Need help with a proof on closure

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter life is maths
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    closure Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof related to the properties of closure in topology, specifically examining the relationship between the closure of the intersection of two sets and the intersection of their closures. Participants are tasked with proving that cl(A ∩ B) ⊆ cl A ∩ cl B and providing a counterexample to show that the reverse is not true.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to prove that cl(A ∩ B) ⊆ cl A ∩ cl B but expresses confusion about the completeness of their proof.
  • Another participant notes that the initial proof only shows A ∩ B ⊆ cl(A) ∩ cl(B) and suggests that an additional argument is needed to establish the closure relationship.
  • A further contribution emphasizes the importance of considering limit points in the proof.
  • Participants discuss different definitions of closure, noting that the approach may depend on which definition is being used.
  • One participant provides a counterexample using the open intervals (0,1) and (1,2) to illustrate that the reverse statement does not hold, highlighting that the closure of their intersection is different from the intersection of their closures.
  • There is a clarification regarding a misstatement about the definition of closure, correcting the use of intersection to union in a previous message.
  • Another participant mentions that whether an extra argument is needed may depend on the context of the course and the professor's expectations.
  • One participant reiterates the counterexample, explaining that the element 1 belongs to the intersection of the closures but not to the closure of the intersection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of an additional argument in the proof, as opinions vary based on individual interpretations and definitions of closure. The counterexample provided is accepted as a valid illustration of the reverse statement being false, but the discussion remains unresolved regarding the completeness of the initial proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference multiple definitions of closure, indicating that the proof's validity may depend on the chosen definition. There is also mention of the need to consider limit points, which adds complexity to the proof.

life is maths
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Hi, my instructor left this as an exercise, but I got confused in the second part. Could you please help me?

cl(A\capB)\subseteqcl A \cap cl B
But the reverse is not true. Prove this and give a counterexample on the reverse statement.

My attempt:

If x\in A\capB, then x\in cl(A\capB)
x\in A and x\in B \Rightarrow x\in cl(A) and x\incl(B). Hence,

cl(A\capB)\subseteqcl A \cap cl B

Does this proof have any flaws? It is an easy one, I guess, but I feel a bit confused. And I do not understand why the reverse is wrong. Can't we use the same method? Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I presume this is topology? Closure can mean a few different things.

In your proof, you only showed that A\cap B\subset the right-hand side.

However, this is a good start. The LHS is a subset of the RHS, which is closed. Now take the closure of the LHS. Can we show that it doesn't get "bigger" than the RHS, keeping in mind that the RHS is closed.
 
You seem to prove that if x\in A\cap B, that then x\in cl(A)\cap cl(B). This is certainly true, but it only proves that A\cap B\subseteq cl(A)\cap cl(B).
You need an extra argument to conclude that cl(A\cap B)\subseteq cl(A)\cap cl(B).
 
As noted, your "proof" is incomplete; you must also consider elements that are limit points of A intersect B.

For the counterexample, consider the open intervals (0,1) and (1,2).
 
What is your definition of "closure"? There are several equivalent definitions and how you would prove this depends upon which you are using.

For example, some texts use "cl(A) is A union all limit points of A" while others use "the smallest closed set containing A" and still others "the intersection of all closed sets containing A".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
micromass said:
You seem to prove that if x\in A\cap B, that then x\in cl(A)\cap cl(B). This is certainly true, but it only proves that A\cap B\subseteq cl(A)\cap cl(B).
You need an extra argument to conclude that cl(A\cap B)\subseteq cl(A)\cap cl(B).

Thanks, micromass, but I don't understand why I need an extra argument. Is it for the case that A and B are not both open or closed? Or neither open nor closed?

Spherics, I had found this myself while thinking before sleep :) cl(0,1)=[0,1] and cl(1,2)= [1,2].
Their intersection is 1, but the closure of their intersection is 0. Therefore, the reverse is wrong. This is how to do it, right?

HallsofIvy, I tried to use the definition of closure as the one ''The smallest closed set containing A'' which is IntA\cap Bd(A).

Thanks for your time and effort, and I would be greatful for further help :)
 
The definition you wrote is always empty. You probably mean union, not intersection.
 
That was a mistake, sorry. I meant IntA\cupIntB.
 
Whether or not an extra argument is needed is a matter of context, really. In your particular course, it may be that your professor is okay with "(A\subsetB) and (B is closed) implies cl(A)\subsetB". That is, if you're inside a closed set, and you take a closure, you won't move outside that closed set.

You might have skipped this step in your logic, or you might've been aware and just not mentioned it.
 
  • #10
life is maths said:
Spherics, I had found this myself while thinking before sleep :) cl(0,1)=[0,1] and cl(1,2)= [1,2].
Their intersection is 1, but the closure of their intersection is 0. Therefore, the reverse is wrong. This is how to do it, right?

Almost, but not quite. To contradict the statement

cl(A\capB)\supseteq[cl A \cap cl B]

you must exhibit an element of [cl A \cap cl B] that is not in cl(A\capB). As you noted, if A=(0,1) and B=(1,2) such an element is 1, for

1\in[cl A \cap cl B] but 1\notincl(A\capB)=\phi
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K