I am not sure how to finish the proof of showing that the intersection of finitely many open subsets is open. The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InShow that the infinite intersection of nested non-empty closed subsets of a compact space is not emptyHelp Me Understand: Proof that Finite Intersection of Open Sets is OpenProve the existence of disjoint open subsetsWould the following proof be wrong? (About the intersections of compact subsets)Proof on Cross - Product of Open SubsetsIs this proof that intervals are connected correct?Finding a special subsequence of any Cauchy sequenceSequence of nested closed balls has not empty intersection, implies that a metric space is completeIs this a valid proof that if an element $x$, is within the closure of a set $A$ (in a metric space) then $exists (a_n) in A : a_n rightarrow x$All unbounded metric spaces are not compact. (Proof Verification)
Can a rogue use sneak attack with weapons that have the thrown property even if they are not thrown?
Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit
Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?
How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?
The difference between dialogue marks
Are there incongruent pythagorean triangles with the same perimeter and same area?
What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?
Delete all lines which don't have n characters before delimiter
How can I autofill dates in Excel excluding Sunday?
Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"
If a Druid sees an animal’s corpse, can they wild shape into that animal?
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
How to manage monthly salary
If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?
"as much details as you can remember"
Statement true because not provable
FPGA - DIY Programming
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?
Why can Shazam fly?
Do these rules for Critical Successes and Critical Failures seem Fair?
Can a flute soloist sit?
What does ひと匙 mean in this manga and has it been used colloquially?
What are the motivations for publishing new editions of an existing textbook, beyond new discoveries in a field?
I am not sure how to finish the proof of showing that the intersection of finitely many open subsets is open.
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InShow that the infinite intersection of nested non-empty closed subsets of a compact space is not emptyHelp Me Understand: Proof that Finite Intersection of Open Sets is OpenProve the existence of disjoint open subsetsWould the following proof be wrong? (About the intersections of compact subsets)Proof on Cross - Product of Open SubsetsIs this proof that intervals are connected correct?Finding a special subsequence of any Cauchy sequenceSequence of nested closed balls has not empty intersection, implies that a metric space is completeIs this a valid proof that if an element $x$, is within the closure of a set $A$ (in a metric space) then $exists (a_n) in A : a_n rightarrow x$All unbounded metric spaces are not compact. (Proof Verification)
$begingroup$
I am trying to prove the following:
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. An intersection of finitely many open subsets of $X$ is open.
The following is my attempt:
Let $x in bigcap_i=1^n U_i$ be arbitrary, where $U_i$'s are open subsets in $X$, for each $i=1,2,3,ldots,n-1,n.$
Since $x in bigcap_i=1^n U_i$, $x in U_i$ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
Because all $U_i$'s are open, for each $i,$ there exists $epsilon_i>0$ such that $B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i.$
Let $epsilon = minepsilon_1, epsilon_2, epsilon_3, ldots , epsilon_n-1, epsilon_n.$
Then $B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x)$ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
Question:
I am not quite sure of how to finish the proof, by showing that $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n U_i.$
My reasoning for the ending of the proof:
Intuitively, it makes sense that $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n U_i$, since the open ball centred at $x$, with radius $epsilon$ contains all points that are only in all of the sets $B_epsilon_1(x),,B_epsilon_2(x),,B_epsilon_3(x),ldots,,B_epsilon_n-1(x)$ and $,B_epsilon_n(x).$
Would it be correct in writing
beginequation*
B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)?
endequation*
Then would it be the case that $$B_epsilon(x) =bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^nU_i,$$
therefore $bigcap_i=1^nU_i$ is open?
general-topology elementary-set-theory metric-spaces
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to prove the following:
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. An intersection of finitely many open subsets of $X$ is open.
