Neighborhood Proof for Distinct Points in a Metric Space

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tokipin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that for any two distinct points a and b in a metric space X, there exist neighborhoods N_a and N_b such that N_a ∩ N_b = ∅. The proof involves defining open balls around each point with a radius of d(a,b)/2. This construction ensures that if a point p were to lie in both neighborhoods, it would lead to a contradiction with the triangle inequality, thereby confirming the disjoint nature of the neighborhoods.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with the triangle inequality in metric spaces
  • Knowledge of open balls and neighborhoods in topology
  • Basic concepts from "Introduction to Topology" by Bert Mendelson
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of open balls in metric spaces
  • Explore the triangle inequality and its implications in topology
  • Learn about the concept of neighborhoods and their significance in metric spaces
  • Review additional exercises from "Introduction to Topology" by Bert Mendelson for deeper understanding
USEFUL FOR

Students of topology, mathematicians interested in metric spaces, and anyone looking to strengthen their understanding of neighborhood proofs in topology.

Tokipin
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



From Introduction to Topology by Bert Mendelson, Chapter 2.4, Exercise 6:

Let a and b be distinct points of a metric space X. Prove that there are neighborhoods N_a and N_b of a and b respectively such that N_a \cap N_b = \varnothing.

2. The attempt at a solution

OK, intuitively I recognize at least two cases: 1) If both points are "separate" such that for a and b, their smallest neighborhoods are \{a\} and \{b\} respectively, then these neighborhoods obviously don't intersect.

2) If at least one of the points has an "infinitely partitionable neighborhood" such that for any open ball of radius r about the point we can find another open ball of radius r-\epsilon about the same point which is a strict subset of the first ball, then we can find a \delta such that the open ball of radius \delta about that point does not include a neighborhood of the other point.

Where I think I'm getting confused is whether these are the only two scenarios that can occur in a metric space (both points separate, or one or both possessing "infinitely partitionable neighborhoods.")

I was trying to find a contradiction that might arise due to the symmetry of the distance function, but I can't find one. I might also be thinking too much into it, so overall I'm quite confused.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think all you need to do is define your neighborhood so all points within it are less then half the distance between the two points.
 
That's hilarious. I was thinking that if we define an open ball of radius d(a,b)/2 about each point, then the neighborhoods wouldn't intersect. But I wasn't sure I could generalize this from R^2. Thanks.

Here's an attempt at a proof:

About each point a and b, define an open ball of radius d(a,b)/2. If there was a point p which was in both of the open balls, then this would mean that both of the following would be true:

d(a,p) < d(a,b)/2
d(b,p) < d(a,b)/2

This would contradict the triangle inequality of a metric space:

d(a,b) \leq d(a,p) + d(p,b)

Since each term on the right would be less than d(a,b) / 2 and hence their sum would be less than the term on the left.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K