Proving Openness of a Set in n-Dimensional Space | Math Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter stauros
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
stauros
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Prove if the following set is open

\displaystyle{A=\begin{cases}<br /> \vec{x}=(x_1,...,x_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n:x_n&gt;0\\<br /> \end{cases}} .


I have written the following proof and please correct me if i am wrong

Let : \displaystyle{\vec{x}\in A}


Then we have : \displaystyle{\vec{x}=(x_1,...,x_n)} with \displaystyle{x_n&gt;0}

Choose \epsilon such that \displaystyle{0&lt;\epsilon&lt;x_n} and then \displaystyle{B(\vec{x},\epsilon)\subseteq A}


This happens because if \displaystyle{\vec{y}=(y_1,...,y_n)\in B(\vec{x},\epsilon)} then \displaystyle{||\vec{y}-\vec{x}||&lt;\epsilon}

and \displaystyle{y_i\in\left(x_i-\epsilon,x_i+\epsilon\right)}

Then we have \displaystyle{y_n\in\left(x_n-\epsilon,x_n+\epsilon\right)} and thus \displaystyle{y_n&gt;0}[/quote]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stauros said:
Prove if the following set is open

\displaystyle{A=\begin{cases}<br /> \vec{x}=(x_1,...,x_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n:x_n&gt;0\\<br /> \end{cases}} .


I have written the following proof and please correct me if i am wrong

Let : \displaystyle{\vec{x}\in A}


Then we have : \displaystyle{\vec{x}=(x_1,...,x_n)} with \displaystyle{x_n&gt;0}

Choose \epsilon such that \displaystyle{0&lt;\epsilon&lt;x_n} and then \displaystyle{B(\vec{x},\epsilon)\subseteq A}
That makes no sense because there is no one number labeled "x_n". What you mean to say is that \epsilon&lt; min(x_n).


This happens because if \displaystyle{\vec{y}=(y_1,...,y_n)\in B(\vec{x},\epsilon)} then \displaystyle{||\vec{y}-\vec{x}||&lt;\epsilon}
Can you prove this? That is, after all the whole point of the exercise! In particular, what is the definition of ||\vec{y}-\vec{x}||?

and \displaystyle{y_i\in\left(x_i-\epsilon,x_i+\epsilon\right)}

Then we have \displaystyle{y_n\in\left(x_n-\epsilon,x_n+\epsilon\right)} and thus \displaystyle{y_n&gt;0}
 
HallsofIvy said:
That makes no sense because there is no one number labeled "x_n". What you mean to say is that \epsilon&lt; min(x_n).



Can you prove this? That is, after all the whole point of the exercise! In particular, what is the definition of ||\vec{y}-\vec{x}||?


Yes you right,how about the inequality: \displaystyle{0&lt;\epsilon&lt;x_k, \forall 1\le k \le n}.

But i think the center point of the problem is that:

|x_{i}-y_{i}|\leq ||x_{i}-y_{i}||&lt;\epsilon using the Euclidian norm
 
Last edited:
A sphere as topological manifold can be defined by gluing together the boundary of two disk. Basically one starts assigning each disk the subspace topology from ##\mathbb R^2## and then taking the quotient topology obtained by gluing their boundaries. Starting from the above definition of 2-sphere as topological manifold, shows that it is homeomorphic to the "embedded" sphere understood as subset of ##\mathbb R^3## in the subspace topology.
Back
Top