Proving Closed Rectangle A is a Closed Set

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Closed Sets
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a closed rectangle A, defined in n-dimensional space, is a closed set. The problem is situated within the context of topology and set theory, particularly focusing on the properties of closed sets in mathematical analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to establish the closedness of the rectangle by analyzing its complement and defining an open rectangle. Some participants question the validity of the original proof due to potential issues with the choice of ε. Others suggest alternative methods for proving closedness, including the use of convergent sequences.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on the original proof and suggesting refinements. There is a recognition of the need to clarify certain definitions and properties, particularly regarding the closedness of intervals in real numbers. Multiple approaches are being explored, indicating a productive exchange of ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of understanding the definitions of open and closed sets, as well as the implications of ε being greater than zero. There is an acknowledgment that some participants are still learning these concepts, which may affect their ability to follow certain proofs.

jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50

Homework Statement



Prove that a closed rectangle [itex]A \subset \mathbb{R}^n[/itex] is a closed set.

Homework Equations



N/A

The Attempt at a Solution



Let [itex]A = [a_1,b_1] \times \dots \times [a_n,b_n] \subset \mathbb{R}^n[/itex], then [itex]A[/itex] is closed if and only if its complement, [itex]\mathbb{R}^n - A[/itex], is open. Now, let [itex]x = (x_1, \dots, x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n - A[/itex] and choose [itex]\varepsilon_i = \inf_{c_i \in [a_i,b_i]}\frac{|x_i - c_i|}{2} > 0[/itex]. Clearly we have that [itex](x_i - \varepsilon_i,x_i + \varepsilon_i) \cap [a_i,b_i] = \emptyset[/itex]; thus, we can define an open rectangle [itex]B = (x_1 - \varepsilon_1, x_1 + \varepsilon_1) \times \dots \times (x_n - \varepsilon_n, x_n + \varepsilon_n)[/itex] [itex]\subset \mathbb{R}^n - A[/itex] with the property that for any [itex]x \in \mathbb{R}^n - A[/itex], [itex]x \in B \subset \mathbb{R}^n - A[/itex], completing the proof.

My questions:
1) Is this "proof" correct?
2) If so, is there an easier way to do this?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. [tex]\varepsilon_i[/tex] may be zero for some i. Consider the unit square [0,1] x [0,1] in [tex]\mathbb{R}^2[/tex]. The point (1/2, 2) is not in the unit square, but your [tex]\varepsilon_1=0[/tex].

An easier proof: recall that a set is closed if and only if for a sequence [tex]x^{(k)}[/tex] in the set that converges, the limit is in the set. Now let [tex]x^{(k)}[/tex] be a sequence in A that converges to the point x. For i = 1, 2,..., n we have [tex]x_i^{(k)} \to x_i[/tex] in R. Now, [tex][a_i,b_i][/tex] is closed in R (this is very easy to prove), so [tex]x_i \in [a_i,b_i][/tex] which impies that [tex]x \in A[/tex].
 
Ah! That's a really good point. :grumbles quitely:

I haven't learned that formulation of a closed set so I can't really follow your proof (sorry!). So, suppose I revised my proof as follows: Let [itex]x = (x_1, \dots, x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n - A[/itex], then for some [itex]x_i[/itex] we have that [itex]x_i \notin [a_i,b_i][/itex]. I can then choose [itex]\varepsilon = \inf_{c_i \in [a_i,b_i]}\frac{|x_i - c_i|}{2} > 0[/itex] and since [itex](x_i - \varepsilon, x_i + \varepsilon) \cap [a_i,b_i] = \emptyset[/itex] I can define the open rectangle [itex]B = (x_1 - \varepsilon, x_1 + \varepsilon) \times \dots \times (x_n - \varepsilon, x_n + \varepsilon) \subset \mathbb{R}^n - A[/itex]. Hence, for any [itex]x \in \martbb{R}^n - A[/itex] there exists an open rectangle [itex]B[/itex] such that [itex]x \in B \subset \mathbb{R}^n - A[/itex], completing the proof.

Does this work any better? I just started learning about open and closed sets today so I appreciate all the help that I can get. Thanks again!
 
This almost works like a charm. But the fact that [tex]\varepsilon > 0[/tex] requires you to prove that [tex][a_i,b_i][/tex] is closed in R. There's an easier way to pick [tex]\varepsilon = \frac{ 1 }{ 2 } \min \{ |x_i-a_i|, |x_i-b_i| \}[/tex].
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K