What Sets Exhibit the Wada Property in R2, R3, and R?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tt2348
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Property
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Wada property in different dimensions, specifically examining what kinds of sets exhibit this property in R², R³, and R. Participants explore examples, conditions, and potential topological considerations related to the Wada property.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the lakes of Wada in R² serve as an example of three disjoint sets sharing the same boundary, suggesting a method to extend this concept to higher dimensions.
  • One participant proposes specific sets in R that they believe share a common boundary, but later acknowledges that these sets do not meet the necessary conditions for the Wada property.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the sets must be open and connected, arguing that open intervals in R cannot share a common boundary, thus questioning the validity of their earlier example.
  • There is a suggestion to explore whether removing the connectivity condition might allow for a valid example in R.
  • A participant mentions the complement of the Cantor set as a potential candidate for exhibiting odd properties, although they express uncertainty about its applicability.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on what is meant by "odd properties" in relation to the problem at hand.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the necessity for the sets to be open and connected, but there is disagreement regarding the existence of valid examples that satisfy the Wada property in R and the implications of removing the connectivity condition. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific properties and examples that could fulfill the criteria.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential misunderstanding of the requirements for the Wada property, particularly concerning the openness and connectivity of sets. The discussion also reflects uncertainty about the implications of altering these conditions.

tt2348
Messages
141
Reaction score
0
What kind of sets exhibit the wada property? I know R2 does but does it extend to R3 or R itself?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The lakes (or basins) of Wada are an example in the plane of 3 disjoint sets sharing the same boundary. You get an analogous (n+2)-dimensional construction by "elevating" in the additional dimensions. Namely, if B,C,D are the 3 disjoint sets in R², take B x R^n, C x R^n, D x R^n, where x is the cartesian product.

This takes care of every dimension except the first. In R, an example of 3 disjoint sets sharing the same boundary is A = {the points of the form 1/2n, n positive integer}, B= {the points of the form 1/(2n+1), n positive integer}, C={the points of the form -1/n, n positive integer}. Their common boundary being 0.
 
Don't the sets have to be open? Yes they do, also -1/n also has a boundary at -1, and 1/2n+1 and 1/2n have boundary points at 1/2, 1/3, so they don't have the same boundary.
 
Oh yes, you are right on all accounts. Plus, the sets have to be connected. So my exemple in R isn't good.

Connected open sets in R are open intervals. Clearly, no three open intervals can have a common boundary: call I_1 the interval containing -\infty and I_2 the interval containing +\infty. Then if I_1=(-\infty,a) and I_2=(b,
+\infty), it must be that a=b if these two are to have the same boundary. But then I_1 u I_2 = R\{a} and so there is no place to put the third interval I_3.

I wonder if it works if we remove the connectivity condition.
 
I was trying to think of a topology that maybe the open sets have odd properties on R. I was told that maybe the complement of the cantor set would work , but I think that may be wrong too
 
Well, what odd properties are you after?
 
Well I'm not sure.. Odd properties that make this problem easier? But it's kind of impossible to change the fact that Any open set will have an interval
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
715
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K