Open/closed set and interior point problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in topology concerning the properties of open and closed sets within a metric space. The original poster seeks to understand the implications of the boundary of a set and its relationship to interior points.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of the boundary of a set, denoted as \(\partial A\), and its implications for open and closed sets. There is an inquiry into whether the established properties hold when the set is neither open nor closed, prompting examples such as the set of rational numbers.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing definitions and exploring the implications of the boundary concept. Questions remain regarding the validity of the original poster's assumptions and the nature of boundaries for non-open or non-closed sets.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework problem, which may limit the information available for discussion. The original poster expresses uncertainty about specific terminology and concepts, indicating a need for foundational clarification.

complexnumber
Messages
61
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let [tex](X,d)[/tex] be a metric space and let [tex]A \subseteq X[/tex]. Denote the interior of [tex]A[/tex] by [tex]A^o[/tex].

Homework Equations



Prove that if [tex]A[/tex] is open or closed, then [tex](\partial A)^o = \varnothing[/tex]. (Is this still true if [tex]A[/tex] is not open or closed?)

The Attempt at a Solution



I don't even know what [tex]\partial A[/tex] means. Can anyone tell me what this represents?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
VeeEight said:
That notation denotes the boundary of A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_(topology)

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \partial A = \overline{A} \cap \overline{X - A} = \{ x \in<br /> X | \forall \varepsilon > 0 (O_\varepsilon(x) \cap A \ne \varnothing<br /> \wedge O_\varepsilon(x) \cap (X-A) \ne \varnothing \}<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

If [tex]A[/tex] is closed, then [tex]\partial A \subseteq A[/tex]. However, [tex]\forall x<br /> \in \partial A \forall \varepsilon > 0 ( O_\varepsilon(x) \cap (X -<br /> A) \ne \varnothing)[/tex], hence [tex]\forall x \in<br /> \partial A \nexists \varepsilon > 0 (O_\varepsilon(x) \subseteq<br /> \partial A)[/tex]. There are no interior points.

If [tex]A[/tex] is open, then [tex]\partial A \subseteq X - A[/tex]. However, [tex]\forall<br /> x \in \partial A \forall \varepsilon > 0 ( O_\varepsilon(x) \cap A<br /> \ne \varnothing)[/tex], hence [tex]\forall x \in<br /> \partial A \nexists \varepsilon > 0 (O_\varepsilon(x) \subseteq<br /> \partial A)[/tex]. There are no interior points.

Is this correct? Is it still true if [tex]A[/tex] is not open or closed? How can I prove that?
 
complexnumber said:
Is it still true if [tex]A[/tex] is not open or closed? How can I prove that?

Consider [itex]A = \mathbb{Q}[/itex], [itex]X = \mathbb{R}[/itex]. What is the boundary of [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex]?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K