MHB An open cover is a collection of open sets whose union contains a given subset

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $\mathbb{R}$ provided with the metric $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. I want to check if the collections of sets $$S_1=\left \{\left (\frac{x}{2}, \frac{3x}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}, \ \ \ \ \ S_2=\left \{\left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}$$ are open covers of $A=\left \{\frac{1}{n} : n\in \mathbb{N}\right \}\subset \mathbb{R}$.

An open cover is a collection of open sets whose union contains a given subset, right?

Could you give me a hint how we could check that in these cases? Do we have to check if the union of $S_1$ of all $x$ contains $A$ and the same also for $S_2$ ? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Let $\mathbb{R}$ provided with the metric $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. I want to check if the collections of sets $$S_1=\left \{\left (\frac{x}{2}, \frac{3x}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}, \ \ \ \ \ S_2=\left \{\left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}$$ are open covers of $A=\left \{\frac{1}{n} : n\in \mathbb{N}\right \}\subset \mathbb{R}$.

An open cover is a collection of open sets whose union contains a given subset, right?

That is right.

mathmari said:
Could you give me a hint how we could check that in these cases? Do we have to check if the union of $S_1$ of all $x$ contains $A$ and the same also for $S_2$ ? (Wondering)

Yes. In some more detail: You need to check if for every $a \in A$ there exists an interval $I$ in the collection $S_1$ (generally, $I$ will depend on $a$) such that $a \in I$, and similarly for $S_2$.

Since such $a \in A$ is of the form $a = \frac{1}{n}$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and each interval $I$ in $S_1$ is of the form $I = \left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$ for some $0 < x < 1$, what you really need to check is: Is there for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ an $0 < x < 1$ such that $\frac{1}{n} \in \left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$?
 
Krylov said:
Since such $a \in A$ is of the form $a = \frac{1}{n}$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and each interval $I$ in $S_1$ is of the form $I = \left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$ for some $0 < x < 1$, what you really need to check is: Is there for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ an $0 < x < 1$ such that $\frac{1}{n} \in \left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$?

I think that it holds that there is for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ an $0 < x < 1$ such that $\frac{1}{n} \in \left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$, because the maximum value of $\frac{1}{n}$ is $1$ which is in the interval $\left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$ for $x$ that tends to $1$ and the minimum value tends to $0$ which is also in the interval $\left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$ if $x$ tends to $0$, or not?

If this is correct, how could we prove that formally? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
I think that it holds that there is for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ an $0 < x < 1$ such that $\frac{1}{n} \in \left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$, because the maximum value of $\frac{1}{n}$ is $1$ which is in the interval $\left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$ for $x$ that tends to $1$ and the minimum value tends to $0$ which is also in the interval $\left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2}\right)$ if $x$ tends to $0$, or not?

If this is correct, how could we prove that formally? (Wondering)

Yes, you have the right intuition.

Now you need to show that for any given $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the two equalities
\[
\frac{x}{2} < \frac{1}{n} < \frac{3 x}{2}
\]
have at least one solution $x \in (0,1)$. This is a matter of rewriting: Multiply by $2$ to obtain the equivalent system
\[
x < \frac{2}{n} < 3x.
\]
Can you now see a very simple expression for $x$ in terms of $n$ that satisfies this system and is such that $x \in (0,1)$?
 
Krylov said:
\[
x < \frac{2}{n} < 3x.
\]
Can you now see a very simple expression for $x$ in terms of $n$ that satisfies this system and is such that $x \in (0,1)$?

We have that $x<\frac{2}{n}<1$ for $n>2$ and $3x>\frac{2}{n}\Rightarrow x>\frac{2}{3n}>0$ for all $n$.

Is this enough to conclude that $x\in (0,1)$ ? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
We have that $x<\frac{2}{n}<1$ for $n>2$ and $3x>\frac{2}{n}\Rightarrow x>\frac{2}{3n}>0$ for all $n$.

Is this enough to conclude that $x\in (0,1)$ ? (Wondering)

It is enough to conclude that, if there exists a real number $x$ depending on $n$ that satisfies
\[
x < \frac{2}{n} < 3x \qquad (*)
\]
then $0 < x < 1$.

However, this is not enough to finish the question. Namely, what you need to show is that for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$ there exists some $x \in (0,1)$ - depending on $n$ - such that (*) holds.

Can you see how this is different from what you wrote?

Can you find a simple formula for $x$ in terms of $n$ that accomplishes the latter? (Do not think too hard about it: For what expressions for $x$ involving $n$ is (*) satisfied?)
 
Krylov said:
Can you find a simple formula for $x$ in terms of $n$ that accomplishes the latter? (Do not think too hard about it: For what expressions for $x$ involving $n$ is (*) satisfied?)

