Open ball contained in another open ball

  • Thread starter Thread starter drag12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ball
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if the open ball B1(a1, r1) is a proper subset of the open ball B2(a2, r2) in a metric space (X, d), then it is established that r1 < r2. The participants explore the implications of the distance between points a1 and a2, particularly when considering cases where a2 is contained within B1. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in definitions and relationships between the radii of the balls, specifically addressing the question of whether r1 must always be less than (3/2)*r2.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of open balls in metric spaces
  • Knowledge of distance metrics and their implications
  • Basic proof techniques in real analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of open balls in metric spaces
  • Learn about the implications of proper subsets in topology
  • Investigate the triangle inequality in metric spaces
  • Explore advanced proof techniques in real analysis, focusing on metric spaces
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis or topology, as well as educators looking for insights into teaching concepts related to metric spaces and open sets.

drag12
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let (X,d) be a metric space. Suppose that a1,a2 in X and r1,r2>0 are such that the open ball B1(a1,r1) is a proper subset of the open ball B2(a2,r2).
a) Prove that r1<r2.
b)Must it always be true that r1< (3/2)*r2?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


So far I have that if a2 is not in B1, then d(a1,a2)>r1, but a1 is in B2 so d(a1,a2)<r2, therefore r2>d(a1,a2)>r1.
The problem I'm having is finding some relation between r1 and r2 when a2 is contained in B1 because I end up with d(a1,a2)<r1 and d(a1,a2)<r2 which doesn't help much.
Is there a better method than using two cases like I am?
I feel like this shouldn't be difficult and that I'm just missing something small but it's driving me crazy.

Any help or hints would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A problem I'm having with your proof is where you say that d(x,a2)<r1 implies x is in B1, doesn't it just imply that it is in some ball B(a2,r1), not B1? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like something isn't correct here, can you explain?

Edit: Oh, looks like he deleted his post before I replied, can anyone else help?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
782
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K