Isn't this proof of a theorem about the closedness of a set wrong?
I was reading a proof of the following theorem in my textbook:
A set $A$ is closed iff $A' subseteq A$.
Proof: Suppose $A$ is closed and $x in A'$. If $x notin A$, then $xin A^c$, an open set. Thus $mathcal{N}(x, delta)subseteq A^c$ for some positive $delta$. But then $mathcal{N}(x, delta)$ can contain no points of $A$. Thus $x$ is not an accumulation point of $A$ and so $xnotin A'$, a contradiction. We conclude that $xin A$. Therefore $A'subseteq A$.
Now suppose $A'subseteq A$. To show that $A$ is closed, we show $A^c$ is open. If $A^c$ is not open, there is $xin A^c$ that is not an interior point of $A^c$. Therefore, no $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ is a subset of $A^c$; that is, each $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. This point must be different from $x$, since $xin A^c$. Thus $xin A'$. But $A'subseteq A$, so $xin A$. This is a contradiction. We conclude that $A$ is closed.
Somewhere along the proof, the complement of $A$ is proven to be open. In order to achieve this, the author first assumes that it's not open and produces a contradiction. But isn't that wrong since it's possible for a set to be neither open nor closed?
general-topology
edited 2 days ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
asked 2 days ago
cppcodercppcoder
1484
New contributor
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I was reading a proof of the following theorem in my textbook:
A set $A$ is closed iff $A' subseteq A$.
Proof: Suppose $A$ is closed and $x in A'$. If $x notin A$, then $xin A^c$, an open set. Thus $mathcal{N}(x, delta)subseteq A^c$ for some positive $delta$. But then $mathcal{N}(x, delta)$ can contain no points of $A$. Thus $x$ is not an accumulation point of $A$ and so $xnotin A'$, a contradiction. We conclude that $xin A$. Therefore $A'subseteq A$.
Now suppose $A'subseteq A$. To show that $A$ is closed, we show $A^c$ is open. If $A^c$ is not open, there is $xin A^c$ that is not an interior point of $A^c$. Therefore, no $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ is a subset of $A^c$; that is, each $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. This point must be different from $x$, since $xin A^c$. Thus $xin A'$. But $A'subseteq A$, so $xin A$. This is a contradiction. We conclude that $A$ is closed.
Somewhere along the proof, the complement of $A$ is proven to be open. In order to achieve this, the author first assumes that it's not open and produces a contradiction. But isn't that wrong since it's possible for a set to be neither open nor closed?
general-topology
edited 2 days ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
asked 2 days ago
cppcodercppcoder
1484
New contributor
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
5
What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
– angryavian
2 days ago
1
To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
– copper.hat
2 days ago
2
He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
– fleablood
2 days ago
1
As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
– Jim
2 days ago
add a comment |
I was reading a proof of the following theorem in my textbook:
A set $A$ is closed iff $A' subseteq A$.
Proof: Suppose $A$ is closed and $x in A'$. If $x notin A$, then $xin A^c$, an open set. Thus $mathcal{N}(x, delta)subseteq A^c$ for some positive $delta$. But then $mathcal{N}(x, delta)$ can contain no points of $A$. Thus $x$ is not an accumulation point of $A$ and so $xnotin A'$, a contradiction. We conclude that $xin A$. Therefore $A'subseteq A$.
Now suppose $A'subseteq A$. To show that $A$ is closed, we show $A^c$ is open. If $A^c$ is not open, there is $xin A^c$ that is not an interior point of $A^c$. Therefore, no $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ is a subset of $A^c$; that is, each $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. This point must be different from $x$, since $xin A^c$. Thus $xin A'$. But $A'subseteq A$, so $xin A$. This is a contradiction. We conclude that $A$ is closed.
Somewhere along the proof, the complement of $A$ is proven to be open. In order to achieve this, the author first assumes that it's not open and produces a contradiction. But isn't that wrong since it's possible for a set to be neither open nor closed?
general-topology
edited 2 days ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
asked 2 days ago
cppcodercppcoder
1484
New contributor
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I was reading a proof of the following theorem in my textbook:
A set $A$ is closed iff $A' subseteq A$.
Proof: Suppose $A$ is closed and $x in A'$. If $x notin A$, then $xin A^c$, an open set. Thus $mathcal{N}(x, delta)subseteq A^c$ for some positive $delta$. But then $mathcal{N}(x, delta)$ can contain no points of $A$. Thus $x$ is not an accumulation point of $A$ and so $xnotin A'$, a contradiction. We conclude that $xin A$. Therefore $A'subseteq A$.
