MHB Why Is a Rectangle Considered Closed and Bounded in Volume Proofs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounded Closed
Click For Summary
A rectangle is considered closed and bounded in volume proofs because closed rectangles, defined by closed intervals, have well-defined boundaries that allow for precise measurement of volume. In contrast, open rectangles can be expressed as unions of closed intervals, which complicates the calculation of outer measure. The closed and bounded condition simplifies the proof by ensuring that all points within the rectangle are included, making it easier to establish that the outer measure equals the volume. This approach avoids potential issues with infinite limits and undefined boundaries present in open rectangles. Thus, focusing on closed and bounded rectangles is sufficient for proving that the outer measure matches the volume.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I am looking at the proof of the theorem that for any rectangle the outer measure is equal to the volume.

At the beginning of the proof there is the following sentence:

It is enough to look at the case where the rectangle R is closed and bounded.

Why does it stand?? (Wondering)

Is it maybe as followed??A closed rectangle is
$$[a_1,b_1] \times [a_2,b_2] \times \dots \times [a_d,b_d]$$

An open rectangle is
$$(a_1,b_1) \times (a_2,b_2) \times \dots \times (a_d,b_d)$$
which can be written as a union of closed intervals.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Is it maybe as followed??A closed rectangle is
$$[a_1,b_1] \times [a_2,b_2] \times \dots \times [a_d,b_d]$$

An open rectangle is
$$(a_1,b_1) \times (a_2,b_2) \times \dots \times (a_d,b_d)$$
which can be written as a union of closed intervals.

Or is there an other reason, why it is sufficient to suppose that $R$ is closed and bounded to prove that $m^*(R)=v(R)$?? (Wondering)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K