Is it maybe $x=\frac{1}{n}$ ? Then (*) would be satisfied. Or I am thinking wrong? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Is it maybe $x=\frac{1}{n}$ ? Then (*) would be satisfied. Or I am thinking wrong? (Wondering)

Right! (Yes)
 
Krylov said:
Right! (Yes)

But for $n=1$ we have that $x=1$ and then $x\notin (0,1)$, or not? (Wondering)
As for $S_2$:

$\displaystyle{ S_2=\left \{\left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}}$

We have to check if for every $a \in A$ there exists an interval $I$ in the collection $S_2$ such that $a \in I$.
Since such $a \in A$ is of the form $a = \frac{1}{n}$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and each interval $I$ in $S_2$ is of the form $I = \left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right )$ for some $0 < x < 1$, we want to check the following:
Is there for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ an $0 < x < 1$ such that $\frac{1}{n} \in \left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right )$?
For each $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the inequalities $x-\frac{1}{2} < \frac{1}{n} < x+\frac{1}{2}$ must have at least one solution $x \in (0,1)$.

Do we have to find here again an expression of $x$ in terms of $n$ ? We have that $\left |x-\frac{1}{n}\right |<\frac{1}{2}$ ans also $\frac{1}{n}-\frac{1}{2}<x<\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{2}$, right? But how can we get an expression? (Wondering)
 
  • #10
mathmari said:
But for $n=1$ we have that $x=1$ and then $x\notin (0,1)$, or not? (Wondering)

You are certainly right. I should have added that the initial case $n = 1$ is covered (pun intended) by e.g. $x = \frac{3}{4}$. So, in summary,

Yes, $S_1$ is an open cover of $A$, because for every point $a \in A$ the interval $\left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2} \right) \in S_1$ with
\[
x =
\begin{cases}
a & \text{if } a < 1,\\
\frac{3}{4} & \text{if } a = 1,
\end{cases}
\]
is such that $a \in S_1$.

mathmari said:
As for $S_2$:

$\displaystyle{ S_2=\left \{\left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}}$

We have to check if for every $a \in A$ there exists an interval $I$ in the collection $S_2$ such that $a \in I$.
Since such $a \in A$ is of the form $a = \frac{1}{n}$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and each interval $I$ in $S_2$ is of the form $I = \left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right )$ for some $0 < x < 1$, we want to check the following:
Is there for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ an $0 < x < 1$ such that $\frac{1}{n} \in \left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right )$?
For each $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the inequalities $x-\frac{1}{2} < \frac{1}{n} < x+\frac{1}{2}$ must have at least one solution $x \in (0,1)$.

Yes, very good.

mathmari said:
Do we have to find here again an expression of $x$ in terms of $n$ ? We have that $\left |x-\frac{1}{n}\right |<\frac{1}{2}$ ans also $\frac{1}{n}-\frac{1}{2}<x<\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{2}$, right?

That depends on what you choose for $x$. For example, if $n = 10$ and $x = \frac{9}{10}$ then neither is true.
Since your statement does not have quantifiers (in words or symbols), it is not unambiguous.

mathmari said:
But how can we get an expression? (Wondering)

Begin by covering for special cases. For example, for $n = 1$ we can again choose $x = \frac{3}{4}$. Then consider some simple expressions in terms of $n$ that take values in $(0,1)$ - the interval in which $x$ should lie. You can use a familiar result.
 
  • #11
Incidentally, for $S_2$ there is also another approach possible.

You can first deal with the case $n = 1$ as before. Next, you can find one $ x \in (0,1)$ - not depending on $n$ - such that $\left(x - \frac{1}{2}, x + \frac{1}{2}\right)$ contains $\frac{1}{n}$ for all $n > 1$. There are many possibilities to choose for $x$ in this way. Can you find some?

Incidentally, this is somewhat rare. In general, the open set containing the point will indeed depend on the point in question.
 
  • #12
Krylov said:
You are certainly right. I should have added that the initial case $n = 1$ is covered (pun intended) by e.g. $x = \frac{3}{4}$. So, in summary,

Yes, $S_1$ is an open cover of $A$, because for every point $a \in A$ the interval $\left(\frac{x}{2},\frac{3x}{2} \right) \in S_1$ with
\[
x =
\begin{cases}
a & \text{if } a < 1,\\
\frac{3}{4} & \text{if } a = 1,
\end{cases}
\]
is such that $a \in S_1$.

Ahh ok, I got it! (Smile)
For $S_2$, do we have the following?

