Proof of Subspace Topology Problem: Error Identification & Explanation

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
Norashii
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
Let [itex]K[/itex] be a subset of a metric space [itex]M[/itex], then if [itex]U[/itex] is open, [itex]U\cap K[/itex] is open in [itex]K[/itex]
Relevant Equations
Closed set: The set is called closed if all convergent sequences of elements of the set converge to an element of the set.

Open set: A set [itex]X[/itex] is said to be open if for every point [itex]x[/itex] in the set there is an open ball centered in it that is contained in the set.

Closure: The closure of a set [itex]A[/itex] is the intersection of all closed sets that contain [itex]A[/itex]
I have already seen proofs of this problem, but none of them match the one I did, therefore I would be glad if someone could indicate where is the mistake here. Thanks in advance.**My proof:** Take a limit point [itex]x[/itex] of [itex]U[/itex] that is not in [itex]U[/itex], but is in [itex]K[/itex] (in other words [itex]x \in K \cap(\overline{U}-U)[/itex]), then suppose that [itex]K\cap U[/itex] is closed, this implies [itex]\overline{K \cap U}=K \cap U[/itex] and then must contain all limit points of [itex]K\cap U[/itex] since [itex]x[/itex] is a limit point of [itex]U[/itex] and is in [itex]K[/itex], it is also a limit point of [itex]K\cap U[/itex] and therefore must be in it since its closed. However, this is absurd since it would imply that [itex]x \in U[/itex] then [itex]K \cap U[/itex] must be open.
 
on Phys.org
You appear to have assumed ##K\cap U## is closed and tried to derive a contradiction from that. If you have successfully done that (I didn't check) then you can conclude that ##K\cap U## is not closed. However that does not imply that it is open. Many sets are neither open nor closed, eg the half-open interval [0,1).

Also, you have not at any point in your proof attempt referrred to being open in K, which is what you have to prove. Being open in K is different from just being open (ie open in M). In a problem like this you need to make clear, when you refer to a set being open or closed, whether you mean open or closed in K or in M.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
If you look at the definition of subspace topology, and what the open sets are specifically of K, it will be immediate why the statement holds.
 
nucl34rgg said:
If you look at the definition of subspace topology, and what the open sets are specifically of K, it will be immediate why the statement holds.

I think this is probably not true. In particular K is a metric space, and so has a topology from that, which you are probably supposed to use. I suspect this question is leading up to motivating why the definition of the subspace topology makes sense.