Scribd
Upload
5 views1 page

myproject (1)

Uploaded by

ayushjha011
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views1 page

myproject (1)

Uploaded by

ayushjha011
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Analysis 1 HW 5 Ayush kumar jha

2.19
(a) If A and B are disjoint closed sets in some metric space X, prove that they are separated.

(b) Prove the same for disjoint open sets.


(c) Fix p ∈ X, S > 0, define A to be the set of all q ∈ X for which d(p, q) < S, define B similarly,
with > in place of <. Prove that A and B are separated.
(d) Prove that every connected metric space with at least two points is uncountable. Hint:
Use (c).

(a) Two subsets A and B of a metric space X are said to be separated if both A ∩ B and A ∩ B are empty.
As the sets A and B are closed, we have from Theorem 2.27 (b), A = A and B = B. It is given that A
and B are disjoint, so A ∩ B = ∅. As A = A, we have A ∩ B = ∅, and as B = B, we have A ∩ B = ∅,
so A and B are separated.
(b) We have open sets A and B such that A ∩ B = ∅. Now, let’s say A ∩ B is non-empty and x ∈ A ∩ B.
Then x ∈ A′ (where A′ is the set of limit points of A, it cannot be in A because then x ∈ A ∩ B,
contradicting the hypothesis) and x ∈ B. As x is a limit point of A, we have a point, y ̸= x st y ∈ Nϵ (x)
and y ∈ A for all ϵ > 0. But x ∈ B and B is an open set, so x is an interior point of B. Therefore,
∃δ such that Nδ (x) ⊆ B. Again, in this neighborhood too, there must be a point of A, so that point
belongs to both A and B, contradicting the hypothesis. Similarly for A ∩ B.
(c) A = {q | d(p, q) < S}, this is an open set. Suppose r ∈ A, and d(p, r) = m, then the neighborhood
N S−m (r) ⊂ A, so it is an interior point. Again, we have B = {q | d(p, q) > S}, this is also an open
2
set. Suppose r′ ∈ B and d(p, r′ ) = n, then the neighborhood N n−S (r′ ) ⊂ B, so it is an interior point.
2
Therefore, both A and B are open sets. They are disjoint as if x ∈ A and x ∈ B, then d(p, x) < S
and d(p, x) > S, which is absurd. So they are disjoint. And from part (b), two disjoint open sets are
separated.

(d) Suppose there is a connected metric space X with two (or more) points, say x and y. Then suppose
d(x, y) = S. We must have for all reals r such that 0 < r < S, there exists at least one point in X, say
p, such that d(x, p) = r. This is true because, suppose there was no point such that d(x, p) = r, then
for every point p ∈ X, we have either d(x, p) < r or d(x, p) > r. The union of these two sets together
forms the whole metric space, but then from part (c), these two sets are separated, so the metric space
is also separated. Contradiction!
Now we have shown that for all reals r, with 0 < r < S, there exists at least one point p ∈ X. Now
I claim that this set of points is uncountable. If it were countable, then let S0 = {r | 0 ≤ r < S},
S1 = {r | S ