Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

One point set closed proof

  1. Jul 3, 2010 #1

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    So, I'm going through a proposition, which states that if (X, d) is a metric space, then any set {x}, where x e X, is a closed subset of X.

    First of all, could we do this proof to assume the contrary? Since then obviously for the point x from {x} there doesn't exist any real number r > 0 such that the open ball K(x, r) is contained in {x}?

    The proof in the notes I'm going through relies on the fact that we have to prove that the complement of {x}, i.e. X\{x} is open. The proof is very simple too, although I'm not quite sure about one thing. Let x' be an element of X\{x}. Then d(x', x) = r > 0, so the open ball K(x', r/2) is contained in X\{x}, and if we take the union for all x' e X\{x} of all such open balls, we get X\{x}, and hence X\{x} is open.

    Now, why is it r/2 ? Wouldn't open balls of type K(x', r) be contained in X\{x} too, since K(x', r) = {x'' in X : d(x''-x') < r}, and this set can't contain x, since d(x', x) = r? Perhaps I'm missing something trivially obvious here?
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 3, 2010 #2
    It's simpler if you just do it directly:

    y in X\{x} => d(x, y) > 0

    Then use that to show X\{x} is open.
     
  4. Jul 3, 2010 #3

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    That's just the proof I demonstrated, isn't it? The question about r/2 and about the proof by contradiction still remains unanswered.

    Although, in this "proof by contradiction", we can just show that {x} can't be open, but this doesn't necessary imply that {x} is closed? Since the definition of closed is that its complement is open. And in this proof, we didn't show anything about its complement.

    So, I guess the one from the text is the only proof? If what I wrote above is correct, then I only want to know is the proof would work with r instead od r/2.
     
  5. Jul 3, 2010 #4
    That proves that {x} is not open. But a set being not open does NOT imply that the set is closed (e.g. [0,1) as a subset of R is neither open nor closed).
     
  6. Jul 3, 2010 #5
    You are correct that you can use r as well. Sometimes people use lower things to be safe.
     
  7. Jul 3, 2010 #6

    radou

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes, that's what I just realized, thanks.

    OK, thanks! Although, if we're being completely rigorous here, I don't see any additional "safety" in it. :)
     
  8. Jul 3, 2010 #7

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's "safe" in the sense that you don't have to think about it at all. Using r, you have to think about the (literal :wink:) edge case before you can be satisfied with the proof. Using r/2 you don't have to think about it at all. :smile:

    Okay, in this case there isn't much to think about, but after you do it for a while, it becomes habit to simply make things smaller to render fine detail irrelevant.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook