Problem with set of inside proofs

  • Thread starter Thread starter trenekas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs Set
trenekas
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
I have a problem. Here is the task. Need to prove all these claims:
6gle7n.jpg


I was able to prove only one and half of them.

b) Let A\subsetB and x \in A°. It mean that there is ε>0 that Oε(x)\subsetA. And it mean that Oε(x)\subsetA\subsetB. And that mean that x\inB, what I need to prove.

c) (A°)°\subsetA° it follows from a. if i could prove that :D
How to prove A°\subset (A°)° i don't know. tried to apply definition but nothing goes on.

Can you give me some advise which way i need to go?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
trenekas said:
I have a problem. Here is the task. Need to prove all these claims:
6gle7n.jpg


I was able to prove only one and half of them.

b) Let A\subsetB and x \in A°. It mean that there is ε>0 that Oε(x)\subsetA. And it mean that Oε(x)\subsetA\subsetB. And that mean that x\inB, what I need to prove.

c) (A°)°\subsetA° it follows from a. if i could prove that :D
How to prove A°\subset (A°)° i don't know. tried to apply definition but nothing goes on.

Can you give me some advise which way i need to go?

Part (a) says that the set of interior points of a set is a subset of the original set. This one really shouldn't be too difficult.

Suppose ##x \in A°##. You want to somehow show that ##x \in A##. Think about delta neighborhoods around x.
 
Yeah. a) i proved but wasnt sure if it correct. but second part of c, d and e are to difficult. I have no idea from what need to start
 
And also i want you ask very similar question. I think i proved this, but want to know if it correct or not.

The task: Need to prove that open rectangle ([a,b]):={x\inR^d: a<x<b}=(a1,b1)x...x(ad,bd) is open set.
I think i can prove that every interval of this set is open and that means that all set is open? Correct? :) if that is true so all that intervals R\(a1,b1) ... R\(ad,bd) is closed. And according to one theorem which i found in my teacher book it mean that intervals (a1,b1), (a2,b2)... (ad,bd) are open.

Do you think this way of thinking is correct or not? :) Thanks!
 
trenekas said:
I have a problem. Here is the task. Need to prove all these claims:
6gle7n.jpg


I was able to prove only one and half of them.

b) Let A\subsetB and x \in A°. It mean that there is ε>0 that Oε(x)\subsetA. And it mean that Oε(x)\subsetA\subsetB. And that mean that x\inB, what I need to prove.

c) (A°)°\subsetA° it follows from a. if i could prove that :D
How to prove A°\subset (A°)° i don't know. tried to apply definition but nothing goes on.

Can you give me some advise which way i need to go?
Do you know the characterization that ##A^\circ## is the union of all open sets contained in ##A##? Equivalently, it is the largest open subset of ##A## (in the sense of containment). This will easily allow you to conclude (a) and (b).

Another useful fact which follows from this is that ##A = A^\circ## if and only if ##A## is open. This immediately gives you (c).
 
I believe it would be informative if we knew what class this was for; so we know what information you may have access to.
 
trenekas said:
And also i want you ask very similar question. I think i proved this, but want to know if it correct or not.

The task: Need to prove that open rectangle ([a,b]):={x\inR^d: a<x<b}=(a1,b1)x...x(ad,bd) is open set.
I think i can prove that every interval of this set is open and that means that all set is open? Correct? :) if that is true so all that intervals R\(a1,b1) ... R\(ad,bd) is closed. And according to one theorem which i found in my teacher book it mean that intervals (a1,b1), (a2,b2)... (ad,bd) are open.

Do you think this way of thinking is correct or not? :) Thanks!
It is certainly true that each ##(a_k, b_k)## is an open subset of ##\mathbb{R}^1##, but you will have to do more work if you want to show that ##(a_1, b_1) \times \ldots \times (a_d, b_d)## is an open subset of ##\mathbb{R}^d##.

Here is a hint to get you started. Choose an arbitrary element ##x = (x_1, \ldots, x_d) \in (a_1, b_1) \times \ldots \times (a_d, b_d)##. You need to show that ##x## is an interior point. That means you have to find a ##\delta## such that the open ball centered at ##x## with radius ##\delta## is contained in ##(a_1, b_1) \times \ldots \times (a_d, b_d)##. To find such a ##\delta##, use the fact that ##x_k## is an interior point of ##(a_k, b_k)## for each ##k##.
 
