Help with Heine-Borel Theorem: Why No Subcollection Cover?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alvielwj
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Heine-Borel theorem, specifically addressing the differences in covering properties between two sets: S = {1, 1/2, 1/3, ...} and T = {0, 1, 1/2, 1/3, ...}. Participants explore why S does not have a finite subcover for any open cover, while T does, and they delve into the implications of the theorem regarding compactness, closedness, and boundedness.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that while S can be covered by an infinite union of intervals, it lacks a finite subcover.
  • Another participant asserts that every open cover of T has a finite subcover because T is compact, being closed and bounded.
  • A participant expresses the need to prove that every open cover of T has a finite subcover, emphasizing their understanding of the Heine-Borel theorem in relation to closed intervals.
  • One participant highlights the importance of the term "bounded" in the Heine-Borel theorem, providing an example of a closed interval that is not bounded.
  • A participant explains how to derive a finite subcover for T by considering it as a closed subset of a closed and bounded interval and applying the Heine-Borel theorem.
  • Another participant questions the validity of using T's properties to prove the theorem, suggesting that similar reasoning could apply to S.
  • One participant clarifies that the original question was to use the Heine-Borel theorem to demonstrate the finite subcover property of T, not to establish that T is closed and bounded.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of the Heine-Borel theorem to T, but there is disagreement regarding the implications of using properties of T to address S. The discussion remains unresolved on whether similar arguments for T can be applied to S.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the definitions of closed and bounded sets, as well as the specific conditions under which the Heine-Borel theorem applies. The discussion does not resolve these nuances.

alvielwj
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I am studying Heine-Borel theorem.
I finally get the sense of this theorem after i read a lots posts here.
But I found a question posted by Rach3
why for S={1,1/2,1/3……} there is no subcollection of it is a cover of S
but every open cover of T={0,1,1/2,1/3……} has a finite subcover?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I know that I can find a cover e.g Ia=(1/n,1+1/n),union of Ia from n=1 to inifinte is a cover for S but not finite
 
but how to prove that every open cover of T has a finite subcover
 
There is no universally recognized statement of the Heine-Borel theorem so you'd better tell people what you call the "Heine-Borel" theorem when you speak about it.

I will assume that you take it to mean "A subset of R is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded."

So the answer to your question is that every open cover of T admits a finite subcover because it is compact. And why is it compact? Because it is closed and bounded. On the other hand, the set S above is not compact because it is not closed.
 
I need to prove every every open cover of T has a finite subcover.
My version of Heine-Borel theorem is every open cover of a closed interval has a finite subcover.
It is easy to prove if it is a closed interval. I mean like [a,b]
not a interval like T.
 
alvielwj said:
My version of Heine-Borel theorem is every open cover of a closed interval has a finite subcover.
Don't forget the word "bounded": your version of the Heine-Borel theorem is that every open cover of a closed and bounded interval has a finite subcover.

It is important not to forget "bounded" because for instance, the whole real line R is a closed interval but clearly there is no finite subcover of the open cover [itex]\{(-n,n)\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}[/itex].So, why does your version of the H-B theorem implies that every open cover of T has a finite subcover?

Well, notice that T is a closed subset of the closed and bounded interval [0,1]. Now consider [itex]\{U_i\}_{i\in I}[/itex] an open cover of T. Then add to that cover the open set V:=R\T so that [itex]\{V\}\cup \{U_i\}_{i\in I}[/itex] is an open cover of [0,1]. By the H-B theorem then, there exists a finite subcover of that open cover. Of that subcover, keeping only the U_i's (that is to say, removing V if it in a member of the subcover), we get a finite subcover of T.
 
Thank you.
I think I need some times to understand the last step" Of that subcover, keeping only the U_i's (that is to say, removing V if it in a member of the subcover)"
 
I think you are using the result to prove the question .
you mentioned that t is closed and bounded,then processing to prove in the way T is bounded and closed...
If you using S instead of T , your prove still hold.
"Now consider an open cover of T. Then add to that cover the open set V:=R\T so that is an open cover of [0,1]. By the H-B theorem then, there exists a finite subcover of that open cover. Of that subcover, keeping only the U_i's (that is to say, removing V if it in a member of the subcover), we get a finite subcover of T.
"
 
If I understood correctly, the question was "Use the Heine-Borel theorem to prove that every open cover of T has a finite subcover.", and it was not "Show that T is closed and bounded."

However, you're right that in solving the problem, I did use the fact that T closed. But that is easy to show.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K