Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Intro Physics Homework Help
Advanced Physics Homework Help
Precalculus Homework Help
Calculus Homework Help
Bio/Chem Homework Help
Engineering Homework Help
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Intro Physics Homework Help
Advanced Physics Homework Help
Precalculus Homework Help
Calculus Homework Help
Bio/Chem Homework Help
Engineering Homework Help
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Homework Help
Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
A set equality proof without elements, I broke my brain?
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="1MileCrash, post: 4539897, member: 281922"] [h2]Homework Statement [/h2] b(B) = cls(B) \ Int(B) where b(B) is the boundary, cls is the closure, and int is the interior of set B. This was not hard for me to prove by picking elements and showing that the sets were contained in one another. However, I decided it would be fun to try to derive it by just going by definitions, my interpretations of definitions, DeMorgan's laws, things about sets, etc. While I'm not sure entirely what's wrong, or where I broke down, something must just not make sense here. [h2]Homework Equations[/h2] [h2]The Attempt at a Solution[/h2] So for [itex]\overline{B}[/itex] I defined this to be "the complement of the union of all open sets disjoint from B" in order to make it fit nicely with the type of manipulation I had in mind. I thought this definition may have been the problem but Office_Shredder confirmed its accuracy in [url=www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4539872]this thread.[/url] I defined [itex]Int{B}[/itex] To be the union of all open subsets of B. This is the textbook definition.And, I defined [itex]b(B)[/itex] To be the intersection of all closed sets containing B. This is also the textbook definition.So my goal is to just reason directly that [itex](X \setminus (\cup O_{i} | O_{i} \cap B = \oslash, O_{i} is open)) \setminus (\cup Q_{i} | Q_{i} \subseteq B, Q_{i} is open)[/itex] is the boundary of B. 1.) Using some ideas with complements, and changing these to "absolute complements" for the sake of simplicity, I think that this is equivalent to that: [itex](\cup O_{i} | O_{i} \cap B = \oslash, O_{i} is open)^{c} \cap (\cup Q_{i} | Q_{i} \subseteq B, Q_{i} is open)^{c}[/itex] And then, being an intersection of complements, is a complement of unions, so I have that this is (removing the characteristics of the sets in the unions, it's ugly, pretend they are there) [itex]X \setminus ((\cup O_{i}) \cup (\cup Q_{i}))[/itex] So now, I think that the union of unions is just a normal union, so I merged them into one, and merge their conditions to an or. Then, I pulled the new compound union out of the complement, making it an intersection, so their conditions are now an and. Also, instead of O and Q, call everything O now. [itex]\cap X \setminus O_{i} | O_{i} \cup B = \oslash AND O_{i} \subseteq B[/itex]Which is exciting because I now have an intersection of closed sets. The b(B) is an intersection of closed sets containing B. So, with the condition [itex]O_{i} \cup B = \oslash[/itex] and [itex]O_{i} \subseteq B[/itex] the B-containment should follow for each X \ Oi, but it doesn't as far as I can tell. In fact, it means that every Oi is empty, so every closed set X\Oi is just X! What went wrong? Thanks! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Homework Help
Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
A set equality proof without elements, I broke my brain?
Back
Top