ##B(p) \in E##. And you showed only one implication ( the other one is pretty much the same I think though)In summary, the conversation is about a person searching for a proof for a theorem regarding interior points and limit points in a metric space. They mention trying a method of contradiction but have not attempted it yet. Later, they present their proof using contradiction and ask for feedback.
  • #1
jamalkoiyess
217
21
Hello PF,

I am searching for a proof that I couldn't find on the internet.

Theorem: E in X a metric space. p in E. p is an interior point of E if and only if p is not a limit point of (E complement)'

Sorry for notations but I have no idea how to insert Latex here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
jamalkoiyess said:
Hello PF,

I am searching for a proof that I couldn't find on the internet.

Theorem: E in X a metric space. p in E. p is an interior point of E if and only if p is not a limit point of (E complement)'

Sorry for notations but I have no idea how to insert Latex here.

What have you tried? Contradiction seems a promising method. (Didn't try yet)
 
  • #3
Math_QED said:
What have you tried? Contradiction seems a promising method. (Didn't try yet)

I didn't even try... :sorry:
I will see if contradiction works.
 
  • #4
jamalkoiyess said:
I didn't even try... :sorry:
I will see if contradiction works.

Well, it are the forum rules that you at least try yourself, and post what you tried.
 
  • Like
Likes jamalkoiyess
  • #5
Math_QED said:
Well, it are the forum rules that you at least try yourself, and post what you tried.
So this is the proof I came up with, tell me if something is wrong:
## E \in X ##
Suppose that ##p \in \mathring{E} ## and ## p \in (E^c)' ##
Then ##\exists \quad \gamma>0 \quad s.t. \quad B_\gamma(p) \in E##
and ## \forall \quad r>0 \quad \exists q \in E^c \cap B_r(p) ##
now let ##r = \gamma ##
So ## q \in B_r(p) \subset E \quad and \quad q \in E^c ##
contradiction.
 
  • #6
jamalkoiyess said:
So this is the proof I came up with, tell me if something is wrong:
## E \in X ##
Suppose that ##p \in \mathring{E} ## and ## p \in (E^c)' ##
Then ##\exists \quad \gamma>0 \quad s.t. \quad B_\gamma(p) \in E##
and ## \forall \quad r>0 \quad \exists q \in E^c \cap B_r(p) ##
now let ##r = \gamma ##
So ## q \in B_r(p) \subset E \quad and \quad q \in E^c ##
contradiction.

Yes, one small mistake ##B(p) \subseteq E## instead of ##B(p) \in E##. And you showed only one implication ( the other one is pretty much the same I think though)
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara and jamalkoiyess

1. What is the definition of interior for a set?

The interior of a set is the largest open set contained within that set. In other words, it is the collection of all points in the set that are not on the boundary of the set.

2. How is the interior of a set related to its complement?

If a point p is not a limit point of the complement of a set, then it must be contained within the interior of the set. This is because if p is not a limit point of the complement, there exists an open neighborhood of p that does not intersect with the complement, meaning p is not on the boundary and must be in the interior.

3. What is the proof that p is interior if p is not a limit point of the complement?

The proof is by contradiction. Assume that p is not in the interior of the set. This means that there does not exist an open neighborhood of p contained within the set. But since p is not a limit point of the complement, there exists an open neighborhood of p that does not intersect with the complement. This means that p is not on the boundary of the set, contradicting our initial assumption. Therefore, p must be in the interior of the set.

4. Can you provide an example to illustrate this concept?

Consider the set A = (0,1) ∪ (2,3). The interior of this set is (0,1) ∪ (2,3). If we choose a point p = 1 in the complement of A, which is [1,2], we can see that p is not a limit point of the complement. This is because there exists an open neighborhood of p, (0.5,1.5), that does not intersect with the complement [1,2]. Therefore, p is contained within the interior of A.

5. How does this concept apply to real-world problems?

Understanding the interior of a set and the relationship between a point and its complement is important for solving problems in various fields such as physics and engineering. For example, in circuit analysis, the interior of a set can represent the region where an electrical current can flow without encountering a boundary or obstruction. This concept also has applications in computer graphics and image processing, where identifying the interior of an object can help with rendering and recognition tasks.

Similar threads

  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
449
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top