Cartesian product of open sets is a open set

In summary, the problem is reduced to the case where A,B are open balls in X,Y respectively. Then, for every z\in A\times B there is some ball B_{z,\epsilon_{3}}^{\rho_{3}}\subseteq B_{x,\epsilon_{1}}^{\rho_{1}}\times B_{y,\epsilon_{2}}^{\rho_{2}}\subseteq A\times B.
  • #1
ELESSAR TELKONT
44
0

Homework Statement



This is not really coursework. Instead, this is some sort of curiosity and proposition formulation rush. Then the initial questions are that if this is a valid result that is worth to be proven.

Let [itex]X,Y[/itex] be metric spaces and [itex]X\times Y[/itex] with another metric the product metric space. [itex]A\subseteq X, B\subseteq Y[/itex] be open sets, then [itex]A\times B\subseteq X\times Y[/itex] is open.

Homework Equations



Definition of open and metric properties.

The Attempt at a Solution



The problem is possible to be reduced to the case where [itex]A,B[/itex] are open balls in [itex]X,Y[/itex] respectively, since one definition of openess is based on the fact that a every point in an open set has some neighborhood contained into the set. Then I think there must be a relationship between metrics on factor spaces and product space one. There is where I'm stuck.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Any point in A x B can be written (x, y) with x in A and y in B. What can you say about balls centered on x in A and on y in B?
 
  • #3
Well, as I have said in my first post this can be reduced to think about balls. I'll go more explicit about this.

As Halls of Ivy said if [itex]z\in A\times B[/itex], by definition of cartesian product there are some [itex]x\in A,\, y\in B[/itex] such that [itex]z=(x,y)[/itex]. Since the factor sets are open in their metric spaces [itex]X,\,Y[/itex] there are some [itex]\epsilon_{1}>0,\,\epsilon_{2}>0[/itex] such that [itex]B_{x,\epsilon_{1}}^{\rho_{1}}\subseteq A,\, B_{y,\epsilon_{2}}^{\rho_{2}}\subseteq B[/itex], this is by definition of open set. But then is obvious, from results of cartesian product that [itex]B_{x,\epsilon_{1}}^{\rho_{1}}\times B_{y,\epsilon_{2}}^{\rho_{2}}\subseteq A\times B\subseteq X\times Y[/itex].

Then, if I prove that [itex]B_{x,\epsilon_{1}}^{\rho_{1}}\times B_{y,\epsilon_{2}}^{\rho_{2}}[/itex] is open and since for every [itex]z\in A\times B[/itex] can construct this then there is some ball [itex]B_{z,\epsilon_{3}}^{\rho_{3}}\subseteq B_{x,\epsilon_{1}}^{\rho_{1}}\times B_{y,\epsilon_{2}}^{\rho_{2}}\subseteq A\times B[/itex] and the cartesian product is open in the product space.

How do I show this with an arbitrary metric [itex]\rho_{3}[/itex] on the product space?
 
  • #4
I tried with contradiction argument on this:

Let [itex]B_{x,\epsilon_{1}}^{\rho_{1}}\times B_{y,\epsilon_{2}}^{\rho_{2}}[/itex] no open in [itex](X\times Y,\rho_{3})[/itex]. Then there is some [itex]z_{0}\in B_{x,\epsilon_{1}}^{\rho_{1}}\times B_{y,\epsilon_{2}}^{\rho_{2}}=C[/itex] such that for every [itex]\delta>0[/itex] [itex]B_{z_{0},\delta}^{\rho_{3}}\cap C\neq\emptyset\land B_{z_{0},\delta}^{\rho_{3}}\cap((X\times Y)\setminus C)\neq\emptyset[/itex].

But that implies the following: For every [itex]\delta>0[/itex] there are some [itex]z_{\delta}\in B_{z_{0},\delta}^{\rho_{4}}[/itex] such that exists [itex]\xi_{\delta}\in X,\, \eta_{\delta}\in Y[/itex] but [itex]\xi_{\delta}\notin B_{x,\epsilon_{1}}^{\rho_{1}}\lor \eta_{\delta}\notin B_{y,\epsilon_{2}}^{\rho_{2}}[/itex]. Then [itex]\rho_{1}(\xi_{\delta},x)\geq\epsilon_{1}\lor \rho_{2}(\eta_{\delta},y)\geq\epsilon_{2}[/itex] but [itex]\rho_{3}(z_{\delta},z)<\delta[/itex].

Although I reach this I think the conclusion is not right. The conclusion is: Since this is for every [itex]\delta>0[/itex] then I have a set of points that approximates to [itex]z[/itex] for decreasing [itex]\delta>0[/itex] but in the balls on [itex]X,Y[/itex] they go farther or stay at the same distance. This is not possible, then the suposition that the product of balls is not open in [itex](X\times Y,\rho_{3})[/itex] leads a contradiction then the product of balls is open in [itex](X\times Y,\rho_{3})[/itex] and then the product of any open sets is open in [itex](X\times Y,\rho_{3})[/itex]

Is it right?
 

FAQ: Cartesian product of open sets is a open set

What is the Cartesian product of open sets?

The Cartesian product of open sets is a mathematical operation that combines two or more sets to create a new set. It is denoted by the symbol "x" and is defined as the set of all possible ordered pairs where the first element comes from the first set and the second element comes from the second set.

How is the Cartesian product of open sets different from the Cartesian product of closed sets?

The main difference between the Cartesian product of open sets and closed sets is that the resulting set in the former is always an open set, while in the latter it can be either open or closed. This is because open sets allow for the inclusion of boundary points, while closed sets do not.

What is the significance of the Cartesian product of open sets being an open set?

The fact that the Cartesian product of open sets is always an open set is important because it allows for easier manipulation and analysis of mathematical objects. This property is extensively used in topology, functional analysis, and other branches of mathematics.

Can the Cartesian product of open sets be infinite?

Yes, the Cartesian product of open sets can be infinite. The number of elements in the resulting set is equal to the product of the number of elements in each individual set. Therefore, if the individual sets are infinite, the Cartesian product will also be infinite.

Is the Cartesian product of open sets always commutative?

Yes, the Cartesian product of open sets is commutative, meaning that the order of the sets does not affect the resulting set. This can be seen from the definition of the Cartesian product, where the order of the elements in the ordered pairs does not matter. Therefore, switching the order of the sets will not change the resulting set.

Back
Top