Is [0, infinity) a closed set?

  • Thread starter Thread starter michonamona
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Closed Set
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
12 replies · 9K views
michonamona
Messages
120
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Is [0, infinity) a closed set?


Homework Equations


N/A


The Attempt at a Solution


It's easy to say that its not. But the solution in my textbook suggests otherwise. Why is this so?

Thanks!
M
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LCKurtz:

Ok, I think I understand it for integers. Say, [1,5), where the limit point 5 is not in the interval. But what confuses me is infinity. How is it precisely defined with respect to actual numbers like integers?

vela:

What is its complement? R\[0, infinity)?

Hmm...
 
If its complement is open, then I know that the interval is closed. But why? why is its complement open?

I appreciate you guys for not giving me the answers directly. I'm really trying hard to understand it.

M
 
A set that contains only its interior points...

Its boundary is contained in its complement...
 
i think that it needs to be open on both sides.
if it were (0, infinity) it would be open. but since its its [0, infinity), it is a closed interval since you could make x = 0 and have a point, y, that lied to the left of 0, yet still within the Br(0) (ball of radius r about 0).
 
michonamona said:
LCKurtz:

But what confuses me is infinity. How is it precisely defined with respect to actual numbers like integers?

Infinity is not part of the real numbers. [0,oo) is just a convenient alternative notation for [itex]x \ge 0[/itex]. You might think of the symbol as indicating the values of x are not bounded above.
 
michonamona said:

Homework Statement


Is [0, infinity) a closed set?
Just FYI -- "closed" only makes sense relative to a space. The right question is
Is [0, +infinity) a closed subset of the reals​


But what confuses me is infinity.
It seems to be the habit to introduce it as a sort of "useful fiction". The set of nonnegative reals is quite interval-like, and it's useful to introduce a formal interval-like notation to write such things. Thus "[0, +infinity)".


However, if you go on, you should learn about the extended real numbers which are, IMO, a much better way to go about doing things. This number system has two additional numbers that the real numbers don't: -infinity and +infinity. And it turns out that every "useful fiction" that you learn in the introductory classes turns out to port to ordinary things in this more sophisticated approach, despite having the exact same notation. e.g. In the extended real numbers, [0,+infinity) is a perfectly ordinary interval, which consists of the nonnegative real numbers. (And the interval [0,+infinity] would consist of all nonnegative extended real numbers)
 
It's like putting too much air in a balloon!