Prove Rudin's Theorem 2.27: Closure of E in Metric Space X is Closed

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bachelier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the closure of a set E in a metric space X is closed, as stated in Rudin's text. Participants explore the implications of definitions related to open and closed sets, limit points, and neighborhoods within the context of metric spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the reasoning behind the claim that the complement of the closure of E is open, seeking clarification on the definitions involved.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of open sets, with references to interior points and neighborhoods that do not intersect E.
  • One participant suggests that the statement regarding points not being limit points should refer to the closure of E rather than E itself, indicating a potential misunderstanding in Rudin's argument.
  • Another participant proposes that if a point p is not in the closure of E, then it must have a neighborhood that does not intersect the closure of E, leading to the conclusion that the complement of the closure is open.
  • Several participants express confusion about transitioning from discussing E to its closure in the context of the proof, highlighting the need for careful reasoning regarding limit points and neighborhoods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and correctness of Rudin's proof. Some agree on the necessity of distinguishing between E and its closure, while others are uncertain about the implications of neighborhoods and limit points. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of certain statements in the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the proof may have been presented too quickly, leading to confusion about the relationship between E and its closure. There are unresolved questions about the definitions and implications of open sets and limit points in this context.

Bachelier
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
Prove the closure of E in a Metric Space X is closed. (page 35)

Rudin states:

if p∈X and p∉E then p is neither a point of E nor a limit point of E..

Hence, p has a neighborhood which does not intersect E. (Great)

The compliment of the closure of E is therefore open. WHY? I don't see it...

BTW, I know there are different ways to proving this, but I want to understand the last line jump. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The compliment of E is therefore open. WHY? I don't see it...

What is the definition of open? What has Rudin just shown about an arbitrary point in X?
 
Last edited:
What is your definition of "open"?
 
Number Nine said:
What is the definition of open? What has Rudin just shown about an arbitrary point in E?

E is Open if every p in E is an interior point (meaning there exists a neighborhood of p that is in E)
The problem we should say that the complement of E is open, not the complement of the closure of E.
 
I guess since the intersection of N(p) and E is empty then no point q of N(p) can be a limit point of E as this would mean every neighborhood of q will contain an infinite number of points in E. Hence the intersection of N(p) and "closure of E" is empty.

Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
If any point not in E has an open neighborhood that does not intersect E then by definition the complement of E is open.
 
Last edited:
my bad, I forgot to add the word: "closure" in the last line of the proof. I just re-read it.

This is what is confusing me:

FROM: Hence, p has a neighborhood which does not intersect E.

We get: The compliment of the closure of E is therefore open.
 
We have just shown that p is in the complement of the closure of E (call it A). We also showed that p has a neighborhood that is entirely in A. Hence, p is an interior point of that set A. Hence A is open.
 
Bachelier said:
if p∈X and p∉E then p is neither a point of E nor a limit point of E..
This doesn't make sense. It must be ##p\notin \overline E##, where ##\overline E## is the closure of ##E##, instead of ##p\notin E##.
Then, everything is clear.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Erland said:
This doesn't make sence. It must be ##p\notin \overline E##, where ##\overline E## is the closure of ##E##, instead of ##p\notin E##.
Then, everything is clear.

Since ##p\notin \overline E## then it is not a limit point, hence not every neighborhood of ##p## contains a point of ##E##.

Let ##N(p)## be the neighborhood with no common points with ##E##.

What about ##\overline E##? Is the ##\overline E \cap N(p)## an empty set because if it wasn't, then ##N(p)## will contain a limit point of ##E## and these will have neighborhoods that contain a point of ##E##?

"I understand everything about the proof, except for the part where we go from ##E## to ## \overline E## when we mention the complement. I want to make sure my reasoning is correct" Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Bachelier said:
Since ##p\notin \overline E## then it is not a limit point, hence not every neighborhood of ##p## contains a point of ##E##.

Let ##N(p)## be the neighborhood with no common points with ##E##.

What about ##\overline E##? Is the ##\overline E \cap N(p)## an empty set because if it wasn't, then ##N(p)## will contain a limit point of ##E## and these will have neighborhoods that contain a point of ##E##?

"I understand everything about the proof, except for the part where we go from ##E## to ## \overline E## when we mention the complement. I want to make sure my reasoning is correct" Thanks.
You are right, I, and Rudin it seems, were a little bit too quick here. But it is as you write. If ##N(p)## intersects ##\overline E## in a point ##q##, say, then ##N(p)## is also a neighborhood of ##q##, and it must contain an element of ##E##, which was not the case. Thus ##N(p)## is a neighborhood of ##p## which does not intersect ##\overline E##.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Erland said:
You are right, I, and Rudin it seems, were a little bit to quick here. But it is as you write. If ##N(p)## intersects ##\overline E## in a point ##q##, say, then ##N(p)## is also a neighborhood of ##q##, and it must contain an element of ##E##, which was not the case. Thus ##N(p)## is a neighborhood of ##p## which does not intersect ##\overline E##.

Thank you. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K