Is the Arbitrary Union of Open Sets in R Open?

  • Thread starter Thread starter autre
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets Union
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the arbitrary union of open sets in R is also open. The definition of an open set is provided, stating that for each element x in an open set A, there exists an epsilon such that the interval (x - epsilon, x + epsilon) is contained in A. The argument progresses by considering an element x in the union of open sets, confirming it belongs to at least one open set A_i. Since A_i is open, the necessary epsilon interval around x is also contained in the union. The conclusion drawn is that the arbitrary union of open sets is indeed open, affirming the initial claim.
autre
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
I have to prove that the arbitrary union of open sets (in R) is open.

So this is what I have so far:

Let \{A_{i\in I}\} be a collection of open sets in \mathbb{R}. I want to show that \bigcup_{i\in I}A_{i} is also open...

Any ideas from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
what is your definition of open set?
 
The definition we use is that a set A\subseteq\mathbb{R} is an open set if for each x\in A there exists an \epsilon>0 such that (x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\subseteq A.
 
note that if x \in \bigcup_{i \in I}A_i, then necessarily x \in A_i for some i.

can you continue...?
 
Let \{A_{i\in I}\} be a collection of open sets in \mathbb{R}. Let x\in\bigcup_{i\in I}A_{i}, then x\in A_{i} for some i. Since each A_{i} is open, there exists an \epsilon>0 such that (x-\epsilon,x+\epsilon)\subseteq A_{i}\subseteq\bigcup_{i\in I}A_{i}. Thus, \bigcup_{i\in I}A_{i} is open...

Am I on the right track?
 
looks good to me.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K