4
$\begingroup$

Mendelson, Introduction to Topology, p.52

$(8)$. Let $A$ be a non-empty subset of a metric space $(X,d)$. Let $x\in X$. Prove that $d(x,A)=0$ if, and only if, every nieghborhood $V$ of $x$ contains a point of $A$.

DEFINITION Given a subset $A$ of a metric space $X$, and $x\in X$, the distance of $x$ to $A$ is defined as:

$$d(x,A)=\inf\{d(x,a):a\in A\}$$

COROLLARY 5.9 Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space, $a\in X$ and $A$ a non-empty subset of $X$. Then there is a sequence $\{a_n\}$ of points of $A$ such that $\lim \; d(a,a_n)=d(a,A)$

PROOF

$(\Rightarrow)$ Suppose every neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. We must prove that $\inf\{d(x,a):a\in A\}=0$ But since every neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$, then there is a sequence of points $\{a_n\}$ of $A$ such that $\lim \;a_n=x$. It follows that $\lim \; d(x,a_n)=0$, and since $\{a_n\}\subset A$, $\inf\{d(x,a):a\in A\}=0$ since $d(x,a)\geq 0$ for any $a,x$.

$(\Leftarrow)$ Suppose $d(x,A)=0$. It follows by 5.9 that there is a sequence of points $\{a_n\}$ in $A$ such that $\lim \; d(x,a_n)=0$. But given a point $a\in X$, the function $f:X\to \Bbb R\;/\;f(x)=d(x,a)$ is continuous (just take $\epsilon =\delta$). Thus $\lim \; d(x,a_n)= d(x,\lim \;a_n)=0$. But $d(x,a)=0\iff x=a$, so $\lim \;a_n=x$. This means that for any neighborhood $V$ of $x$ there exists an $N$ such that $a_n \in V$ whenever $n>N$, so every neighborhood of $x$ contains some $a\in A$.

Is this alright? Is there any gap or circularity I'm missing?

  • 1
    There is a problem with $\Longleftarrow$ part. The sequence $\{a_n\}$ doesn't have a limit in general.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Norbert What do you mean?2012-07-16
  • 0
    You can't speak about $\lim a_n$ in equality $d(x,a_n)=d(x,\lim a_n)$. This limit may not exist2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Norbert I'm writing $\lim \;d(x,a_n)= d(x,\lim \; a_n)$. Why wouldn't it exist?2012-07-16
  • 2
    It exists in your case since $\lim d(x,a_n)=0$ is equivalent to $\lim a_n=x$. But take $x=1/2$ and $(a_n)=(1,0,10,1)$. Under the usual metric, $\lim d(x,a_n)=1/2$, but $\lim a_n$ does not exist.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @MichaelGreinecker Exactly what I meant2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Norbert: I am confused. As mentioned, $d(x,A)=0$ implies the existence of $a_n\in A$ with $d(x,a_n)\to 0$. Bu definition the latter means $\lim a_n=x$. Therefore I don't understand Norbert's objection, and I don't understand why Peter introduces his function $f$.2012-07-16
  • 1
    @PeterTamaroff You don't know a priori that the limit exists. But you can argue directly that $\lim d(x,a_n)=0$ implies that $\lim a_n$ exists and its equal to $x$.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @MichaelGreinecker The sequence can't be finite. When I write $\lim $ I mean $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}$. I'm sorry if that caused confusion.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @azarel Could you put that into an answer? (With the explanation)2012-07-16
  • 0
    That was a typo, I meant $(1,0,1,0,\ldots)$.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @PeterTamaroff The equivalence between $\lim d(x,a_n)=0$ and $\lim a_n=x$ is tautological. So I don't know how to explain it.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @azarel But that's what I'm saying (since the distance function is continuous). However Norbert seems to object that.2012-07-16
  • 0
    Your statement that there is a sequence of points of $A$ converging to $x$ in the $\Rightarrow$ direction is unsupported. To construct such a sequence, you must choose a sequence of shrinking neighborhoods of $x$, like $B(x,1), B(x,1/2), B(x,1/3), \dots$ and choose one point from $A$ for each such ball.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Peter: There are different definitions of convergence in metric saces, that are all equivalent. Whether $\lim a_n=x\iff \lim d(a_,x)=0$ is something that needs proof depends o whether you start with it as a definition.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Carl Maybe, but I think it is clear. I just show the sequence exists, I don't need to construct it.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Peter: You do not show that it exists - the corollary doesn't apply because you haven't shown that $d(x,A) = 0$ yet.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Carl I'm not using the corollary, I'm using the theorem that says that $\lim\; a_n=a \iff$ for every nbhd $V$ of $a$,$a_n\notin V$ for only a finite number of $a_n$'s, or any equivalent form you like.2012-07-16
  • 0
    You may be interested in [this related answer](http://math.stackexchange.com/a/87725) and the threads linked therein.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @t.b. Thank you, but that is way out of my league for the moment. =)2012-07-16