The following is my attempt:
Let $x in bigcap_i=1^n U_i$ be arbitrary, where $U_i$'s are open subsets in $X$, for each $i=1,2,3,ldots,n-1,n.$
Since $x in bigcap_i=1^n U_i$, $x in U_i$ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
Because all $U_i$'s are open, for each $i,$ there exists $epsilon_i>0$ such that $B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i.$
Let $epsilon = minepsilon_1, epsilon_2, epsilon_3, ldots , epsilon_n-1, epsilon_n.$
Then $B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x)$ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
Question:
I am not quite sure of how to finish the proof, by showing that $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n U_i.$
My reasoning for the ending of the proof:
Intuitively, it makes sense that $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n U_i$, since the open ball centred at $x$, with radius $epsilon$ contains all points that are only in all of the sets $B_epsilon_1(x),,B_epsilon_2(x),,B_epsilon_3(x),ldots,,B_epsilon_n-1(x)$ and $,B_epsilon_n(x).$
Would it be correct in writing
beginequation*
B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)?
endequation*
Then would it be the case that $$B_epsilon(x) =bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^nU_i,$$
therefore $bigcap_i=1^nU_i$ is open?
general-topology elementary-set-theory metric-spaces
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to prove the following:
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. An intersection of finitely many open subsets of $X$ is open.
The following is my attempt:
Let $x in bigcap_i=1^n U_i$ be arbitrary, where $U_i$'s are open subsets in $X$, for each $i=1,2,3,ldots,n-1,n.$
Since $x in bigcap_i=1^n U_i$, $x in U_i$ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
Because all $U_i$'s are open, for each $i,$ there exists $epsilon_i>0$ such that $B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i.$
Let $epsilon = minepsilon_1, epsilon_2, epsilon_3, ldots , epsilon_n-1, epsilon_n.$
Then $B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x)$ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
Question:
I am not quite sure of how to finish the proof, by showing that $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n U_i.$
My reasoning for the ending of the proof:
Intuitively, it makes sense that $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n U_i$, since the open ball centred at $x$, with radius $epsilon$ contains all points that are only in all of the sets $B_epsilon_1(x),,B_epsilon_2(x),,B_epsilon_3(x),ldots,,B_epsilon_n-1(x)$ and $,B_epsilon_n(x).$
Would it be correct in writing
beginequation*
B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)?
endequation*
Then would it be the case that $$B_epsilon(x) =bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^nU_i,$$
therefore $bigcap_i=1^nU_i$ is open?
general-topology elementary-set-theory metric-spaces
$endgroup$
I am trying to prove the following:
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. An intersection of finitely many open subsets of $X$ is open.
The following is my attempt:
Let $x in bigcap_i=1^n U_i$ be arbitrary, where $U_i$'s are open subsets in $X$, for each $i=1,2,3,ldots,n-1,n.$
Since $x in bigcap_i=1^n U_i$, $x in U_i$ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
Because all $U_i$'s are open, for each $i,$ there exists $epsilon_i>0$ such that $B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i.$
Let $epsilon = minepsilon_1, epsilon_2, epsilon_3, ldots , epsilon_n-1, epsilon_n.$
Then $B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x)$ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
Question:
I am not quite sure of how to finish the proof, by showing that $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n U_i.$
My reasoning for the ending of the proof:
Intuitively, it makes sense that $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n U_i$, since the open ball centred at $x$, with radius $epsilon$ contains all points that are only in all of the sets $B_epsilon_1(x),,B_epsilon_2(x),,B_epsilon_3(x),ldots,,B_epsilon_n-1(x)$ and $,B_epsilon_n(x).$
Would it be correct in writing
beginequation*
B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)?
endequation*
Then would it be the case that $$B_epsilon(x) =bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^nU_i,$$
therefore $bigcap_i=1^nU_i$ is open?
general-topology elementary-set-theory metric-spaces
general-topology elementary-set-theory metric-spaces
asked 13 hours ago
GurjinderGurjinder
594518
594518
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The proof consists in exhibiting an open ball that is included in the intersection (around every point).
For every set you know that you can find a suitable ball. Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.
Hence the minimal ball is included in every ball, hence in every set, thus in their intersection.
The proof will not work with infinitely many sets, because then the minimum radius may fail to be positive.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So what I have wrote is correct?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: is my answer unclear ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nah, it seems good. Just a question about the statement ‘Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.’ This means $B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$, as I have wrote? And as a side not, could I not just write $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$ and conclude the proof the same way? Or when writing a mathematical proof, should you ‘precise’ as possible about a statement. For example, I don’t think it would be wrong to write $3 leq 3$, but would it be better to write $3 =3$?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: $3le3$ is a true statement.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, okay cool. Thanks for your assistance.
