Closed set, compact set, and a definition of distance between sets

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
1 reply · 4K views
txy
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let E and F be 2 non-empty subsets of [tex]R^{n}[/tex]. Define the distance between E and F as follows:

d(E,F) = [tex]inf_{x\in E , y\in F} | x - y |[/tex]

(a). Give an example of 2 closed sets E and F (which are non-empty subsets of R^n) that satisfy d(E,F) = 0 but the intersection of E and F is a null set.

(b). If E and F (non-empty subsets of R^n) are compact sets and d(E,F) = 0, prove that the intersection of E and F cannot be the null set.


Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



Part (b) of the question suggests that the closed sets in part (a) are not bounded. But I still can't find these 2 sets with d(E,F) = 0 and yet they don't intersect.

For part (b), maybe I can find a sequence of points [tex]x_{k}[/tex] in E and another sequence [tex]y_{k}[/tex] in F such that as k increases, the distance between [tex]x_{k}[/tex] and [tex]y_{k}[/tex] decreases. Then since E and F are compact, therefore these 2 sequences must converge. And since d(E,F) = 0, hence these 2 sequences must converge to the same point. And then since E and F are compact, this limit point must lie in both E and F, thus E and F share at least one common point.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For part (b), think about the graphs of 1/x2 and -1/x2 as an example.

That looks like a pretty good sketch argument. Only thing is that only a subsequence of each of those must converge, but it amounts to the same result here