2 Answers 2

3

You can get a cleaner proof when you avoid sequences altogether:

Suppose that every neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. Obviously, $d(x,A)\geq 0$. Now let $\epsilon>0$. Then there exists by assumption $a\in A$ with $d(x,a)<\epsilon$. Since $\epsilon$ was arbitrary, $d(x,A)=0$.

Suppose that $d(x,A)=0$. Let $\epsilon>0$. By assumption, there is $a\in A$ with $d(x,a)<\epsilon$. Hence, every open $\epsilon$-ball around $x$ contain an element of $A$. Since every neighborhood of $x$ is a superset of such a ball, we are done.

Afficionados might note that one avoids having to make arbitrary choices in the sequence-free proof.


Edit: On your own proof. The original proof is correct except for your argument that $\lim d(x,a_n)=0$ implies $\lim a_n=x$. The result is true, but there is a subtle flaw in the argument. You seem to use the sequence characteriation of continuity there, so that $f$ is continuous at $y$ if $f(y_n)$ converges to $f(y)$ whenever $y_n$ converges to $y$. To apply that in your case, you need to assume that the sequence $(a_n)$ is convergent. It is, but that is something you have to prove first.

  • 0
    How can it even be possible that $d(x,a)<0$? I understand the second part of your proof though. I'd like if you could correct my proof, too, which is in fact why I included it in the post.2012-07-16
  • 0
    That was a typo and should have been an $\epsilon$.2012-07-16
  • 0
    Oh, sure. Could you comment or expand a little on my proof? I'm mostly on my own on this, so understanding my own mistakes is something I could really use.2012-07-16
  • 0
    It's a matter of taste, but I don't agree that this is necessarily cleaner than using sequences. Basically, it is the difference between working directly with neighborhoods, or in the language of sequences (or more generally nets).2012-07-16
  • 1
    @wildildildlife: This might be an aesthetic tendency of those of us who prefer not to ivoke the axio of choice without necessity.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @MichaelGreinecker About the edit: $f$ is continuous **if and only if** whenever $\lim \; a_n =a$ then $\lim\; f(a_n)=f(a)$ so I think the justification is OK, isn't it?2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Michael: You can always talk about nets instead! :-)2012-07-16
  • 0
    @PeterTamaroff Yes, but $\lim f(a_n)$ can exist even when $\lim a_n$ does not. For eaxample, if $f$ is constant, every sequence converges after being transformed by $f$.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Asaf: I think to show that $x\in\text{cl}A$ implies the existence of a net in $A$ that converges to $x$ still requires AC. If not, I would be very surprised.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @MichaelGreinecker Makoto Kato might be up for a proof of that. He seems particularily interested in proving stuff without AC.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Michael: Perhaps you are right, but in metrizable spaces I think we may be able to engineer some net using the metric. I will have to think about it, though.2012-07-16
  • 0
    I must say your proof is very, very clear. Thanks.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Michael: Interestingly enough, I can't find much about this. Mostly because either AC is assumed and sequences are enough; or because people care about other properties broken without AC. I did glimpse and saw a situation where amorphous sets can be subsets of a metric space (non-trivially, I hope). I'll see if I can arrange such space, and how nets behave within amorphous sets.2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Asaf: I think you can actually avoid AC. Let $x\in\text{cl}A$. Use the directed set of pairs $(U,u)$ with $U$ being a neighborhood of $x$ and $u\in A\cap U$, such that $(U,u)\geq (V,v)$ if $U\subseteq V$. Then the net $(U,u)\mapsto u$ should converge to $x$ and lie wholly in $A$2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Michael: Nice. I found a paper by Brunner but it is in German, so I'm not sure if it is relevant. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02007144 I will keep thinking about the question though. Interesting! Let me know if this paper has anything significant to add...2012-07-16
