Open sets and cartesian products

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bedi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cartesian Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the characterization of a set A defined by a continuous function f from R to R, specifically exploring whether A can be expressed as a Cartesian product of two open sets. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and examples related to open sets in the context of real analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes defining A as A={(x,y): y
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the possibility of representing A as a Cartesian product of open sets in R.
  • A different approach is suggested involving the union of sets defined by the inverse function of f, but concerns are raised about the inclusion of certain values.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the notation used, particularly the meaning of sets defined in terms of f and its inverse.
  • Examples are provided to illustrate the sets formed under different functions, leading to further questions about the validity of assumptions made in the discussion.
  • A participant points out a contradiction arising from the assumption that A can be expressed as a Cartesian product, questioning the validity of the initial premise.
  • There is a clarification regarding the notation used, indicating that some symbols may have been misinterpreted in the context of set operations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether A can be represented as a Cartesian product of open sets, with some proposing methods and others challenging the feasibility of those methods. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made regarding the continuity of f and the nature of the sets involved. The discussion also highlights potential ambiguities in notation and definitions used by participants.

bedi
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Let f be a continuous function from R to R and let A be a subset of R^2. Define A={(x,y): y<f(x)}.

Can you express A as a cartesian product of two open sets? I tried RxU alpha_x where alpha_x = {y:y<f(x)}. But that didn't work, i need to change something about R.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If those open sets should be subsets of R, I don't see how this can be possible.
Two open sets B,C of R or R^2, where A={b+c|B in B, c in C} are possible, but that is not B x C.
 
Let A=U_y {{f^-1(x):f(x)>y}x{y':y<maxf(R) is there is such a max and y'<y}}. Does that work?
 
But this doesn't contain those y's. If we add them manually to A will that change something?

Edit:
If f has a max, say f(D), then add (f^-1(D), y) to A. If not then there exists an f(x') such that f(x')>y so add (f^-1(x'), y) to A. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
What does "{f^-1(x):f(x)>y}" mean? You use "x" to denote values otherwise written as y, and get a set of values usually described as x. In addition, it is meaningless to use the same x in f and f^(-1). And how does y get defined here?

What is "{y':y<maxf(R) is there is such a max and y'<y}"? What happens if there is no such maximum? And if there is one, what does that mean?
 
Actually you can ignore my last reply above.
Alright so write {x:f(x)>y} instead. We know this is open because f is continuous. y is defined as an arbitrary real number such that y<sup f so that y<f(x) could make sense. And if we put y'<y we get an open subset of real numbers consisting of y' s such that y'<y<f(x).
 
I don't see what you are doing.

Let's consider two examples:
(1) f(x)=-y^2
(2) f(x)=y

How do your sets look like?
 
(1)
A={{x: f(x)=-y^2>-1}x{y'<-1: y' is a real}}U{{x: f(x)=-y^2>-2}x{y'<-2: y' is a real}}U{{x: f(x)=-y^2>-sqrt2}x{y'<-sqrt2: y' is a real}}U...

(2) is similar, I just substitute random real values for y.
 
The assumption isn't even true in general so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with all that work. Given ##f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}##, assume that ##A = \mathbb{R}\times U## is in fact true, where ##U\subseteq \mathbb{R}## is open. If ##f## isn't constant then there exist ##x,y\in \mathbb{R}## such that ##f(x) < f(y)##. Therefore ##(y,f(x))\in A## but then ##f(x)\in U## implying ##(x,f(x))\in A## since ##A = \mathbb{R}\times U## by hypothesis, which is a contradiction.
 
  • #10
Yes, this is why I said R x {something} doesn't work. I think I should write these in latex, it may be the case that you think I wrote U as a set but it is the union operation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K