Neighborhood Proof for Distinct Points in a Metric Space

  • Thread starter Tokipin
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the exercise is asking to prove that there exist neighborhoods of two distinct points in a metric space that do not intersect. The two possible scenarios are when the points are "separate" with their smallest neighborhoods being disjoint, or when one or both points have "infinitely partitionable neighborhoods" where an open ball of radius r can be found that is a strict subset of another open ball of radius r-\epsilon. The proof involves defining open balls of radius d(a,b)/2 about each point and showing that there cannot be a point that is in both of these open balls, thus proving the neighborhoods do not intersect.
  • #1
Tokipin
19
0

Homework Statement



From Introduction to Topology by Bert Mendelson, Chapter 2.4, Exercise 6:

Let [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] be distinct points of a metric space X. Prove that there are neighborhoods [itex]N_a[/itex] and [itex]N_b[/itex] of [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] respectively such that [itex]N_a \cap N_b = \varnothing[/itex].

2. The attempt at a solution

OK, intuitively I recognize at least two cases: 1) If both points are "separate" such that for [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex], their smallest neighborhoods are [itex]\{a\}[/itex] and [itex]\{b\}[/itex] respectively, then these neighborhoods obviously don't intersect.

2) If at least one of the points has an "infinitely partitionable neighborhood" such that for any open ball of radius [itex]r[/itex] about the point we can find another open ball of radius [itex]r-\epsilon[/itex] about the same point which is a strict subset of the first ball, then we can find a [itex]\delta[/itex] such that the open ball of radius [itex]\delta[/itex] about that point does not include a neighborhood of the other point.

Where I think I'm getting confused is whether these are the only two scenarios that can occur in a metric space (both points separate, or one or both possessing "infinitely partitionable neighborhoods.")

I was trying to find a contradiction that might arise due to the symmetry of the distance function, but I can't find one. I might also be thinking too much into it, so overall I'm quite confused.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think all you need to do is define your neighborhood so all points within it are less then half the distance between the two points.
 
  • #3
That's hilarious. I was thinking that if we define an open ball of radius [itex]d(a,b)/2[/itex] about each point, then the neighborhoods wouldn't intersect. But I wasn't sure I could generalize this from [itex]R^2[/itex]. Thanks.

Here's an attempt at a proof:

About each point [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex], define an open ball of radius [itex]d(a,b)/2[/itex]. If there was a point [itex]p[/itex] which was in both of the open balls, then this would mean that both of the following would be true:

[tex]d(a,p) < d(a,b)/2[/tex]
[tex]d(b,p) < d(a,b)/2[/tex]

This would contradict the triangle inequality of a metric space:

[tex]d(a,b) \leq d(a,p) + d(p,b)[/tex]

Since each term on the right would be less than [itex]d(a,b) / 2[/itex] and hence their sum would be less than the term on the left.
 

What is "Basic Neighborhood Proof"?

"Basic Neighborhood Proof" refers to a method used in mathematics and logic to prove statements about certain mathematical objects or concepts within a specific neighborhood or range.

How is "Basic Neighborhood Proof" different from other proof methods?

"Basic Neighborhood Proof" is different from other proof methods because it focuses on proving statements within a specific neighborhood or range, rather than proving them for all possible cases. This makes it a more localized and specific form of proof.

What types of statements can be proven using "Basic Neighborhood Proof"?

"Basic Neighborhood Proof" can be used to prove statements about mathematical objects or concepts that are defined within a specific neighborhood or range. These can include functions, limits, and other mathematical structures.

What are the advantages of using "Basic Neighborhood Proof"?

One advantage of using "Basic Neighborhood Proof" is that it allows for a more targeted and specific approach to proving statements, which can be useful in certain situations. It also helps to simplify complex proofs by focusing on a smaller range of cases.

Are there any limitations to using "Basic Neighborhood Proof"?

One limitation of "Basic Neighborhood Proof" is that it may not be applicable to all types of mathematical statements or concepts, as it relies on the existence of a neighborhood or range for the object in question. Additionally, it may not provide a complete proof for all cases, as it only considers a specific neighborhood.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
856
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
9K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top