  • 0
    @Asaf: i can't access the text, but it seems to be concerned with special cases of the Tychonov theorem. I found [this](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/84994/nets-preoredered-sets-or-posets) relevant post by Gerald Edgar. Essentially, if you do not require nets to be indexed by posets, you can instead of making a choice make all choices simultaneously, which works without AC. Anyways, it's time to sleep for me...2012-07-16
  • 0
    @MichaelGreinecker: Silly me. This is much simpler. There cannot be non-discrete amorphous metric spaces (fix $x$ and define the function $f(y)=d(x,y)$, the range must be finite, so almost all points have equal distance from $x$. This holds for all $x$, so every point is isolated.)... maybe if we go higher in the food-chain. Interesting... I'll have to think about it.2012-07-16
  • 0
    (in reply to Michael): That's possible, I for one are happy to use AC at will in point-set topology. As for your proposed AC-less argument: how do you prove that your pre-ordered set of pairs $(U,u\in A\cap U)$ is directed? An upper bound for $(U,u)$ and $(V,v)$ is $(U\cap V,w)$ where $w\in U\cap V\cap A$ is chosen...does this choice (which must be done for all such $U,V$) not need AC?2012-07-17
  • 0
    @wildildildlife: You don't have to construct a function that maps any two neighborhoods into a point with their intersection with $A$. That for any neighborhoods $U$ and $V$ there is some $x\in A\cap U\cap V$ follows from $U\cap V$ being a neighborhood and from $A\cap W\neq\emptyset$ for every neighborhood $W$ of $x$. The discussion [here](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/132717/axiom-of-choice-and-finite-sets) might be helpful.2012-07-17
  • 0
    Right, you don't have to make a choice for all such $U,V$ simultaneously. It's somewhat remarkable (to me) that you can avoid AC by simply looking at a bigger directed set; I like your argument very much!2012-07-17
1

Your proof is perfectly fine.

Basically, you have proved $d(x,A)=0$ iff $x\in \overline{A}$ (i.e. every neighborhood of $x$ meets $A$), by using the intermediate equivalence between $x\in \overline{A}$ and the existence of $a_n\in A$ with $a_n\to x$.

As I mentioned in the comments, there is no need to introduce your function $f$, since $d(x,a_n)\to 0$ is equivalent to $\lim a_n=x$. Depending on your definition, this is either a tautology or a triviality. In any case I don't understand the objections in the comments about $\lim a_n$ which might not exist...of course it does, since $d(x,a_n)\to 0$...

  • 0
    And what should $\bar A$ be?2012-07-16
  • 0
    @PeterTamaroff: I am sorry, $\overline{A}$ means the closure of $A$.2012-07-16
  • 0
    Oh. That is something I am not introduced to yet. =/2012-07-16
  • 0
    @PeterTamaroff: don't worry, usually $\overline{A}$ is *defined* as $x\in \overline{A}$ iff every neighborhood of $x$ meets $A$, so this is just another way to say what Mendelson asked you to prove.2012-07-16
  • 0
    So I can just say "...there is a sequence of points in $A$ such that $\lim\;d(x,a_n)=0$, which means $\lim\;a_n=x$."2012-07-16
  • 0
    @PeterTamaroff: Well, yes. As I said, the equivalence between $d(x,a_n)\to 0$ and $a_n\to x$ is either a definition or a triviality. Of course if it is not your definition, and you don't find it a triviality either, then you need to prove it for yourself.2012-07-17
  • 0
    Sorry to tell you this so late, but indeed I have defined that for a sequence of points $a_n$ in a metric space, we write $\lim \; a_n=a$ if $d(a,a_n)\to 0$.2012-07-22