I Understanding metric space definition through concrete examples

Ricster55
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
Right now, I am studying Advanced Calculus (proof based), and it is hard thinking through some of the definitions without first thinking about it concretely (meaning how to visualize it better geometrically, if that makes any sense?). I need help with this definition.

Definition

Let X be a metric space. A set G ⊂ X is open if for every a ∈ G there exists r > 0 such that Br(a) ⊂ G. A subset F ⊂ X is closed if F^C = X - F is open.

How do I try to "visualize" this definition, through say, a diagram or a set example?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It just means that for every point in the set, you can find a small open ball that is contained entirely in the set.

If you think about this in general ##\mathbb{R}^n## space (where the intuition comes from), and consider a bounded set, this means that nothing of a boundary is included in the set itself, because if there would be a point on the boundary, any ball with center that point will intersect the complement of the set, so the set isn't open.

Therefore, I like to think about openness as if the set has no boundary.

For example, ##(0,1)## is open in the reals with the usual metric, because it does not contain its 'boundary points' and ##[0,1)## is not open, because any ball with center 0 will contain a point smaller than ##0##.

Notice that this intuition starts to break down in general metric spaces. Take for example any set with the discrete metric.
 
I'd first take the real line as example, so the open sets are open intervals. The ##B_r(a)## are required to be open: ##B_r(a)=\{x\in X\,: \,||x-a|| < r\}## which is usually written ##U_r(a)##. The ##B_r(a)## are commonly reserved for closed balls.

After that you could do the same in the plane.
 
Math_QED said:
It just means that for every point in the set, you can find a small open ball that is contained entirely in the set.

If you think about this in general ##\mathbb{R}^n## space (where the intuition comes from), and consider a bounded set, this means that nothing of a boundary is included in the set itself, because if there would be a point on the boundary, any ball with center that point will intersect the complement of the set, so the set isn't open.

Therefore, I like to think about openness as if the set has no boundary.

For example, ##(0,1)## is open in the reals with the usual metric, because it does not contain its 'boundary points' and ##[0,1)## is not open, because any ball with center 0 will contain a point smaller than ##0##.

Notice that this intuition starts to break down in general metric spaces. Take for example any set with the discrete metric.
aah, I think I get it now. Thanks for the reply
 
  • Like
Likes member 587159
I posted this question on math-stackexchange but apparently I asked something stupid and I was downvoted. I still don't have an answer to my question so I hope someone in here can help me or at least explain me why I am asking something stupid. I started studying Complex Analysis and came upon the following theorem which is a direct consequence of the Cauchy-Goursat theorem: Let ##f:D\to\mathbb{C}## be an anlytic function over a simply connected region ##D##. If ##a## and ##z## are part of...
Back
Top