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x) $$ $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the last portion, the only weakness is to prove that all the points in a ball is a subset of the points of a larger radius, when the center is the same point $p$. And also, the intersection of a finite number of such balls is the smallest one.
Though this step can be considered trivial, we can't deduce the intersection of the balls by their openness, since it is yet to be proved.
For two balls, if that doesn't hold, there exits a point $ain B_epsilon_1(p)$, but $a notin B_epsilon_2(p)$, where $epsilon_2 > epsilon_1$. We have $epsilon_1 > |a-p| ge epsilon_2$, which contradicts the assumption. Then it can be applied to finitely many.
It seems the manipulation of open balls is more fundamental than openness or closeness.
$endgroup$
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
);
);
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%2f3182104%2fi-am-not-sure-how-to-finish-the-proof-of-showing-that-the-intersection-of-finite%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The proof consists in exhibiting an open ball that is included in the intersection (around every point).
For every set you know that you can find a suitable ball. Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.
Hence the minimal ball is included in every ball, hence in every set, thus in their intersection.
The proof will not work with infinitely many sets, because then the minimum radius may fail to be positive.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So what I have wrote is correct?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: is my answer unclear ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nah, it seems good. Just a question about the statement ‘Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.’ This means $B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$, as I have wrote? And as a side not, could I not just write $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$ and conclude the proof the same way? Or when writing a mathematical proof, should you ‘precise’ as possible about a statement. For example, I don’t think it would be wrong to write $3 leq 3$, but would it be better to write $3 =3$?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: $3le3$ is a true statement.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, okay cool. Thanks for your assistance.
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The proof consists in exhibiting an open ball that is included in the intersection (around every point).
For every set you know that you can find a suitable ball. Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.
Hence the minimal ball is included in every ball, hence in every set, thus in their intersection.
The proof will not work with infinitely many sets, because then the minimum radius may fail to be positive.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So what I have wrote is correct?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: is my answer unclear ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nah, it seems good. Just a question about the statement ‘Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.’ This means $B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$, as I have wrote? And as a side not, could I not just write $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$ and conclude the proof the same way? Or when writing a mathematical proof, should you ‘precise’ as possible about a statement. For example, I don’t think it would be wrong to write $3 leq 3$, but would it be better to write $3 =3$?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: $3le3$ is a true statement.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, okay cool. Thanks for your assistance.
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The proof consists in exhibiting an open ball that is included in the intersection (around every point).
For every set you know that you can find a suitable ball. Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.
Hence the minimal ball is included in every ball, hence in every set, thus in their intersection.
The proof will not work with infinitely many sets, because then the minimum radius may fail to be positive.
$endgroup$
The proof consists in exhibiting an open ball that is included in the intersection (around every point).
For every set you know that you can find a suitable ball. Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.
Hence the minimal ball is included in every ball, hence in every set, thus in their intersection.
The proof will not work with infinitely many sets, because then the minimum radius may fail to be positive.
answered 12 hours ago
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676231
133k676231
$begingroup$
So what I have wrote is correct?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: is my answer unclear ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nah, it seems good. Just a question about the statement ‘Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.’ This means $B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$, as I have wrote? And as a side not, could I not just write $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$ and conclude the proof the same way? Or when writing a mathematical proof, should you ‘precise’ as possible about a statement. For example, I don’t think it would be wrong to write $3 leq 3$, but would it be better to write $3 =3$?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: $3le3$ is a true statement.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, okay cool. Thanks for your assistance.
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So what I have wrote is correct?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: is my answer unclear ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nah, it seems good. Just a question about the statement ‘Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.’ This means $B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$, as I have wrote? And as a side not, could I not just write $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$ and conclude the proof the same way? Or when writing a mathematical proof, should you ‘precise’ as possible about a statement. For example, I don’t think it would be wrong to write $3 leq 3$, but would it be better to write $3 =3$?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: $3le3$ is a true statement.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, okay cool. Thanks for your assistance.