$S_2$ is an open cover of $A$, because for every point $a \in A$ the interval $\left(x-\frac{1}{2},x+\frac{1}{2} \right) \in S_2$ with
$$x =
\begin{cases}
a & \text{if } a < 1,\\
\frac{3}{4} & \text{if } a = 1,
\end{cases}
\ \ \ \ \ \text{ or } \ \ \ \ \ x =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2} & \text{if } a < 1,\\
\frac{3}{4} & \text{if } a = 1,
\end{cases}
$$
is such that $a \in S_2$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
  • #13
mathmari said:
Ahh ok, I got it! (Smile)
For $S_2$, do we have the following?

$S_2$ is an open cover of $A$, because for every point $a \in A$ the interval $\left(x-\frac{1}{2},x+\frac{1}{2} \right) \in S_2$ with
$$x =
\begin{cases}
a & \text{if } a < 1,\\
\frac{3}{4} & \text{if } a = 1,
\end{cases}
\ \ \ \ \ \text{ or } \ \ \ \ \ x =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2} & \text{if } a < 1,\\
\frac{3}{4} & \text{if } a = 1,
\end{cases}
$$
is such that $a \in S_2$.

Is this correct? (Wondering)

Yes, well done!
 
  • #14
Krylov said:
Yes, well done!

Great! So both $S_1$ and $S_2$ are open covers of $A$. To check if they have a finite subcover, we have to check if $S_1$ and $S_2$ respectively, have a finite subset which is also a cover of $A$, right?

For example, we have that $\displaystyle{\tilde{S}_1=\left \{\left (\frac{x}{4}, \frac{3x}{4}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}\subseteq S_1}$.

This is not a cover of $A$, since for $n=1$ the element $a$ is not in $\tilde{S}_1$. The same holds also when we consider a subset of the form $\left \{\left (\frac{x}{i}, \frac{3x}{i}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}$ with $i>2$.

Does this mean that $S_1$ has no finite subcover? (Wondering) As for $S_2$ :

Do we consider a subset as for example $\displaystyle{\tilde{S}_2=\left \{\left (x-\frac{1}{4}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}\subseteq S_2}$ ? (Wondering)
 
  • #15
mathmari said:
Great! So both $S_1$ and $S_2$ are open covers of $A$. To check if they have a finite subcover, we have to check if $S_1$ and $S_2$ respectively, have a finite subset which is also a cover of $A$, right?

Right.

mathmari said:
For example, we have that $\displaystyle{\tilde{S}_1=\left \{\left (\frac{x}{4}, \frac{3x}{4}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}\subseteq S_1}$.

This is not a cover of $A$, since for $n=1$ the element $a$ is not in $\tilde{S}_1$. The same holds also when we consider a subset of the form $\left \{\left (\frac{x}{i}, \frac{3x}{i}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}$ with $i>2$.

Also right.

mathmari said:
Does this mean that $S_1$ has no finite subcover? (Wondering)

No. It is indeed the case that $S_1$ has no finite subcover, but you cannot conclude that from what you wrote. Namely, what you wrote only shows that there exist certain subsets of $S_1$ that are not covers of $A$.

When we want to show that no finite subcover exists, it often helps to argue by contradiction. Suppose, therefore, that the open cover $S_1$ of $A$ has a finite subcover $\overline{S}_1$. Let
\[
\overline{x} := \min\left\{x \in (0,1) \,:\, \left(\frac{x}{2}, \frac{3x}{2} \right) \in \overline{S}_1 \right\} > 0.
\]

Why does this minimum exist and why is it positive?

How can you use $\overline{x}$ to show that there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $a = \frac{1}{n}$ is not in any element of $\overline{S}_1$?

mathmari said:
As for $S_2$ :

Do we consider a subset as for example $\displaystyle{\tilde{S}_2=\left \{\left (x-\frac{1}{4}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}\subseteq S_2}$ ? (Wondering)

Are you sure that $\overline{S}_2$ is a subset of $S_2$?
In fact, given what you already know about $S_2$ from posts #11 and #12, you can answer this question for $S_2$ quite easily.

Question for you: Based on what we discussed so far, can you say whether or not $A$ is compact?
 
  • #16
Krylov said:
When we want to show that no finite subcover exists, it often helps to argue by contradiction. Suppose, therefore, that the open cover $S_1$ of $A$ has a finite subcover $\overline{S}_1$. Let
\[
\overline{x} := \min\left\{x \in (0,1) \,:\, \left(\frac{x}{2}, \frac{3x}{2} \right) \in \overline{S}_1 \right\} > 0.
\]

Why does this minimum exist and why is it positive?

How can you use $\overline{x}$ to show that there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $a = \frac{1}{n}$ is not in any element of $\overline{S}_1$?
We assume that the open cover $S_1$ of $A$ has a non-empty, finite subcover $\overline{S}_1$.

