Is the Intersection of Intervals Empty?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    intervals
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the determination of the intersection and union of various sets of intervals, specifically focusing on the intersection of intervals defined by natural numbers and their implications. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and exploration of set theory concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants analyze the intersection $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$ and propose that it contains only the element $x=0$ based on case analysis of $x$ being positive, negative, or zero.
  • Others agree with the reasoning but do not provide a definitive conclusion, instead asking if the analysis is correct and complete.
  • Participants discuss the union $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )}$, questioning how to prove that for any $x \in (-\infty, +\infty)$, there exists an $n$ such that $n>x$ and $x>-n$.
  • There is a proposal to use $n = \lceil \operatorname{abs}(x) \rceil + 1$ to demonstrate the union's coverage of all real numbers.
  • For the intersection $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (n, 10n^2+50\right )}$, participants reason that since $n$ is always greater than $x$, the intersection cannot contain any elements, leading to the conclusion that it is empty.
  • Some participants express confusion about the reasoning behind the empty intersection and seek clarification on how to demonstrate that $x$ cannot belong to both intervals.
  • Further discussion clarifies that for any $x$ in the intersection, there will always be an interval starting with an $n$ greater than $x$, reinforcing the argument for the intersection being empty.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the reasoning for the intersection $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$ containing only the element $0$ and the intersection $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (n, 10n^2+50\right )}$ being empty. However, there is some uncertainty and requests for clarification regarding the proofs and reasoning behind these conclusions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the behavior of natural numbers and the properties of intervals, which may not be explicitly stated. The reasoning relies on the unbounded nature of $\mathbb{N}$ and the implications of interval definitions.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I want to determine the following sets:
  1. $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$
  2. $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )}$
  3. $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (n, 10n^2+50\right )}$
I have done the following:
  1. Let $\displaystyle{x\in \bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$. This means\begin{align*}&\forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ x\in \left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right ) \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -\frac{1}{n} < x< \frac{1}{n} \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < nx< 1\end{align*}

    To be able to divide by $x$ we have to consider three cases: $x=0$, $x>0$, $x<0$. Case 1: $x=0$

    We get \begin{align*}& \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < n\cdot 0< 1 \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < 0< 1\end{align*} which is true for every $1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}$. .
    Case 2: $x>0$

    We get \begin{align*}&\forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < nx< 1 \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -\frac{1}{x} < n< \frac{1}{x}\end{align*}

    Since $\mathbb{N}$ is unbounded, we can find a value for $n$ that is bigger than $\frac{1}{x}$. So this inequality is not true for every $1\leq n\mathbb{N}$. This means that if $x>0$ the element $x$ cannot belong to the intersection $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$.
    Case 3: $x<0$

    We get \begin{align*}&\forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < nx< 1 \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ \frac{1}{x} < n< -\frac{1}{x}\end{align*}

    Since $\mathbb{N}$ is unbounded, we can find a value for $n$ that is bigger than $-\frac{1}{x}$. So this inequality is not true for every $1\leq n\mathbb{N}$. This means that if $x<0$ the element $x$ cannot belong to the intersection $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$. Therefore we get that the intersection contains only the element $x=0$ and so we have $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )=\{0\}}$.

    Is everything correct and complete? (Wondering)

    $$$$
  2. We have that $(-n,n(\subseteq (-\infty, +\infty)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$. So it follows that $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )\subseteq (-\infty, +\infty )}$.

    Let $x\in (-\infty , +\infty)$. Now we have to prove that there is a $n$ such that $n>x$ and $x>-n$, or not? But how can we show that? (Wondering)

    $$$$
  3. Let $\displaystyle{x\in \bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (n, 10n^2+50\right )}$. This means\begin{align*}&\forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ x\in \left (n, 10n^2+50\right ) \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ n < x< 10n^2+50 \end{align*}

    We see that it must hold that $x> 0$. Now we want to solve for $n$.

    From the first inequality we have $n<x$.

    From the second inequality we have $x<10n^2+50 \Rightarrow 10n^2>x-50 \Rightarrow n^2>\frac{x}{10}-5$. From that we get $n>\sqrt{\frac{x}{10}-5}$, since $n$ is positiv and so the case $n<-\sqrt{\frac{x}{10}-5}$ is rejected, right?

    So we have $$\forall n\in \mathbb{N} : \sqrt{\frac{x}{10}-5}<n<x$$ Since $\mathbb{N}$ is unbounded we can find always a value for $n$ that is bigger than $x$, or not?

    Would that means that the intersection can't contain any element, and so $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (n, 10n^2+50\right )=\emptyset}$ ? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
1. $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$

I have done the following:

Let $\displaystyle{x\in \bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$. This means\begin{align*}&\forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ x\in \left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right ) \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -\frac{1}{n} < x< \frac{1}{n} \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < nx< 1\end{align*}

To be able to divide by $x$ we have to consider three cases: $x=0$, $x>0$, $x<0$. Case 1: $x=0$

We get \begin{align*}& \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < n\cdot 0< 1 \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < 0< 1\end{align*} which is true for every $1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}$. .
Case 2: $x>0$

We get \begin{align*}&\forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < nx< 1 \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -\frac{1}{x} < n< \frac{1}{x}\end{align*}

Since $\mathbb{N}$ is unbounded, we can find a value for $n$ that is bigger than $\frac{1}{x}$. So this inequality is not true for every $1\leq n\mathbb{N}$. This means that if $x>0$ the element $x$ cannot belong to the intersection $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$.
Case 3: $x<0$

We get \begin{align*}&\forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ -1 < nx< 1 \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ \frac{1}{x} < n< -\frac{1}{x}\end{align*}

Since $\mathbb{N}$ is unbounded, we can find a value for $n$ that is bigger than $-\frac{1}{x}$. So this inequality is not true for every $1\leq n\mathbb{N}$. This means that if $x<0$ the element $x$ cannot belong to the intersection $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )}$. Therefore we get that the intersection contains only the element $x=0$ and so we have $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{1\leq n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right )=\{0\}}$.

