Bounded Open Subset as Open Intervals

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded intervals
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that any bounded open subset of the real numbers is the union of disjoint open intervals. Participants are exploring various approaches to this proof, particularly focusing on definitions of "bounded" and "open" as well as properties of real numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • One participant attempts to construct a proof by removing points from a bounded open interval, questioning the validity of removing uncountably many points. Others challenge this approach, suggesting that removing points one-by-one may not be a sound method for infinite sets.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing different methods to approach the problem, with some expressing skepticism about the feasibility of certain arguments. There is recognition that equivalence classes may play a role in forming disjoint open intervals, but no consensus has been reached on a definitive approach.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the challenge of working with uncountably infinite sets and the implications of removing points from intervals. The discussion reflects a desire to avoid more sophisticated methods such as equivalence classes while grappling with the definitions involved.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Prove the any bounded open subset of R is the union of disjoint open intervals.

The attempt at a solution
I've seen a proof of this using equivalence classes, which is fine, but I want an unsophisticated solution, e.g. one relying on just the definitions of "bounded", "open" and some properties of the reals. I have an approache in mind, but I don't think it works:

Let S be a bounded open subset of R. Then S is contained in contained in some open interval (-M, M). If we remove a point x from (-M, M), we get a disjoint union of open intervals, namley (-M, x) union (x, M). If we remove another point, we still get a disjoint union of open intervals. Thus, if we remove all the points of (-M, M) - S from (-M, M), which leaves S, we obtain S as the disjoint union of open intervals. The problem with this approach is that I'm removing an uncountably infinite amount of points one by one, which seems like a dubious process to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take the open interval (-1,2). Remove all of the points which are not in [0,1], 'one-by-one'. You wind up with [0,1] a closed interval. In fact, you can turn (-1,2) into ANY of it's subsets by doing that. No, removing an uncountable number of points 'one-by-one' isn't a very good idea. Your argument works fine for the removal of any finite number of points. But what makes you think the limit set is much like the finite steps? What's so 'sophisticated' about equivalence classes?
 
Dick said:
But what makes you think the limit set is much like the finite steps?
It's the best argument I could think of and I had some hope it could somehow be made to work.

What's so 'sophisticated' about equivalence classes?
Nothing much really. I just want to solve this without them if it is possible.
 
The argument is that the complement of the open set S in a closed interval is closed (call it C). If x is in the open set then the open interval between the limits defined by sup{y:y<x and y in C} and inf{y:y>x and y in C} is contained in S. To show they can be chosen disjoint, I don't see any way around some kind of an 'equivalence class' type argument. Two points will lead to the same open interval if they are contained in the same open interval.
 
Yeah...I came up with another approach similar to yours which has an 'equivalence class' flavor to it. Anywho, thanks a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K