Connected Sets and Their Interiors: Baby Rudin Exercise 2.20 Example

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mogarrr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

This discussion revolves around the topic of connected sets and their interiors, specifically referencing Baby Rudin Exercise 2.20. Participants are exploring whether the closures and interiors of connected sets in \(\mathbb{R}^2\) are always connected.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the concept of connectedness using the example of a dumbbell shape in \(\mathbb{R}^2\) and consider how to justify its connectedness. There are attempts to apply proof by contradiction and to analyze the definitions of connected and disconnected sets.

Discussion Status

Several participants are engaged in exploring definitions and properties of connected sets. Some suggest focusing on the connection between subsets, while others emphasize the importance of definitions in proving connectedness. There is a shift in example from a dumbbell to two closed balls that touch, indicating a progression in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the constraints of their definitions and the need for justification in their arguments. There is mention of homework rules that affect how points are awarded based on justification.

Mogarrr
Messages
120
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement


This is from Baby Rudin Exercise 2.20- Are closures and interiors of connected sets always connected? (Look at subsets of \mathbb{R}^2).

Homework Equations


The interior is the set of all interior points for a set E that is a subset of a metric space X.

A subset Y of a metric space X is disconnected if and only if there are open subsets U, V of X satisfying:
1) U \cap Y \neq \emptyset, V \cap Y \neq \emptyset
2) Y \subset U \cap V
3) U \cap V \cap Y = \emptyset

The Attempt at a Solution



It's best if I draw a picture, but I was basically thinking of a dumbbell in \mathbb{R}^2, that is two closed circles with a line segment connecting them.

I can prove that the interior of this shape is disconnected, however I am having some trouble showing that the original set, the dumbbell is connected.

This is homework for a class where the teacher takes points off (or fails to give points, you know you're perspective of the half empty/ half full glass) for not having justification.

So how to justify this set, the dumbbell, is connected. I've thought of using proof by contradiction, but I'm not sure where the contradiction will come, and I'm running low on time. Any help would be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I you can show that the ends of the dumbbell are both connected sets, then the line between them is a connection. If you can connect all subsets of a set without leaving the set, then the set is connected.
Mogarrr said:
A subset Y of a metric space X is disconnected if and only if there are open subsets U, V of X satisfying:
1) U \cap Y \neq \emptyset, V \cap Y \neq \emptyset
2) Y \subset U \cap V
3) U \cap V \cap Y = \emptyset
.
I am not sure that these are consistent requirements.
 
Then, I'd have to show the closed circle in \mathbb{R}^2 is connected. But I'm not really sure how to do that?

I suppose a proof by contradiction, assuming the closed circle is disconnected... (that's pretty much the only technique I got when it comes to connected sets).

I suppose if any 2 of the three statements for disconnected sets is assumed to be true, then I'd get a contradiction when using the last statement.
 
You can define then to be connected. Your goal is to show that the interiors are not connected.
Go back to the definition of connected.
You have connected sets A and B that are disjoint and disconnected from each other. Connect them with a line.
Now they are connected.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mogarrr
RUber said:
You can define then to be connected. Your goal is to show that the interiors are not connected.
Go back to the definition of connected.
You have connected sets A and B that are disjoint and disconnected from each other. Connect them with a line.
Now they are connected.

I think the difficulty that Mogarrr is having is working within the confines of the definition he/she has been given (which, by the way, should read ##Y\subset U\cup V## in the second condition). If you could demonstrate how the intuitive notion of "connecting" a disconnected pair of connected sets with a line actually gives a connected set per the definition, that might be more helpful.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mogarrr
Thanks gopher p,
If all you have to work with is the definition of disconnected, then I recommend approaching it like this:
It should be easy to show (or simply by assumption) that your two subsets (the ends of the barbell), A and B are disconnected. Let L be the line connecting them.
##L \cap A =\{p_a\}## where ##p_a## is the point where L meets A.
##L \cap B=\{p_b\}## where ##p_b## is the point where L meets B.
Now apply the definition of disconnected to show that ##Y=A \cup B \cup L## is not disconnected...and therefore connected.
Note that the fact that the subsets have to be open prevents you from dividing up the subsets cleanly.
 
Thanks guys. Actually, I switched the example to 2 closed balls that just touch each either in \mathbb{R}^2 and to show this was connected, I just looked at a line that intersects the disconnections, and then showed how there can't be a disconnection there.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K