Is everything correct and complete?

Looks fine to me. (Nod)

mathmari said:
2. $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )}$

We have that $(-n,n(\subseteq (-\infty, +\infty)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$. So it follows that $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )\subseteq (-\infty, +\infty )}$.

Let $x\in (-\infty , +\infty)$. Now we have to prove that there is a $n$ such that $n>x$ and $x>-n$, or not? But how can we show that?

Can we pick $n = \lceil \operatorname{abs}(x) \rceil + 1$? (Wondering)
mathmari said:
3. $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (n, 10n^2+50\right )}$

Let $\displaystyle{x\in \bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (n, 10n^2+50\right )}$. This means\begin{align*}&\forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ x\in \left (n, 10n^2+50\right ) \\ & \Rightarrow \forall n\in \mathbb{N} \ : \ n < x< 10n^2+50 \end{align*}

We see that it must hold that $x> 0$. Now we want to solve for $n$.

From the first inequality we have $n<x$.

From the second inequality we have $x<10n^2+50 \Rightarrow 10n^2>x-50 \Rightarrow n^2>\frac{x}{10}-5$. From that we get $n>\sqrt{\frac{x}{10}-5}$, since $n$ is positiv and so the case $n<-\sqrt{\frac{x}{10}-5}$ is rejected, right?

So we have $$\forall n\in \mathbb{N} : \sqrt{\frac{x}{10}-5}<n<x$$ Since $\mathbb{N}$ is unbounded we can find always a value for $n$ that is bigger than $x$, or not?

Would that means that the intersection can't contain any element, and so $\displaystyle{\bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (n, 10n^2+50\right )=\emptyset}$ ?

Yep.

I think we can do it a bit quicker.
The intervals have a lower bound of $n$.
If some $x$ would be in the intersection, then $x$ must be in all intervals. But $x$ will not be in any interval where $n>x$, so it won't be in the intersection. This is a contradiction, so the intersection must be the empty set. (Nerd)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
But $x$ will not be in any interval where $n>x$, so it won't be in the intersection.

Could you explain that to me further?

Do we consider two intervals and then we show that $x$ cannot belong to both?

(Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Could you explain that to me further?

Do we consider two intervals and then we show that $x$ cannot belong to both?

The intersection is of the form:
$$(1,a_1)\cap(2,a_2)\cap(3,a_3)\cap\ldots\cap(n,a_n)\cap\ldots$$
For an $x$ to be in this intersection, it must be in all intervals.
But there will always be an interval that starts with an $n$ that is higher than $x$ is. (Thinking)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
The intersection is of the form:
$$(1,a_1)\cap(2,a_2)\cap(3,a_3)\cup\ldots\cup(n,a_n)\cup\ldots$$
For an $x$ to be in this intersection, it must be in all intervals.
But there will always be an interval that starts with an $n$ that is higher than $x$ is. (Thinking)

Ahh I got it now! (Malthe) As for 2. if we pick $n = \lceil \operatorname{abs}(x) \rceil + 1$ then we have that $x\in (-n,n)$. But how do we get the union? I got stuck right now. (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
As for 2. if we pick $n = \lceil \operatorname{abs}(x) \rceil + 1$ then we have that $x\in (-n,n)$. But how do we get the union? I got stuck right now.

For an $x$ to be in the union, it must be in at least one of the intervals.
And we just found an interval that it is in, didn't we? (Wondering)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
For an $x$ to be in the union, it must be in at least one of the intervals.
And we just found an interval that it is in, didn't we? (Wondering)

Ahh yes!

So we have the following:

We have that $(-n,n)\subseteq (-\infty, +\infty)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$. So it follows that $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )\subseteq (-\infty, +\infty )}$.

Let $x\in (-\infty , +\infty)$. For $n = \lceil \operatorname{abs}(x) \rceil + 1$ it holds that $x\in (-n,n)$. Therefore it holds that $\displaystyle{x\in \bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )}$ and so we get $\displaystyle{(-\infty, +\infty )\subseteq \bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )}$.

Therefore $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )= (-\infty, +\infty )}$. Is everything correct? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
Ahh yes!

So we have the following:

We have that $(-n,n)\subseteq (-\infty, +\infty)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$. So it follows that $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )\subseteq (-\infty, +\infty )}$.

Let $x\in (-\infty , +\infty)$. For $n = \lceil \operatorname{abs}(x) \rceil + 1$ it holds that $x\in (-n,n)$. Therefore it holds that $\displaystyle{x\in \bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )}$ and so we get $\displaystyle{(-\infty, +\infty )\subseteq \bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )}$.

Therefore $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left (-n,n\right )= (-\infty, +\infty )}$. Is everything correct?

Yep. (Nod)
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Yep. (Nod)

Thank you very much! (Sun)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K