MHB Countably Dense Subsets in a Metric Space .... Stromberg, Lemma 3.44 .... ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the proof of Lemma 3.44 from Karl R. Stromberg's "An Introduction to Classical Real Analysis," specifically the relationship between the balls in a metric space. The key point is demonstrating that if \(1/n < \epsilon\), then the ball \(B_{1/n}(x)\) is contained within \(B_\epsilon(x)\), which is established through the definitions of these balls in terms of distance. It is confirmed that any point in \(B_{1/n}(x)\) also lies in \(B_\epsilon(x)\) due to the properties of distances in a metric space. Additionally, a clarification is made regarding the terminology used in the discussion title, suggesting a correction from "Countably Dense" to "Countable Dense" to accurately reflect the mathematical concept. This exchange emphasizes the importance of precise language and understanding in mathematical proofs.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Karl R. Stromberg's book: "An Introduction to Classical Real Analysis". ... ...

I am focused on Chapter 3: Limits and Continuity ... ...

I need help in order to fully understand the proof of Lemma 3.44 on page 105 ... ... Lemma 3.44 and its proof read as follows:

View attachment 9143

In the above proof by Stromberg we read the following:

" ... ... Also, if $$x \in X$$ and $$\epsilon \gt 0$$, it follows from (2) that $$B_\epsilon (x) \cap A \supset B_{ 1/n } (x) \cap A_{ 1/n } \neq \emptyset$$ , where $$1/n \lt \epsilon$$ ... ... "My question is as follows:

Can someone please demonstrate rigorously why/how it is the case that $$B_\epsilon (x) \cap A \supset B_{ 1/n } (x) \cap A_{ 1/n }$$ ... ... ?

=======================================================================================

*** EDIT ***

After a little reflection this issue may be straightforward ... ... Wish to show formally that $$B_{ 1/n } (x) \cap A_{ 1/n } \subset B_\epsilon (x) \cap A $$We need to show that $$x \in B_{ 1/n } (x) \cap A_{ 1/n } \Longrightarrow x \in B_\epsilon (x) \cap A$$But ... leaving out details ... we have ...$$x \in B_{ 1/n } (x) \cap A_{ 1/n }$$$$\Longrightarrow x \in B_{ 1/n } (x) \text{ and } x \in A_{ 1/n }$$ $$\Longrightarrow x \in B_{ \epsilon } (x) \text{ and } x \in A$$$$\Longrightarrow x \in B_\epsilon (x) \cap A$$
Is that correct?

=======================================================================================Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Stromberg - Lemma 3.44 ... ... .png
    Stromberg - Lemma 3.44 ... ... .png
    38.7 KB · Views: 158
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it is straight forward. In a metric space, where we have a notion of "d(x,y)", the distance between points x and y, a "ball", "$B_\epsilon(x)$" where x is a point of the metric space and $\epsilon$ is a positive real number, is defined as the set of all points, y, in the metric space such that $d(x,y)< \epsilon$. Geometrically it is the interior of the sphere with center at x and radius $\epsilon$.

Geometrically, $B_x(1/n)$ is the ball with center x and radius 1/n while $B_x(\epsilon)$ is the ball with center x and radius $\epsilon$. If $1/n< \epsilon$ then the two balls have the same center but $B_x(1/n)$ has the smaller radius so is completely contained in $B_x(\epsilon)$.

Algebraically, any point, y, ih $B_x(1/n)$ has distance from x, d(x,y)< 1/n. But $1/n< \epsilon$ so $d(x,y)< 1/n< \epsilon$. Since $d(x,y)< \epsilon$, y is also in $B_x(\epsilon)$. Since y could be any point of $B_x(1/n)$, $B_x(1/n)\subset B_x(\epsilon)$.
 
By the way, in your title, "Countably Dense Subsets in a Metric Space", "countably" is an adverb modifying "dense". That makes no sense- there is no such thing as "countably dense". You should have "Countable Dense Subsets in a Metric Space" where "countable" is an adjective modifying "subset".
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K