Metric Spaces: Theorem of Open Unions & Families of Sets

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter union68
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Sets Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The theorem regarding metric spaces states that for a metric space \((X,d)\) and a family of open subsets \(\{U_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in A}\), the union of this family is also an open subset of \(X\). The discussion highlights the terminology distinction between "family of subsets" and "set of subsets," emphasizing that "family" is used to denote subsets of a specific set and can also refer to proper classes in certain contexts. The use of "family" provides clarity and convenience, particularly when the structure or size of the index set is relevant to the theorem's application.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of open sets in topology
  • Knowledge of set theory terminology, including families and collections
  • Basic comprehension of indexed families of sets
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the theorem on open sets in metric spaces
  • Explore the concept of indexed families of sets in more depth
  • Review Halmos' "Naive Set Theory" for foundational insights on set collections
  • Investigate the differences between sets and proper classes in set theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of topology, and anyone studying metric spaces who seeks a deeper understanding of set terminology and its implications in mathematical proofs.

union68
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
I'm looking over some stuff from metric spaces and I came across the familiar theorem:

Let [tex]\left(X,d\right)[/tex] be a metric space and let [tex]\left\{ U_\alpha \right\}_{\alpha \in A}[/tex] be a family of open subsets of [tex]X[/tex]. Then the union of the family [tex]\left\{U_\alpha\right\}_{\alpha \in A }[/tex] is an open subset of [tex]X[/tex].

The proof is straightforward -- that's not my issue. My question is, why was this theorem stated using the idea of a "family of subsets" instead of a "set of subsets?" This same idea of "family of sets" pops up in the definition of a topology also, so I want to make sure I understand it.

I resorted back to Halmos' Naive Set Theory and he says, "Observe that there is no loss of generality in considering families of sets instead of arbitrary collections of sets;...", so why don't they just say an arbitrary union of sets?

What am I missing here? What's the point of speaking of families?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They use the term family when they want to emphasize that they are all subsets of some set ([itex]U_a \subseteq X[/itex]). Formally there is no difference, but you rarely speak about a family of integers because we don't think of 5 a set (even though according to most definitions it is). I have also heard it used simply to introduce some variety in the sentence structure (just as collection is used).

According to some definitions families of sets are allowed to be proper classes instead of sets. So for instance the class of all sets can be called the family of all sets, but not the set of all sets as that would produce a contradiction. That's not relevant in this case though as [itex]P(X)[/itex] is a set if [itex]X[/itex] is a set.

EDIT: Also when we index a collection of sets by an indexing sets we call it an indexed family of sets and sometimes we drop the term indexed (as in your case).
 
union68 said:
What's the point of speaking of families?

It's a matter of convenience that makes the statements easier to follow - especially for theorems where the structure or size of the index set matters (e.g. ordered, countable etc).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
613
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K