Undergrad Alternative proof to a trivial problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter trees and plants
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around an alternative proof regarding the non-negativity of a metric d(x,y) in a metric space, with a participant sharing their proof and seeking feedback. They also inquire about other alternative proofs for similar problems in topology. A subsequent exchange delves into proving that a non-empty open set A can be expressed as the union of sets An defined by distances to the complement of A. Participants discuss logical proof techniques, including the concept of contraposition and the importance of quantifiers in mathematical arguments. The conversation highlights the complexity of proofs in metric spaces and the collaborative effort to clarify and refine understanding.
  • #31
universe function said:
I think if A⊆An then An⊆∪n∈ℕAn. I do not know what to do next.I tried somehow.
That can't be right. We already know that every ##A_n## is a subset of ##A##. What you need to do is to show that every element of ##A## is in at least one of the ##A_n##.

Note that ##A## is open and, therefore, every ##x \in A## has a neighbourhood in ##A##. That's the defining property of an open set. That geometrically is very close to what you need to show. If we take ##x \in A## then for some ##n## we have ##x \in A_n##.

You need to complete the proof rigorously, but do you see the idea?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I thought of something, but I suppose it is wrong. I will say it: A is open, so we have B(x,r)⊆A and for y∈B(x,r) also y∈A. d(x,y)<r, so d(x,y)=r/2 and because d(x,Ac )>1 we choose a y for d(y,Ac)=1+1/2 and we take as r=10/2,so d(x,Ac)≥d(x,y)-d(Ac,y)=r/2-3/2=10/4-3/2=1.
 
  • #33
universe function said:
I thought of something, but I suppose it is wrong. I will say it: A is open, so we have B(x,r)⊆A and for z∈B(x,r) also z∈A. d(x,y)<r, so d(x,y)=r/2 and because d(x,Ac )>1 we choose a y for d(y,Ac)=1+1/2 and we take as r=10/2,so d(x,Ac)≥d(x,y)-d(Ac,y)=r/2-3/2=10/4-3/2=1.
I can't follow any of that. You must get into the habit of specifying what things are and using the quantifiers ##\forall## and ##\exists##. What are ##x, y, z, r##? And why is ##d(x, A^c) > 1##?

To give you a bit more help, you could start with:

Let ##x \in A##. As ##A## is open, there exists a neighbourhood of ##x## within ##A##. I.e. ##\exists r: B(x, r) \subseteq A##.
 
  • #34
If we took the union of B(x,rx) and the union of An?Would it help?Because a set is open if it can be represented as a union of spherical neighborhoods.
 
  • #35
universe function said:
If we took the union of B(x,rx) and the union of An?Would it help?
Which ##n##? To do what? You're trying to find ##n## where ##x \in A_n##.

Hint: ##n## must be related to ##r## somehow.
 
  • #36
If we consider r=1/n and y∈Ac?What is the solution?I do not know.
 
  • #37
universe function said:
If we consider r=1/n and y∈Ac?What is the solution?I do not know.
That's getting close. Technically, you let ##n > 1/r##. Then you show that ##\forall y \in A^c##, we have ##d(x, y) > 1/n##.

That tells you that ##d(x, A^c) \ge \frac 1 n > \frac 1 {n+1}## and you're done.

You have to put that all together though.
 
  • Like
Likes trees and plants
  • #38
I reached so far at least.It is just the details I had to deal with, although they are important and they are needed.Thank you.I must leave from the forum now.I will see you tomorrow hopefully.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #39
I always thought that ##d(x,y)\ge 0## was part of the definition?
 
  • #40
mathman said:
I always thought that ##d(x,y)\ge 0## was part of the definition?
So did I, but apparently this condition can be deduced from the others.
 
  • #41
PeroK said:
So did I, but apparently this condition can be deduced from the others.
There seems to be a long series of posts which appear to lead to this conclusion. Could you summarize it, starting from the beginning?
 
  • #42
mathman said:
There seems to be a long series of posts which appear to lead to this conclusion. Could you summarize it, starting from the beginning?
From post #3 or #4 we switched to a new problem.
 
  • #43
PeroK said:
From post #3 or #4 we switched to a new problem.
If I understand you correctly, you never proved ##d(x,y)\ge 0## can be deduced, as opposed to being part of the definition.
 
  • #44
mathman said:
If I understand you correctly, you never proved ##d(x,y)\ge 0## can be deduced, as opposed to being part of the definition.
Not on this thread. It's on the wikipedia page if you are interested.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K