How Can You Prove the Boundary of a Set in Topology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LMKIYHAQ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Boundary Topology
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving a relationship regarding the boundary of a set in topology. Specifically, it examines the boundary of a subset W in relation to its intersections with two other sets U and V within a topological space X, under the condition that W is contained in the union of U and V and that U and V are not disjoint.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the proof structure for both the "\supseteq" and "\subseteq" parts of the boundary relationship. There are attempts to clarify the implications of the intersections and the conditions under which certain elements belong to the boundaries of the sets involved.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided feedback on the attempts made by others, questioning the assumptions regarding the disjoint nature of U and V. There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and implications of the sets W_U and W_V, with some participants expressing uncertainty about their roles in the proof.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the definitions of certain terms and the conditions of the sets involved, particularly concerning the disjointness of U and V. Participants are also navigating the constraints of the homework assignment, which may limit the depth of their discussions.

LMKIYHAQ
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let X be a space. A[tex]\subseteq[/tex]X and U, V, W [tex]\in[/tex] topolgy(X). If W[tex]\subseteq[/tex] U[tex]\cup[/tex] V and U[tex]\cap[/tex] V[tex]\neq[/tex] emptyset,

Prove bd(W) = bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex]U) [tex]\cup[/tex] bd (W[tex]\cap[/tex] V)

Homework Equations


bd(W) is the boundary of W...
I think I have the "[tex]\supseteq[/tex]" part, but I am having trouble with the "[tex]\subseteq[/tex]" part.


The Attempt at a Solution


[tex]\supseteq[/tex]: Assume x [tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex]U) [tex]\cup[/tex] bd(W [tex]\cap[/tex]V). Show x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W). Then x [tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] U) or x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] V). If x[tex]\in[/tex] bd (W[tex]\cap[/tex]U) means x is in bd(W) since W[tex]\cap[/tex]U[tex]\neq[/tex] emptyset and since W[tex]\subseteq[/tex] U[tex]\cup[/tex] V, some part of W[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U.
If x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] V) then x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W) since W[tex]\cap[/tex] V[tex]\neq[/tex] emptyset and since W[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U[tex]\cap[/tex] V, some part of W[tex]\subseteq[/tex] V.

Does this look ok for this part of the proof?

[tex]\subseteq[/tex]: Assume x[tex]\in[/tex]bd(W). Show x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] U)[tex]\cup[/tex] (bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] V). Since U and V are disjoint and W[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U[tex]\cup[/tex], W_U[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U or W_V[tex]\subseteq[/tex]V. Suppose W_U[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U then x[tex]\in[/tex]bd(W_U)[tex]\subseteq[/tex]bd(W_U[tex]\cap[/tex]U).Suppose W_V[tex]\subseteq[/tex] V then x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W_V)[tex]\subseteq[/tex]bd(W_V[tex]\cap[/tex] V). Since x[tex]\in[/tex]bd(W)[tex]\subseteq[/tex]bd(W_U[tex]\cap[/tex]U) or bd(W_V[tex]\cap[/tex] V) then x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] U)[tex]\cup[/tex] (bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] V).

I am not sure if I need to specify what W_U and W_V are? or if this even works for this second part of the proof?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
LMKIYHAQ said:

The Attempt at a Solution


[tex]\supseteq[/tex]: ... since W[tex]\cap[/tex]U[tex]\neq[/tex] emptyset
... since W[tex]\cap[/tex] V[tex]\neq[/tex] emptyset ...
Why is this the case?

OK, I think I see why you're having a problem:
Since U and V are disjoint
[itex]U \cap V \neq \emptyset[/itex] says that U and V are not disjoint.
 
Thanks morphism. I tried to fix it. Am I on the right track?


[tex]\subseteq[/tex]: Assume x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W). Show x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] U)[tex]\cup[/tex] (bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] V). Since U and V are not disjoint and W[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U[tex]\cup[/tex], W_U[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U or W_V[tex]\subseteq[/tex]V where W_U is the set of W in U and W_V is the set of W in V. Suppose W_U[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U then x[tex]\in[/tex]bd(W_U)[tex]\subseteq[/tex]bd(W_U[tex]\cap[/tex]U).Suppose W_V[tex]\subseteq[/tex] V then x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W_V)[tex]\subseteq[/tex]bd(W_V[tex]\cap[/tex] V). Since x[tex]\in[/tex]bd(W)[tex]\subseteq[/tex]bd(W_U[tex]\cap[/tex]U) or bd(W_V[tex]\cap[/tex] V) then x[tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] U)[tex]\cup[/tex] (bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex] V).
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I quite understand what W_U and W_V are supposed to denote.
 
Ignore my last proof...I have been working on another approach to proving
[tex]\subseteq[/tex].

I am struggling but I think I am beginning to understand. Will you take a look?

Assume x[text]\in[/tex] bd(W). Show
x [tex]\in[/tex] bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex]U) [tex]\cup[/tex]
bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex]V). So x[tex]\in[/tex]cl(W)-int(W) and we know that W[tex]\subseteq[/tex]U[tex]\cap[/tex]V[tex]\neq[/tex] emptyset. Then x[tex]\in[/tex](bd(W)[tex]\cap[/tex]U) [tex]\cup[/tex](bd(W)[tex]\cap[/tex]V). Since bd(W)[tex]\subseteq[/tex] cl(W), x[tex]\in[/tex](cl(W)[tex]\cap[/tex]U) [tex]\cup[/tex](cl(W)[tex]\cap[/tex]V).

So x[tex]\in[/tex]cl(W[tex]\cap[/tex]U) [tex]\cup[/tex]cl(W[tex]\cap[/tex]V).
Since x[tex]\in[/tex]bd(W), x[tex]\in[/tex]bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex]U) [tex]\cup[/tex]bd(W[tex]\cap[/tex]V).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K