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
So what I have wrote is correct?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
So what I have wrote is correct?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: is my answer unclear ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: is my answer unclear ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nah, it seems good. Just a question about the statement ‘Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.’ This means $B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$, as I have wrote? And as a side not, could I not just write $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$ and conclude the proof the same way? Or when writing a mathematical proof, should you ‘precise’ as possible about a statement. For example, I don’t think it would be wrong to write $3 leq 3$, but would it be better to write $3 =3$?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Nah, it seems good. Just a question about the statement ‘Then the ball with minimum radius is the intersection of all these balls.’ This means $B_epsilon(x) = bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$, as I have wrote? And as a side not, could I not just write $B_epsilon(x) subseteq bigcap_i=1^n B_epsilon_i(x)$ and conclude the proof the same way? Or when writing a mathematical proof, should you ‘precise’ as possible about a statement. For example, I don’t think it would be wrong to write $3 leq 3$, but would it be better to write $3 =3$?
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: $3le3$ is a true statement.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Gurjinder: $3le3$ is a true statement.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, okay cool. Thanks for your assistance.
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, okay cool. Thanks for your assistance.
$endgroup$
– Gurjinder
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x) $$ $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x) $$ $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x) $$ $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$endgroup$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq B_epsilon_i(x) $$ $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon_i(x) subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
$B_epsilon(x)subseteq U_i $ for all $i=1,2,3, ldots,n-1,n.$
answered 13 hours ago
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
9,1562820
9,1562820
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the last portion, the only weakness is to prove that all the points in a ball is a subset of the points of a larger radius, when the center is the same point $p$. And also, the intersection of a finite number of such balls is the smallest one.
Though this step can be considered trivial, we can't deduce the intersection of the balls by their openness, since it is yet to be proved.
For two balls, if that doesn't hold, there exits a point $ain B_epsilon_1(p)$, but $a notin B_epsilon_2(p)$, where $epsilon_2 > epsilon_1$. We have $epsilon_1 > |a-p| ge epsilon_2$, which contradicts the assumption. Then it can be applied to finitely many.
It seems the manipulation of open balls is more fundamental than openness or closeness.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the last portion, the only weakness is to prove that all the points in a ball is a subset of the points of a larger radius, when the center is the same point $p$. And also, the intersection of a finite number of such balls is the smallest one.
Though this step can be considered trivial, we can't deduce the intersection of the balls by their openness, since it is yet to be proved.
For two balls, if that doesn't hold, there exits a point $ain B_epsilon_1(p)$, but $a notin B_epsilon_2(p)$, where $epsilon_2 > epsilon_1$. We have $epsilon_1 > |a-p| ge epsilon_2$, which contradicts the assumption. Then it can be applied to finitely many.
It seems the manipulation of open balls is more fundamental than openness or closeness.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the last portion, the only weakness is to prove that all the points in a ball is a subset of the points of a larger radius, when the center is the same point $p$. And also, the intersection of a finite number of such balls is the smallest one.
Though this step can be considered trivial, we can't deduce the intersection of the balls by their openness, since it is yet to be proved.
For two balls, if that doesn't hold, there exits a point $ain B_epsilon_1(p)$, but $a notin B_epsilon_2(p)$, where $epsilon_2 > epsilon_1$. We have $epsilon_1 > |a-p| ge epsilon_2$, which contradicts the assumption. Then it can be applied to finitely many.
It seems the manipulation of open balls is more fundamental than openness or closeness.
$endgroup$
For the last portion, the only weakness is to prove that all the points in a ball is a subset of the points of a larger radius, when the center is the same point $p$. And also, the intersection of a finite number of such balls is the smallest one.
Though this step can be considered trivial, we can't deduce the intersection of the balls by their openness, since it is yet to be proved.
For two balls, if that doesn't hold, there exits a point $ain B_epsilon_1(p)$, but $a notin B_epsilon_2(p)$, where $epsilon_2 > epsilon_1$. We have $epsilon_1 > |a-p| ge epsilon_2$, which contradicts the assumption. Then it can be applied to finitely many.
It seems the manipulation of open balls is more fundamental than openness or closeness.
edited 11 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
Wenkuei P'eiWenkuei P'ei
216
216
add a comment |
add a comment |
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%2f3182104%2fi-am-not-sure-how-to-finish-the-proof-of-showing-that-the-intersection-of-finite%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