- #1
chipotleaway
- 174
- 0
In showing diam(cl(A)) ≤ diam(A), (cl(A)=closure of A) one method of proof* involves letting x,y be points in cl(A) and saying that for any radius r>0, balls B(x,r) and B(y,r) exist such that the balls intersect with A.
But if x,y is in cl(A), isn't there the possibility that x,y are isolated points? Shouldn't we let x,y be in the set of limit points of A?
But doing that, I get (a is in the intersection of B(x,r) and A, b is in the intersection of B(y,r) and A).
d(x,y)≤d(x,a)+d(a,b)+d(b,y)<2r+d(a,b)
Then taking the supremum of both sides
∴ sup{d(x,y): x,y in the set of limit points of A} ≤ 2r+sup{d(a,b): a,b in A}
∴ sup{d(x,y): x,y in the set of limit points of A} ≤ 2r+diam(A)
The problem being the left hand side doesn't become the definition of diam(cl(A))
*https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=416201 (post #6)
But if x,y is in cl(A), isn't there the possibility that x,y are isolated points? Shouldn't we let x,y be in the set of limit points of A?
But doing that, I get (a is in the intersection of B(x,r) and A, b is in the intersection of B(y,r) and A).
d(x,y)≤d(x,a)+d(a,b)+d(b,y)<2r+d(a,b)
Then taking the supremum of both sides
∴ sup{d(x,y): x,y in the set of limit points of A} ≤ 2r+sup{d(a,b): a,b in A}
∴ sup{d(x,y): x,y in the set of limit points of A} ≤ 2r+diam(A)
The problem being the left hand side doesn't become the definition of diam(cl(A))
*https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=416201 (post #6)