1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Confusion about a theorem

  1. Jun 25, 2008 #1
    From page 45 of "Mathematical Analysis" by Tom Apostol:

    3-17 Theorem. If S is closed, then the complement of S (relative to any open set containing S) is open. If S is open, then the complement of S (relative to any closed set containing S) is closed.

    Proof. Assume [tex]S\subset A[/tex]. Then [tex]A-S=E_1-[S\cup(E_1-A)][/tex]. (The reader should verify this equation.) If S is closed and A is open, then [tex]E_1-A[/tex] is closed, [tex]S\cup(E_1-A)[/tex] is closed, [tex]A-S[/tex] is open. The converse is similarly proved.

    Now I'll prove the part that Apostol leaves to the reader:

    Given two subsets A and S of [tex]E_1[/tex], [tex]A-S=E_1-[S\cup (E_1-A)][/tex].

    Proof: If [tex]x\in(A-S)[/tex], [tex]x\in A[/tex] and [tex]x\notin S[/tex]. Thus [tex]x\notin[S\cup(E_1-A)][/tex]. So [tex]x\in E_1-[S\cup (E_1-A)][/tex]. This proves that [tex]A-S\subset E_1-[S\cup(E_1-A)][/tex].

    If [tex]x\in E_1-[S\cup(E_1-A)][/tex], [tex]x\in E_1[/tex] and [tex]x\notin [S\cup(E_1-A)][/tex]. Thus [tex]x\notin S[/tex] and [tex]x\notin(E_1-A)[/tex]. But since [tex]x\in E_1[/tex], this last relation implies [tex]x\in A[/tex]. So [tex]x\in(A-S)[/tex].

    I can't see any part of this whole proof that depends on the fact that [tex]S\subset A[/tex]. Am I missing something? If not, why in the world would the author include that hypothesis?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 25, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think that, if S is not entirely inside A, the proof still works and you can still show that A - S is open. But A - S is not the complement of S in A so you can't conclude that S is closed in A. In other words, it doesn't prove your theorem.
  4. Jun 25, 2008 #3
    I'm not sure what you mean by "closed in A". My book defines a "closed" subset of [tex]E_1[/tex] as a subset that contains all its accumulation points.
  5. Jun 25, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    OK, it looks here like they're using the definition: S is closed in A if it's complement in A is open. Is the equivalence of those two definitions proved somewhere?
  6. Jun 25, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Also, a set is closed in A if and only if it contains all of its accumulation points that are in A. for example, The set [0, 1) is NOT closed in R but it is closed in (-2,1).
  7. Jun 25, 2008 #6
    Okay just to clarify, the book has defined "closed" to mean what apparently CompuChip would call "closed in [tex]E_1[/tex]". CompuChip: That is not the definition they're using, although they do prove that a set is closed if its complement is open and vice versa.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?