Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Boundary points of subsets when viewed with the subset topology

  1. Nov 30, 2011 #1
    Hi! I have this two related questions:

    (1) I was thinking that [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] as a subset of [itex] \mathbb{R} [/itex] is a closed set (all its points are boundary points).

    But when I think of [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] not like a subset, but like a topological space (with the inherited subspace topology), are all it's points still boundary points? I think not, as there ir no "exterior" points now. So are the only clopen sets of [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] the empty set and the full [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] set now?

    (2) The other question: I saw this example in the book Counterexamples in Analysis:

    A function continuous on a closed interval and not bounded there (and therefor, not uniformly continous there) (Note: the domain is a subset of [itex] \mathbb{Q} [/itex])
    [itex] f(x) = \frac{1}{x^2 - 2} \ \ \ 0 \leq x \leq 2 [/itex]

    It confuses me because of the theorem that a continuous function over a compact set is uniformly continuous. I dont know in what part of the proof it was used that the compact set has to be also a complete space.

    Thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 30, 2011 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    No, [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is certainly NOT a closed subset of [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex]. Sure, all the points of [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] are boundary points, but they are not ALL the boundary points!! Indeed, every irrational number is also a boundary point of [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex].

    Specifically, the boundary of [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex]. And the closure of [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is also [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex].
    Indeed, [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is closed in itself.

    No, certainly not! There are many clopen sets in [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex]. For example

    [tex]]-\pi,\pi[\cap \mathbb{Q}=[-\pi,\pi]\cap \mathbb{Q}[/tex]

    is also clopen.

    First of all, the domain of our function is [itex][0,2]\cap \mathbb{Q}[/itex]. This is NOT compact. We can see this because compact => complete. Since the above set is not complete, it can also not be compact!!

    A compact set in a metric space is ALWAYS complete!!
     
  4. Nov 30, 2011 #3
    Thanks a lot!
    It's much clear now.

    There is something that still I can't understand: The set [itex] \mathbb{Q} \cap [0,2] [/itex] is closed and bounded (as a subset of [itex] \mathbb{Q} [/itex]). So doesn't that mean that it is compact?

    I already read that compact implies complete, but on the other hand doesn't the Heine-Borel theorem apply?

    Now that I think better, that theorem talks about closed and bounded subsets of [itex] \mathbb{R}^n [/itex], it's different with [itex] \mathbb{Q} [/itex] because it's not complete, right? It even isn't closed as a subset of [itex] \mathbb{R} [/itex].
     
  5. Nov 30, 2011 #4

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Indeed, the theorem talks about subsets of [itex]\mathbb{R}^n[/itex]. Your set is not closed and bounded as a subset of [itex]\mathbb{R}^n[/itex], so we cannot conclude compactness.
     
  6. Dec 2, 2011 #5

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You can check that [itex] \mathbb{Q} \cap [0,2] [/itex] is not compact, since, e.g., in any compact metric space , every sequence has a convergent subsequence. Take, then,
    any sequence that "wants to" converge to , e.g., √2, and see that it cannot have a
    convergent subsequence. And Heine-Borel does not apply, since the set is not closed (subset of ℝn): closed (as Micromass also pointed out) , since [itex] \mathbb{Q} \cap [0,2] [/itex] does not contain --among many other--the limit point √2 ; remember that closed subsets of a set contain all their limit points.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Boundary points of subsets when viewed with the subset topology
  1. Clopen subset? (Replies: 9)

  2. Compactness of subsets (Replies: 8)

Loading...