Now suppose $A'subseteq A$. To show that $A$ is closed, we show $A^c$ is open. If $A^c$ is not open, there is $xin A^c$ that is not an interior point of $A^c$. Therefore, no $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ is a subset of $A^c$; that is, each $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. This point must be different from $x$, since $xin A^c$. Thus $xin A'$. But $A'subseteq A$, so $xin A$. This is a contradiction. We conclude that $A$ is closed.
Somewhere along the proof, the complement of $A$ is proven to be open. In order to achieve this, the author first assumes that it's not open and produces a contradiction. But isn't that wrong since it's possible for a set to be neither open nor closed?
general-topology
general-topology
edited 2 days ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
asked 2 days ago
cppcodercppcoder
1484
New contributor
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
asked 2 days ago
cppcodercppcoder
1484
New contributor
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
edited 2 days ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
edited 2 days ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32427757
302k32427757
asked 2 days ago
cppcodercppcoder
1484
New contributor
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
cppcodercppcoder
1484
asked 2 days ago
cppcodercppcoder
1484
1484
New contributor
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
5
What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
– angryavian
2 days ago
1
To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
– copper.hat
2 days ago
2
He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
– fleablood
2 days ago
1
As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
– Jim
2 days ago
add a comment |
5
What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
– angryavian
2 days ago
1
To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
– copper.hat
2 days ago
2
He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
– fleablood
2 days ago
1
As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
– Jim
2 days ago
5
5
What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
– angryavian
2 days ago
What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
– angryavian
2 days ago
1
1
To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
– copper.hat
2 days ago
To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
– copper.hat
2 days ago
2
2
He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
– fleablood
2 days ago
He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
– fleablood
2 days ago
1
1
As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
– Jim
2 days ago
As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
– Jim
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.
answered 2 days ago
ArthurArthur
111k7107190
Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
– cppcoder
2 days ago
add a comment |
There are four possiblities
1) $A^c$ is open and closed.
2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.
3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.
4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.
He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.
However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.
So it comes down to:
I) $A^c$ is open. or
II) $A^c$ is not open.
He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.
But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....
answered 2 days ago
fleabloodfleablood
68.7k22685
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066825%2fisnt-this-proof-of-a-theorem-about-the-closedness-of-a-set-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.
answered 2 days ago
ArthurArthur
111k7107190
Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
– cppcoder
2 days ago
add a comment |
No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.
answered 2 days ago
ArthurArthur
111k7107190
Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
– cppcoder
2 days ago
add a comment |
No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.
answered 2 days ago
ArthurArthur
111k7107190
No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.
answered 2 days ago
ArthurArthur
111k7107190
answered 2 days ago
ArthurArthur
111k7107190
answered 2 days ago
ArthurArthur
111k7107190
answered 2 days ago
ArthurArthur
111k7107190
111k7107190
Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
– cppcoder
2 days ago
add a comment |
Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
– cppcoder
2 days ago
Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
– cppcoder
2 days ago
Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
– cppcoder
2 days ago
add a comment |
There are four possiblities
1) $A^c$ is open and closed.
2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.
3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.
4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.
He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.
However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.
So it comes down to:
I) $A^c$ is open. or
II) $A^c$ is not open.
He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.
But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....
answered 2 days ago
fleabloodfleablood
68.7k22685
add a comment |
There are four possiblities
1) $A^c$ is open and closed.
2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.
3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.
4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.
He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.
However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.
So it comes down to:
I) $A^c$ is open. or
II) $A^c$ is not open.
He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.
But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....
answered 2 days ago
fleabloodfleablood
68.7k22685
add a comment |
There are four possiblities
1) $A^c$ is open and closed.
2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.
3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.
4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.
He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.
However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.
So it comes down to:
I) $A^c$ is open. or
II) $A^c$ is not open.
He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.
But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....
answered 2 days ago
fleabloodfleablood
68.7k22685
There are four possiblities
1) $A^c$ is open and closed.
2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.
3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.
4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.
He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.
However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.
So it comes down to:
I) $A^c$ is open. or
II) $A^c$ is not open.
He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.
But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....
answered 2 days ago
fleabloodfleablood
68.7k22685
answered 2 days ago
fleabloodfleablood
68.7k22685
answered 2 days ago
fleabloodfleablood
68.7k22685
answered 2 days ago
fleabloodfleablood
68.7k22685
68.7k22685
add a comment |
add a comment |
cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066825%2fisnt-this-proof-of-a-theorem-about-the-closedness-of-a-set-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
– angryavian
2 days ago
1
To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
– copper.hat
2 days ago
2
He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
– fleablood
2 days ago
1
As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
– Jim
2 days ago