Undergrad Understanding the Heine Borel Theorem: An In-Depth Analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter kidsasd987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on clarifying the Heine Borel Theorem, particularly the relationship between gamma and beta, where gamma represents the supremum of a set F. The user questions why gamma must be greater than beta and the implications for the set S regarding finite coverings. They express confusion about the lack of a finite subcover for S_gamma+eps and whether it could still have one when combined with elements outside H_squiggly_bar. Additionally, there is a concern about undefined notation in the provided materials, which complicates understanding. The user seeks feedback on the proof's validity and the clarity of the questions posed.
kidsasd987
Messages
142
Reaction score
4
Hello, I have a question about Heine Borel Theorem.

First, I am not sure why we have to show
"gamma=Beta"
gamma is the supremum of F(which is equivalent to H_squiggly_bar in the text ), and it has to be greater than beta. Otherwise, S contains H_squiggly_barSecond, for the case 1, why S_gamma+eps does not have a finite subcovering? which definition the author is referring to?

I understand sup(F) = gamma, so S_gamma-eps must have a finite subcovering because by definition H_squiggly_bar is a set of finite subcovering. But isn't there a possibility that S_gamma+eps also has a finite subcovering?

That consists of H_squiggly bar + some finite set that belongs to H but not contained within H_squiglly bar?
 

Attachments

  • 스크린샷 2016-07-11 5.45.36 PM.png
    스크린샷 2016-07-11 5.45.36 PM.png
    94.4 KB · Views: 698
  • 스크린샷 2016-07-11 5.45.30 PM.png
    스크린샷 2016-07-11 5.45.30 PM.png
    76.5 KB · Views: 637
  • Heine_Borel_Theorem.png
    Heine_Borel_Theorem.png
    31.1 KB · Views: 1,526
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Without the text, the notation you use needs to be defined.
 
mathman said:
Without the text, the notation you use needs to be defined.

I am sorry. This is the updated version. Do you think the proof is right? and what do you think of the question at the end?
 

Attachments

  • Heine_Borel_2.png
    Heine_Borel_2.png
    28.9 KB · Views: 621
I am finding these attachments hard to read (type size). In the latest attachment, much of the analysis makes use of H_i, which is not defined.
 
Good morning I have been refreshing my memory about Leibniz differentiation of integrals and found some useful videos from digital-university.org on YouTube. Although the audio quality is poor and the speaker proceeds a bit slowly, the explanations and processes are clear. However, it seems that one video in the Leibniz rule series is missing. While the videos are still present on YouTube, the referring website no longer exists but is preserved on the internet archive...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K