Proving Compactness of K in BR(0)

  • Thread starter Mathsgirl
  • Start date
In summary, the problem states that for a closed subset K of complex numbers contained within an open ball of radius R, there exists a smaller radius r such that K is also contained within this smaller ball. This can be proved by using the definition of compactness and a covering of K by open balls.
  • #1
Mathsgirl
5
0

Homework Statement



R>0, let K be a closed subset of C such that K [tex]\subset[/tex] BR(0) (so K is compact). Show that there exists 0 < r < R such that K[tex]\subset[/tex] Br(0).

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Can I write BR(0) = {x[tex]\in[/tex]C : d(x,0) [tex]\leq[/tex]R}?
I know that a compact set is closed and bounded.
Is it something to do with us using [tex]\subset[/tex] and not [tex]\subseteq[/tex]?
As if it was [tex]\subseteq[/tex] then maybe K = BR(0) then there wouldn't be an r. But as K is strictly contained in the ball there must be a bit of room for manoeuvre.

These are my thoughts on this problem. I'm not sure if they're correct or what the question is asking, and if they are I don't know how to write them more formally?

Thank you :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Mathsgirl said:

Homework Statement



R>0, let K be a closed subset of C such that K [tex]\subset[/tex] BR(0) (so K is compact). Show that there exists 0 < r < R such that K[tex]\subset[/tex] Br(0).

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Can I write BR(0) = {x[tex]\in[/tex]C : d(x,0) [tex]\leq[/tex]R}?
I know that a compact set is closed and bounded.
Is it something to do with us using [tex]\subset[/tex] and not [tex]\subseteq[/tex]?
As if it was [tex]\subseteq[/tex] then maybe K = BR(0) then there wouldn't be an r. But as K is strictly contained in the ball there must be a bit of room for manoeuvre.

These are my thoughts on this problem. I'm not sure if they're correct or what the question is asking, and if they are I don't know how to write them more formally?

Thank you :)

From the context of the problem, they must mean B_R(0) to be the open ball, d(x,0)<R. Not the closed ball. Otherwise, it wouldn't be true.
 
  • #3
Oh that makes more sense.

I think I need to say something like you can always fit a smaller ball inside an open ball.

I remember in real analysis I showed for a non-empty bounded above set E and epsilon >0, there exists an x in E such that supE - epsilon < x [tex]\leq[/tex] sup E. Is it something like this?
 
  • #4
Mathsgirl said:
Oh that makes more sense.

I think I need to say something like you can always fit a smaller ball inside an open ball.

I remember in real analysis I showed for a non-empty bounded above set E and epsilon >0, there exists an x in E such that supE - epsilon < x [tex]\leq[/tex] sup E. Is it something like this?

Something 'like' that could be made to work. But it's a lot easier if you use the definition of 'compact' and a covering of K by open balls.
 

1. What is compactness?

Compactness is a mathematical property that describes the behavior of a set within a given space. A set is considered compact if it is closed, bounded, and can be covered by a finite number of open sets.

2. How is compactness proven?

To prove compactness, one must show that the set in question satisfies the three criteria: closed, bounded, and can be covered by a finite number of open sets. This can be done by using various mathematical techniques such as the Heine-Borel theorem or the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem.

3. What is the significance of proving compactness?

Proving compactness is important in various fields of mathematics, including topology, analysis, and geometry. It allows for the study of the behavior of sets within a given space and is often used to prove other important theorems.

4. How is compactness related to continuity?

The concept of compactness is closely related to continuity. A function is continuous if and only if the pre-image of any open set is an open set. Proving compactness can help determine the continuity of a function within a given space.

5. Can a set be compact in one space but not in another?

Yes, a set can be compact in one space but not in another. The concept of compactness depends on the underlying space and its topology. A set may satisfy the criteria for compactness in one space, but not in another with a different topology.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
818
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top