Is Any Number Smaller Than a Lebesgue Number Also a Lebesgue Number?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
3 replies · 2K views
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32

Homework Statement


Let A be a set in a metric space and {U_i} be an open cover of A. A number r > 0 such that for all y in A, B(y,r) [itex]\subset[/itex] U_i for some i is called a Lebesgue number for the covering. The infimum of all Legesgue number is called the Lebesgue number for the covering.

Am I wrong in thinking that if r is a Lebesgue number, then any other number lesser than r is also a Lebesgue number, so that if soon as a Lebesgue number exists, the Lebesgue number for the covering is 0?

After all, if for some r > 0, B(y,r) [itex]\subset[/itex] U_i for some i, then if r > a > 0, B(y,a) [itex]\subset[/itex] B(y,r) [itex]\subset[/itex] U_i, so that a is also a Lebesgue number.

 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's infimum in my book. And wiki doesn'T make a distinction btw a and the Lebesgue number.

Anyone know for sure?
 
Another vote for supremum.

Although I haven't seen a definition for the Lebesgue number before.