MHB Open Subsets in a Metric Space .... Stromberg, Theorem 3.6 ... ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding Theorem 3.6 from Karl R. Stromberg's "An Introduction to Classical Real Analysis," specifically the proof involving open subsets in a metric space. The key point is the assertion that if r is the minimum of several radii, then the open ball B_r(a) is contained within each corresponding open set U_j. Participants clarify that B_r(a) represents the set of points within a distance r from point a, and they confirm that if r is less than or equal to each r_j, then B_r(a) must indeed be a subset of U_j. This reasoning is supported by the properties of open sets and the definition of open balls in metric spaces. The discussion concludes with a consensus on the validity of the theorem's statement.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Karl R. Stromberg's book: "An Introduction to Classical Real Analysis". ... ...

I am focused on Chapter 3: Limits and Continuity ... ...

I need help in order to fully understand the proof of Theorem 3.6 on page 94 ... ... Theorem 3.6 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 9114
In the above proof by Stromberg we read the following:

" ... ... Letting $$r = \text{min} \{ r_1, r_2, \ ... \ ... \ r_n \}$$ we see that $$B_r (a) \subset U_j \text{ for each } j = 1,2, \ ... \ ... n$$ ... ... "Although it seems plausible ... I do not see ... rigorously speaking, why the above statement is true ...

Can someone demonstrate rigorously that letting $$r = \text{min} \{ r_1, r_2, \ ... \ ... \ r_n \}$$ ...

... implies that $$B_r (a) \subset U_j$$ for each $$j = 1,2, \ ... \ ... n$$ ... ... Surely it is possible that $$B_r (a)$$ lies partly outside some $$U_j$$ ... ...

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Stromberg - Theorem 3.6 ... .png
    Stromberg - Theorem 3.6 ... .png
    17.7 KB · Views: 147
Physics news on Phys.org
The Theorem makes reference to "Definition 3.3" but you don't give us that definition. Also you are asking about "B_r(a)" but don't tell us what that means. Since the theorem is about "open sets", I strongly suspect, but can't be sure, that "Definition 3.3" is the definition of "open set" and that "B_r(a)" is the "open ball" centered at a with radius r.

If that is correct then B_r(a) is \{ p| d(p, a)< r\}, the set of all points whose distance from point a (the center of the ball) is less than r (the radius of the ball). From that it follows immediately that if r_1< r_2 then B_{r_1}(a)\subset B_{r_2}(a)- the smaller radius ball is inside the larger radius ball.
 
Peter said:
Can someone demonstrate rigorously that letting $$r = \text{min} \{ r_1, r_2, \ ... \ ... \ r_n \}$$ ...

... implies that $$B_r (a) \subset U_j$$ for each $$j = 1,2, \ ... \ ... n$$ ... ...
$r$ is the minimum of all the $r_j$ and so $r\leqslant r_j$ for all $j$; hence $B_r(a)\subseteq B_{r_j}(a)\subset U_j$ for all $j=1,\ldots,n$.
 
Olinguito said:
$r$ is the minimum of all the $r_j$ and so $r\leqslant r_j$ for all $j$; hence $B_r(a)\subseteq B_{r_j}(a)\subset U_j$ for all $j=1,\ldots,n$.
Thanks for the help Olinguito ...

Peter

- - - Updated - - -

HallsofIvy said:
The Theorem makes reference to "Definition 3.3" but you don't give us that definition. Also you are asking about "B_r(a)" but don't tell us what that means. Since the theorem is about "open sets", I strongly suspect, but can't be sure, that "Definition 3.3" is the definition of "open set" and that "B_r(a)" is the "open ball" centered at a with radius r.

If that is correct then B_r(a) is \{ p| d(p, a)< r\}, the set of all points whose distance from point a (the center of the ball) is less than r (the radius of the ball). From that it follows immediately that if r_1< r_2 then B_{r_1}(a)\subset B_{r_2}(a)- the smaller radius ball is inside the larger radius ball.

Thanks for the help HallsofIvy ...

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K