Thanks once more:)
 
Dont know how well I understand your hint. so now ill write the ending of proof :) if something is wrong please tell me.
We know that x1 is (a1,b1) interior point. so there is ε1>0 that ||a1-b1||<ε1
...
...
there is εd>0 that ||ad-bd||<εd

let \delta= min{\epsilon1, \epsilon2,...\epsilon d}
And that mean that open ball with radius \delta contained in (a1,b1)x...x(ad,bd)

correct? :)
 
Last edited:
  • #10
trenekas said:
Dont know how well I understand your hint. so now ill write the ending of proof :) if something is wrong please tell me.
We know that x1 is (a1,b1) interior point. so there is ε1>0 that ||a1-b1||<ε1
...
...
there is εd>0 that ||ad-bd||<εd

let \delta= min{\epsilon1, \epsilon2,...\epsilon d}
And that mean that open ball with radius \delta contained in (a1,b1)x...x(ad,bd)
It is true, but why? If you take an arbitrary point ##y## in the same open ball (i.e. such that ##\|x - y\| < \delta##), can you show that ##y \in (a_1,b_1)\times \ldots \times (a_d,b_d)##?
 
  • #11
Oh. I made a mistake.

all the same but ε1>0 and |(|a1-b1|)-x1|<ε1
...
...
εd>0 and |(|ad-bd|)-xd|<εd

let \delta= min{\epsilon1, \epsilon2,...\epsilon d}

And that mean that open ball with radius \delta contained in (a1,b1)x...x(ad,bd)

now is good?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
trenekas said:
Oh. I made a mistake.

all the same but ε1>0 and |(|a1-b1|)-x1|<ε1
...
...
εd>0 and |(|ad-bd|)-xd|<εd
I think these inequalities are still wrong. For each ##k##, you want both of the following to be true:
$$a_k < x_k - \epsilon_k$$
$$x_k + \epsilon_k < b_k$$
You can achieve this by choosing ##0 < \epsilon_k < \min(x_k - a_k, b_k - x_k)##.
 
  • #13
jbunniii said:
I think these inequalities are still wrong. For each ##k##, you want both of the following to be true:
$$a_k < x_k - \epsilon_k$$
$$x_k + \epsilon_k < b_k$$
You can achieve this by choosing ##0 < \epsilon_k < \min(x_k - a_k, b_k - x_k)##.

yes. my bad once more. If \epsilon will be a little less than ##\min(| x_k - a_k |,| b_k - x_k |)## so all that would be correct when \delta equal to \epsilon
 
Last edited:
  • #14
trenekas said:
yes. my bad once more. so if \delta will be ##\min(| x_k - a_k |,| b_k - x_k |)## so all that would be correct?
Assuming you take the minimum over all ##k## (i.e., ##\delta_k = \min(|x_k - a_k|, |b_k - x_k|)##, and ##\delta = \min_k \delta_k##), it will work, but you still have to prove that.
 
  • #15
jbunniii said:
Assuming you take the minimum over all ##k## (i.e., ##\delta_k = \min(|x_k - a_k|, |b_k - x_k|)##, and ##\delta = \min_k \delta_k##), it will work, but you still have to prove that.

how to do that? i think if we found ##\delta## when all is good.

I don't know or my reasoning is good but i think that, when we found a ##\delta## as you described when for every x will be neighbourhood which will be subset of our first set. And that mean that every x is interior point of first set.

if that not enough i give up. Dont know how this prove...
 
Last edited:
  • #16
i want to add that ## ||x-a||##>##\delta## and also ## ||x-b||##>##\delta## so from here i draw conclusion in my previous post.Its good? Please someone help me! :))))
 
  • #17
trenekas said:
how to do that? i think if we found ##\delta## when all is good.
If ##B_\delta(x)## is the open ball of radius ##\delta## centered at ##x##, and ##y = (y_1,\ldots,y_d)## is any point in ##B_\delta(x)##, then you need to show that ##y \in (a_1, b_1) \times \ldots \times (a_d, b_d)##. In order to do this, you must show that ##a_k < y_k < b_k## for all ##k##.

So suppose ##y \in B_\delta(x)##. By definition, that means that the distance between ##x## and ##y## is less than ##\delta##, so
$$\sqrt{(y_1 - x_1)^2 + \ldots + (y_d - x_d)^2} < \delta$$
You have to prove that this inequality implies that ##a_k < y_k < b_k## for all ##k##. You will of course have to make use of the way we defined ##\delta##, namely ##\delta_k = \min(|x_k - a_k|, |b_k - x_k|)##, and ##\delta = \min_k \delta_k##.
 
  • #18
ok. thank you jbunnii! tomorow i rethinking all what you say because my brain now is not capable to think :) need some rest.
 
Back
Top