Lines, points and contradiction

  • Thread starter nate808
  • Start date
  • #1
56
0
this question may sound kind of dumb, so if it is, i apologize, but let say you have a line with a point taken out of it. (<------- -------->) since a point does not have a defined length, how could you prove that the line is now two rays, and not still a line, because it seems a bit contradictory to say that something isn't connected but yet has no distance between it
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
92
0
It is very simple, the parametrization (Is this word English?) cannot be a continuous (Is this word Maths?) function, then by definition, it is not a curve.
 
  • #3
83
0
Topologically a set is called connected if it can not be devided in two disjoint open subsets. Now consider the set A of a line with one point removed from it (for instance [tex]A = \mathbf{R}- \{ 0 \} [/tex]). We can devide A into two open subsets, namely the two rays (without their starting point). Because they are disjoint, A can not be connected.
 
  • #4
92
0
It is incorrect:

[tex]S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n[/tex] is connected [tex]\leftrightharpoons \exists A, B \subset \mathbb{R}^n : A \cup B = S , A \cap \overline{B} = \varnothing , B \cap \overline{A} = \varnothing[/tex]
 
  • #5
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,420
4
nate808 said:
this question may sound kind of dumb, so if it is, i apologize, but let say you have a line with a point taken out of it. (<------- -------->) since a point does not have a defined length, how could you prove that the line is now two rays, and not still a line, because it seems a bit contradictory to say that something isn't connected but yet has no distance between it


it is unmathematical and meaningless in the english language to say something "has no distance between it"

look at the definitions anyway (whatever those may be for you).
 
  • #6
83
0
Maxos said:
It is incorrect:

[tex]S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n[/tex] is connected [tex]\leftrightharpoons \exists A, B \subset \mathbb{R}^n : A \cup B = S , A \cap \overline{B} = \varnothing , B \cap \overline{A} = \varnothing[/tex]
Well, yes, that is if you do not require A and B to be open in S. Both statements are equivalent though.
(Recall that A open in S ([tex]\subset \mathbb{R}^n[/tex]) means that there exist an open [tex]U \subset \mathbb{R}^n[/tex] such that [tex]U \cap S = A[/tex].)
 

Related Threads on Lines, points and contradiction

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
818
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
11K
Replies
5
Views
680
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
5K
Top