4
$\begingroup$

Let $f:\Bbb R\to \Bbb R$ and $D=\{x\in \Bbb R: f $ is discontinuous at $x\}$.

My problem is : Is it possible to have $D=\Bbb P$ where $\Bbb P$ is the set of irrationals in $\Bbb R$.

I know the answer is negative, but, how to prove it??

My attempt: First, I proved that $\Bbb P$ is not a countable union of closed sets in $\Bbb R$.Then, I read somewhere that $D$ is an $F_{\sigma}$ set (but don't know how to prove it).

If one could prove the second part, the problem is solved, but How to do it?? Thanks in advance!!

  • 1
    Also, partial duplicate: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/67620/set-of-continuity-points-of-a-real-function2012-08-16
  • 0
    $D$ is $F_{\sigma}$ set(which can be wriiten as countable union of closed sets) but $\Bbb P$ can't be written as countable union of closed sets in $\Bbb R\implies D$ can't be $\Bbb P$ for any function $f:\Bbb R\to \Bbb R$. I don't know how to prove that $D$ is an $F_{\sigma}$ set (i read it somewhere)2012-08-16
  • 4
    For a proof that $D$ is an $F_\sigma$ see [this answer](http://math.stackexchange.com/a/67626/12042) to the question cited by Fortuon.2012-08-16
  • 1
    For the proof that irrationals are not $F_\sigma$, see [How to show that $\mathbb{Q}$ is not $G_\delta$](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/69451/how-to-show-that-mathbbq-is-not-g-delta) and [Example of a Borel set that is neither $F_\sigma$ nor $G_\delta$](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/73296/example-of-a-borel-set-that-is-neither-f-sigma-nor-g-delta).2012-08-16

1 Answers 1

4

Denote $$G_{k}:=\bigcup\{U\subset\mathbb{R}:U\,\,\mathrm{is}\,\,\mathrm{open}\,\,\mathrm{and}\,\,|f(x)-f(y)|<\frac{1}{k}\,\,\mathrm{for}\,\,\mathrm{all}\,\,x,y\in U\}$$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Show that $D^{c}=\bigcap_{k=1}^{\infty}G_{k}$, making $D^{c}$ (i.e. the continuity points of $f$) a $G_{\delta}$-set and thus $D$ a $F_{\sigma}$. If you need some help concerning the steps I may expand this answer or give hints in the comment section.

And by the way, irrationals is not $F_{\sigma}$ because rationals is not $G_{\delta}$. If rationals were $G_{\delta}$, then as a countable completely metrizable topological space ($G_{\delta}$ subsets of a complete metric space are completely metrizable) it has an isolation point by Baire category theorem. But since rationals have no isolation points, this is a contradiction. Hence rationals is not $G_{\delta}$ and thus irrationals is not $F_{\sigma}$.

  • 4
    What is an isolation point? Do you mean isolated point? Anyway: it seems much easier to note that the irrationals $\mathbb{R}\smallsetminus \mathbb{Q} = \bigcap_{q \in \mathbb Q} \mathbb{R} \smallsetminus \{q\}$ are a dense $G_\delta$ and if the rationals were a $G_\delta$, Baire would tell us that $\mathbb{Q} \cap (\mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q})$ is dense.2012-08-16
  • 0
    @t.b. Yeah, I meant an isolated point. And true, that also does the job. Thanks for providing an alternative way of seeing it.2012-08-16
  • 0
    Somehow I managed to overlook the word *countable* in the argument of the second paragraph, that's why I was puzzled... A few further arguments can be found in the links of Martin's comment to the question.2012-08-16
  • 0
    @t.b. Yeah, the countability is important :) Baire implies that any countable completely metrizable topological space has an isolated point. If not, you could write the whole space as a countable union of nowhere dense closed sets (singletons), making the whole space to have an empty interior, which is a contradiction.2012-08-16