As the topic, how to prove that the only set in $\mathbb{R^1}$ which are both open and close are the $\mathbb{R^1}$ and $\emptyset$. I tried to prove by contradiction, but i can't really show that the assumption implies the contrary.
Are the only sets in $\mathbb{R^1}$ which are both open and closed $\mathbb{R^1}$ and $\emptyset$?
-
1Suppose that $X$ is both open and closed and that $a\in X$. Let $S = \lbrace x\ge a: [a,x]\subset X\rbrace$. Is $S$ bounded above? – 2012-09-23
-
0not sure if S is bounded or not – 2012-09-23
3 Answers
Take a set $A\subseteq \bf R$ which is closed and open. Suppose towards contradiction that $A$ is not the entire $\bf R$ and nonempty. Then there is some point $x_1\notin A$ and $x_0\in A$. Without loss of generality $x_0 Consider the interval $I=[x_0,x_1]$. $I\cap A$ is an intersection of closed sets, so it is closed, so $x'=\sup(I\cap A)$ is in $I\cap A$. Obviously, $x'
-
0Nice Answer :-) – 2014-09-30
Let $S\subset \Bbb R$ non-empty, open and closed. Fix $x_0\in S$. Let $I:=\{r>0,[x_0-r,x_0+r]\subset S$. As $S$ is open, $I$ is non-empty. If $I$ is bounded, let $\{r_n\}$ a sequence which increases to $\sup I$. Then $x_0+r_n\in S$ for each $n$, and as $S$ is closed $x_0+\sup I\in S$. But $S$ is open, so we can find $\delta>0$ such that $x_0\pm \sup I\pm t \in S$ for $0\leq t\leq \delta$, hence $\sup I+\delta\in I$, a contradiction.
So $S=\Bbb R$.
Note that such an approach works for $\Bbb R^d$ instead of $\Bbb R$. Just replace the interval $[x_0-r,x_0+r]$ by the closed ball $\bar B(x^{(0)},r):=\{x\in\Bbb R^d,\max_{1\leq j\leq d}|x_j-x_j^{(0)}|\leq r\}$.
-
0If $I$ is unbounded, can you still get a contrary or you just show it is equal to $\mathbb{R^1}$?? – 2012-09-23
-
0It shows that $I=\Bbb R^1$, as $I$ is an interval. – 2012-09-23
-
0So, is it true that $S$ is bounded since $I$ is bounded? – 2012-09-23
-
0Actually, $I$ is not bounded (I get a contradiction when I assumed it, and I think it's what you meant in your comment). – 2012-09-23
-
0o yup, also, for the part about sequence {$r_n$},, do you mean that $I$ is closed instead of $n$ is closed? – 2012-09-23
-
0Of course. I will fix it. Thanks. – 2012-09-23
Assume $U$ and its complement $V$ are both non-empty open subsets of $\mathbb R$. Then there are $x \in U$ and $y \in V$ and by switching the roles of $U$ and $V$, if necessary, we may assume $x < y$. Now let
$$a = \sup\{b \in \mathbb R : [x,b] \subseteq U \}$$
(the supremum exists since $x \in U$ and $y \not\in U$ and $x
-
0If $U$ is unbounded, $a=+\infty$ so how to get the contrary – 2012-09-23
-
0Even if $U$ is unbounded, $a$ isn't its $\sup$. $a$ is the $\sup$ of all $b \in \mathbb{R}$ for which the interval $[x, b]$ is a subset of $U$. This set must be bounded as $y \notin U$ and $x < y$. – 2012-09-23
-
0o, i c. So if U is unbounded and is a subset of R, would it still implies contrary? – 2012-09-23
-
0@abc: Boundedness is irrelevant. The attention is focussed on the interval $[x,y]$ only, where there is a switch (at least one) from "belonging to $U$" to "not belonging to $U$". – 2012-09-23