1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A non-separable set

  1. Jun 23, 2008 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Let (X,d) be a metric space, A a closed subset of X. Suppose we've found an uncountable subset [itex] U \subseteq A [/itex] such that [itex] \forall x,y \in U, \; d(x,y) \geq c [/itex] for some positive constant c. Show that A is not separable

    2. Relevant equations
    A is separable if it contains a countably dense subset

    3. The attempt at a solution

    For the sake of contradiction assume that A is separable. That is, there exists a countable set S such that cl(S) = A, or [itex] \forall a \in A \; \forall r>0, \; B(a;r) \cap S \neq \emptyset [/itex]

    Now my idea from here is as follows. Since U is uncountable and S is necessarily countable, we can choose [itex] x \in U\setminus _S [/itex]. Then [itex] \forall r>0 \; B(x;r) \cap S \neq \emptyset [/itex] by assumption. Now I want to show a contradiction using the fact that [itex] \forall x,y \in U , \; d(x,y) \geq c [/itex]. I've been thinking about how to find a suitable r such that [itex] B(x;r) \subseteq U\setminus_S [/itex] which would cause [itex]B(x;r) \cap S = \emptyset [/itex] and give a contradiction. However, I can't find a way to guarantee that a sufficiently small r exists. Hence that idea doesn't seem to be leading anywhere, and I'm not sure what to try next.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 23, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Take r=c/4. B(u,c/4) for each u in U must contain at least one point in the countable dense subset S but only one point in U. But no s in S is contained in more than one of the balls (why?). Can you use this to construct an injective map from an uncountable set into a countable set? What's wrong with that? I'm a little disturbed because I haven't used the fact that A is closed. But not that much, because if U is a subset of X then it's always contained in a closed set. Namely X. Have I missed something subtle?
  4. Jul 1, 2008 #3
    I know the reply is a little late but I've been a bit busy.

    I like the idea, but I'm not too sure about the injective map from an uncountable set to a countable one. I assume we want to map U -> S injectively, but we've only shown that every s is contained uniquely to a ball around an element in u, there's no guarantee that the number of elements in [itex] B(u; \frac{c}{4} ) \cap S [/itex] is precisely one, and so I can't think of a way of creating a well-defined map.

    I'm wondering if perhaps we shouldn't go in the other direction; i.e. show there's a surjective map from S to U which would also give a contradiction. We can do this since every s in S can be uniquely identified with a certain u in U, and since [itex] B(u; \frac{c}{4} ) \cap S \neq \emptyset [/itex] then for every u, an "inverse" would exist (though again not guaranteed to be a singleton set).

    Am I missing something obvious that guarantees injectivity? Is there a reason why the surjectivity wouldn't work? Indeed, if the surjective argument works, I could (although not necessary) create the stronger bijective map.
  5. Jul 1, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It's certainly true you have to pick an s for each u. But that's what the axiom of choice is for. It's injective because if s is in B(u1,c/4), then it's not also in B(u2,c/4), so there's no chance of two elements of U mapping to the same element of S. The surjection ought to work as well. Take the subset S' of the elements of S that are contained in the balls. Now map them to U in the obvious way. Either way you get the contradiction card(S)>=card(U), I would say the choice of injecting one way or surjecting the other way are two different ways of stating the same argument.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: A non-separable set