Let \begin{equation*}\overline{x} := \min\left\{x \in (0,1) \,:\, \left(\frac{x}{2}, \frac{3x}{2} \right) \in \overline{S}_1 \right\} > 0\end{equation*} This minimum exists since $(0,1)$ is a non-empty and finite set and it is positiv since $x\in (0,1)$ and so all $x$-values are positiv.

When $n\in \mathbb{N}$ gets very large, then $\frac{1}{n}$ approximates to $0$.
So when $n$ is large enough, then it holds that $\frac{1}{n}\rightarrow 0$ and $0<\frac{1}{n}<\frac{\overline{x}}{2}$. This means that there is a $n\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\frac{1}{n}$ is less than every element of the collection of systems $\overline{S}_1$. Therefore $\frac{1}{n}$ is not an element of $\overline{S}_1$.

That implies that $\overline{S}_1$ is not a cover of $A$. So $S_1$ has no finite subcover.
Is everything correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)
Krylov said:
Are you sure that $\overline{S}_2$ is a subset of $S_2$?
In fact, given what you already know about $S_2$ from posts #11 and #12, you can answer this question for $S_2$ quite easily.

According post #12, do we consider a set with $x=\frac{1}{2}$ and a set with $x=\frac{3}{4}$, i.e. $\overline{S}_2=\left \{(0,1), \left (\frac{1}{4}, \frac{5}{4}\right )\right \}$ ? Then it holds that $A\subseteq \overline{S}_2$, or not?

(Wondering)
Krylov said:
Question for you: Based on what we discussed so far, can you say whether or not $A$ is compact?

We use here the fact that $A$ is compact if each open cover has a finite subcover, right?

So, since the open cover $S_1$ of $A$ has no finite subcover, it follows that $A$ is not compact.

Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
mathmari said:
We assume that the open cover $S_1$ of $A$ has a non-empty, finite subcover $\overline{S}_1$.

Let \begin{equation*}\overline{x} := \min\left\{x \in (0,1) \,:\, \left(\frac{x}{2}, \frac{3x}{2} \right) \in \overline{S}_1 \right\} > 0\end{equation*} This minimum exists since $(0,1)$ is a non-empty and finite set and it is positiv since $x\in (0,1)$ and so all $x$-values are positiv.

Almost: Of course $(0,1)$ itself is not finite, but the set
\[
\left\{x \in (0,1) \,:\, \left(\frac{x}{2}, \frac{3x}{2} \right) \in \overline{S}_1 \right\}
\]
over which the minimum is taken, is finite, since $\overline{S}_1$ itself is finite.

mathmari said:
When $n\in \mathbb{N}$ gets very large, then $\frac{1}{n}$ approximates to $0$.
So when $n$ is large enough, then it holds that $\frac{1}{n}\rightarrow 0$ and $0<\frac{1}{n}<\frac{\overline{x}}{2}$. This means that there is a $n\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\frac{1}{n}$ is less than every element of the collection of systems $\overline{S}_1$. Therefore $\frac{1}{n}$ is not an element of $\overline{S}_1$.

That implies that $\overline{S}_1$ is not a cover of $A$. So $S_1$ has no finite subcover.

Is everything correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)

You are very close, but I would improve the formulation. I would write: "(...) such that $\frac{1}{n}$ is less than the left endpoint of any interval in the collection $\overline{S}_1$. Therefore $\frac{1}{n}$ is not contained in any interval (or: element, or: member...) in $\overline{S}_1$."

Note that $S_1$ and its subcover $\overline{S}_1$ have intervals as members, not numbers.

mathmari said:
According post #12, do we consider a set with $x=\frac{1}{2}$ and a set with $x=\frac{3}{4}$, i.e. $\overline{S}_2=\left \{(0,1), \left (\frac{1}{4}, \frac{5}{4}\right )\right \}$ ? Then it holds that $A\subseteq \overline{S}_2$, or not?

(Wondering)
Yes, $\overline{S}_2$ as you indicated is a finite subcover, but be careful to note that $A$ consists of numbers while $\overline{S}_2$ consists of intervals, so we cannot write $A \subseteq \overline{S}_2$, but we can say that $A$ is covered by $\overline{S}_2$, since the union of intervals in $\overline{S}_2$ contains $A$.

mathmari said:
We use here the fact that $A$ is compact if each open cover has a finite subcover, right?

Right. This is usually taken as the definition of compactness, but that may depend on the choice you book makes.

mathmari said:
So, since the open cover $S_1$ of $A$ has no finite subcover, it follows that $A$ is not compact.

Is this correct? (Wondering)

Yes!
 
Back
Top