Is Every Metric Space Regular?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of metric spaces, specifically focusing on whether every metric space is regular. Participants are examining the definitions and axioms related to regular spaces, including T1 and T3 conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various attempts to prove that metric spaces are regular, including arguments based on the T1 and T3 axioms. There are considerations about the choice of neighborhoods and the implications of distance definitions.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided specific arguments and counterpoints regarding the validity of certain approaches. There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions made in the proofs, particularly concerning the properties of distances and neighborhoods in metric spaces.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through the implications of definitions and theorems related to metric spaces, including the relationship between closed sets and their neighborhoods. There is a noted concern regarding the justification of certain distances being non-zero and the handling of infinite intersections of open sets.

radou
Homework Helper
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement



To prove that every metric space is regular. :)

The Attempt at a Solution



So, a regular space satisfies the T1 and T3-axioms.

For T1: Let a, b be two distinct points of a metric space (X, d). Then d(a, b) > 0, and let r = d(a, b)/2. Then the open ball K(a, r) is a neighborhood of a which doesn't contain b, and K(b, r) is a neighborhood of b which doesn't contain a.

For T3: Let A be a closed subset of X, and let b be in X\A. Since we proved that T1 holds, for every x in A and for b there exists a neighborhood of Ux which doesn't contain b. A is a subset of the union U of these neighborhoods (U is a neighborhood of A). Now, define r = min{d(x, b)/2: x is in A}. Then K(b, r) and U are disjoint.

I hope this works.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You probably should justify why r in your second argument is non-zero.

Also, your U is picked too generally. Knowing that singletons are closed, we could have picked U to be everything except for b, which obviously wouldn't work. You need to pick the balls surrounding the points in A more carefully
 
Last edited:
OK, here are three other attempts.

i) T3: Let r = d(A, b) = inf{d(a, b) : a is in A}, where b is in X\A. Since A is closed, Cl(A) = A, and d(A, b) = 0 if and only if b is in the closure of A (i.e. in A), which contradicts our assumption, so d(A, b) > 0. Take r = d(A, b)/2, and take the union U of the family of open balls {K(x, r) : x is in A}. Then U and K(b, r) are disjoint.

ii) Since every metric space is Haussdorf (one can easily show this in a similar manner like showing that it is T1), for every x in A, and for b in X\A, we can find disjoint neighborhoods of x and b respectively, Ux and Vx. The intersection of all Vx and the union of all Ux are disjoint neighborhoods of A and b, respectively.

iii) Since every metric space is normal (i.e. it's T1 and T4), it's regular, too (since, for every two disjoint closed sets one can find disjoint neighborhoods of these sets, and a singleton is closed in a metric space). Of course, this proof assumes that normality is proven :)
 
Your argument (i) suffices, assuming you can take it as known that d(b, A) = 0 if and only if b \in \overline{A}.
 
ystael said:
Your argument (i) suffices, assuming you can take it as known that d(b, A) = 0 if and only if b \in \overline{A}.

Yes, I went through the proof of that argument, it was part of another assignment. Thanks.
 
radou said:
ii) Since every metric space is Haussdorf (one can easily show this in a similar manner like showing that it is T1), for every x in A, and for b in X\A, we can find disjoint neighborhoods of x and b respectively, Ux and Vx. The intersection of all Vx and the union of all Ux are disjoint neighborhoods of A and b, respectively.

You don't know know that an intersection of open sets is open when there are infinite of them.
 
Office_Shredder said:
You don't know know that an intersection of open sets is open when there are infinite of them.

Good point, thanks.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K