Is (a,b) Open in R^n? Proof and Extension to n Dimensions

  • Thread starter Thread starter rumjum
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the question of whether the interval (a,b) is open in R^n, with a focus on the implications of this in higher dimensions. It is established that while (a,b) is open in R, it does not retain this property in R^n due to the absence of a single number line in higher dimensions. The participants clarify that to demonstrate this, one must construct an n-sphere around a point on the interval and show it contains points outside (a,b), confirming that the interval has an empty interior in R^n. The reference to Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" reinforces the conclusion that (a,b) is not open in R^n.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of open intervals in real analysis
  • Familiarity with n-dimensional Euclidean space (R^n)
  • Knowledge of neighborhoods and interior points in topology
  • Basic concepts of metric spaces and n-spheres
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of open sets in metric spaces
  • Learn about the construction of n-spheres and their implications in topology
  • Explore the concepts of limit points and closed sets in R^n
  • Review Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" for deeper insights into open intervals
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis and topology, as well as educators seeking to clarify the properties of open sets in higher dimensions.

rumjum
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



We know that (a,b) is open in R. But is it open R^n?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I don't think (a,b) is open in R^n even if it is open in R. Let's take for example n=2, then

E = {(x,y) | x^2+y^2 < r^2} , where r^2 = |b|^2 + Y^2 , for all y belongs to R. However , we can see that even -b satisfies the above equation but -b is not part of (a,b). Hence, we have a point in R^2 which is not internal point of the segment (a,b). Hence, in R^2 (a,b) is not open.

It looks like (a,b) is not closed either for the neighborhood (-a-e, -a+e), for e >0 for any y belongs to R for any limit point (-a,y) in R^2 has no intersection with (a,b).

Any comments on the proof. Can this be extended to the n dimensional space?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by (a,b)in Rn? In R, (a, b) means the interval from a to b on the number line, not including the endpoints a and b. But there is no one "number line" in Rn. I suspect you mean the straight line interval from (a, 0,0,..., 0) to (b, 0,0,...,0)- i.e. on the 'x' axis, but you should say that clearly. Or do you intend "a" and "b" to be, not numbers put points in Rn? Unfortunately, in that case, your "proof" below still makes no sense.

Your example:
E = {(x,y) | x^2+y^2 < r^2} , where r^2 = |b|^2 + Y^2 , for all y belongs to R.
makes no sense. Again, there is no "(x,y)" in Rn- points don't have only two coordinates. If, as I said above, you mean these as points, then "x^2+ y^2< r^2" makes no sense. You seem to be trying to construct circles (or n-spheres?) around the origin with varying radii. But the origin may be nowhere near your original segment.

What you want to do is choose a point on your interval and construct a neighborhood (an n-sphere) with that point as center and show that, no matter how small the radius is, it will contain some points that are not in the interval. That will show that the point is not an interior point and the interval is not only not open but has empty interior.
 
HallsofIvy said:
What do you mean by (a,b)in Rn? In R, (a, b) means the interval from a to b on the number line, not including the endpoints a and b. But there is no one "number line" in Rn. I suspect you mean the straight line interval from (a, 0,0,..., 0) to (b, 0,0,...,0)- i.e. on the 'x' axis, but you should say that clearly. Or do you intend "a" and "b" to be, not numbers put points in Rn? Unfortunately, in that case, your "proof" below still makes no sense.

What I meant was what I copied from Rudin "Principle of mathematical analysis". It is quoted in the second chapter that "(a,b) is open in R but it is not open in R^2". Period.

I only extended my problem to n dimensional. If my question does not makes sense to you, then I suppose you have a better way of interpreting the statement from Rudin's book

HallsofIvy said:
Your example:

makes no sense. Again, there is no "(x,y)" in Rn- points don't have only two coordinates. If, as I said above, you mean these as points, then "x^2+ y^2< r^2" makes no sense. You seem to be trying to construct circles (or n-spheres?) around the origin with varying radii. But the origin may be nowhere near your original segment.

That I think I should have clarified. My example was for R^2 , which is why I was constructing circles and not n-spheres.

HallsofIvy said:
What you want to do is choose a point on your interval and construct a neighborhood (an n-sphere) with that point as center and show that, no matter how small the radius is, it will contain some points that are not in the interval. That will show that the point is not an interior point and the interval is not only not open but has empty interior.

Thanks. Yeah, I was thinking in those lines myself.
That was actually my first post but I am a bit surprised. Are people on this post usually a bit cynical?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K