Suppose we have non-empty [itex]A_{1}[/itex] and non-empty [itex]A_{2}[/itex] which are both open. By "open" I mean all points of [itex]A_{1}[/itex] and [itex]A_{2}[/itex] are internal points. There is an argument -- which I have seen online and in textbooks -- that [itex]A_{1} \cap A_{2} = A[/itex] is open (assuming [itex]A[/itex] is non-empty) since:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

1. For some [itex]x \in A, A_{1}, A_{2}[/itex] we have neighborhoods [itex]N_{1}[/itex] and [itex]N_{2}[/itex] around [itex]x[/itex] of radii [itex]r_{1}[/itex] and [itex]r_{2}[/itex] respectively, such that [itex]N_{1} \subset A_{1}[/itex] and [itex]N_{2} \subset A_{2}[/itex]. We know this since [itex]A_{1}[/itex] and [itex]A_{2}[/itex] are stipulated to be open.

2. If we take [itex]min(r_{1},r_{2}) = r[/itex] we can then construct a neighborhood [itex]N[/itex] of radius [itex]r[/itex] around [itex]x[/itex] and (this is the part that seems false to me) we can somehow KNOW that [itex]N \subset A[/itex] and therefore conclude that [itex]A[/itex] is open.

But why (2)? How do we KNOW that [itex]N \subset A[/itex]? Why can't [itex]N_{1} \subset A_{1}[/itex] and [itex]N_{2} \subset A_{2}[/itex] but nevertheless [itex]N \not \subset A[/itex]?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Finite Intersection of Open Sets Are Always Open?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**