Metric Spaces: Interior of a Set

In summary: Any more hints?In summary, the interior of a set A is the union of all open subsets of A, and the closure of A is the intersection of all closed sets containing A. To show the equality ##int A = X - (\overline{X-A})##, we must show that for any element x, either x is in both ##int A## and ##X - (\overline{X-A})## or x is not in either. For the first inclusion, we can prove it by contradiction, assuming x is in both sets and finding a contradiction. For the second inclusion, we can assume x is in X but not in ##\overline{X-A}## and try to show that x is in
  • #1
Bashyboy
1,421
5

Homework Statement


Let ##(X,d)## be some metric space, and let ##A## be some subset of the metric space. The interior of the set ##A##, denoted as ##int A##, is defined to be ##\bigcup_{\alpha \in I} G_\alpha##, where ##G_\alpha \subseteq A## is open in ##X## for all ##\alpha \in I##. The closure of ##A##, denoted as ##\overline{A}##, is defined to be ## \bigcap_{\beta \in J} F_\beta##, where ##A \subseteq F_\beta## and ##F_\beta## is closed in ##X##.

I am asked to show ##int A = X - (\overline{X-A})##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I am first trying to show that ##int A \subseteq X - (\overline{X-A})##. Clearly if ##x \in int A##, then ##x## will also be in ##X##, because ##int A \subseteq X##. All that remains is to show that ##x \notin (\overline{X-A})##.

I could see a direct way of showing this inclusion, so I tried to prove it by contradiction, but that did not help either. Is there a direct way of showing this? Does anyone know if a direct proof is possible? Any hints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bashyboy said:

Homework Statement


Let ##(X,d)## be some metric space, and let ##A## be some subset of the metric space. The interior of the set ##A##, denoted as ##int A##, is defined to be ##\bigcup_{\alpha \in I} G_\alpha##, where ##G_\alpha \subseteq A## is open in ##X## for all ##\alpha \in I##. The closure of ##A##, denoted as ##\overline{A}##, is defined to be ## \bigcap_{\beta \in J} F_\beta##, where ##A \subseteq F_\beta## and ##F_\beta## is closed in ##X##.

I am asked to show ##int A = X - (\overline{X-A})##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I am first trying to show that ##int A \subseteq X - (\overline{X-A})##. Clearly if ##x \in int A##, then ##x## will also be in ##X##, because ##int A \subseteq X##. All that remains is to show that ##x \notin (\overline{X-A})##.

I could see a direct way of showing this inclusion, so I tried to prove it by contradiction, but that did not help either. Is there a direct way of showing this? Does anyone know if a direct proof is possible? Any hints?

A proof by contradiction is probably your best way forward in showing that something is *not* an element of a well defined set. Assume first that ##x## is in both ##\text{int } A## and ##\overline{X-A}##. This means, with respect to your definition of closure, that ##x## must be an element of *every* closed set that contains ##X - A##. Therefore, if we could find a closed set that contains ##X - A##, but does not contain ##x##, our contradiction would be complete.
##\text{int }A## is an open subset of A, so it therefore has an empty intersection with ##X - A##. What can we therefore say about the complement of ##\text{int }A## ? Do you see how this helps us in moving forward ?
 
  • #3
Yes, you hints have proved very helpful, so much so that I finished the proof. Now, though, I am having difficulty with the other inclusion. Here is what I have so far:

Suppose that ##x \in X - (\overline{X-A})##. Then ##x \in X## but ##x \notin (\overline{X-A}) = \bigcap_{j \in J} F_j##, which means ##x \notin F_j## for some ##j \in J##. However, ##x## will be in ##X-F_j##, which is open because ##F_j## is closed.

This is where I couldn't figure out how to proceed. I would like to show that ##X-F_j \subseteq A##, as this would mean ##X-F_j## is apart of the union ##\bigcup_{i \in I} G_i = int A##, which would conclude the proof. But I am uncertain of how to show this.
 

FAQ: Metric Spaces: Interior of a Set

What is the definition of the interior of a set in metric spaces?

The interior of a set in metric spaces is the collection of all points within the set that do not touch the boundary of the set. It is denoted as int(A) or Ao.

How is the interior of a set related to the closure of a set?

The interior of a set is a subset of the closure of that set. In other words, the interior of a set is contained within the closure of that set.

How is the interior of a set different from the boundary of a set?

The interior of a set only includes points within the set that do not touch the boundary, while the boundary includes all points that are on the edge of the set. In other words, the interior is a subset of the boundary.

Can the interior of a set be empty?

Yes, the interior of a set can be empty. This can happen when the set itself has no interior points, meaning all points within the set are touching the boundary.

How is the interior of a set useful in mathematical analysis?

The interior of a set is useful in mathematical analysis because it helps to define the concept of an open set. An open set is a set where all points within the set are interior points. This allows for the definition of continuity in metric spaces and helps to prove theorems in analysis.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
994
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
700
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top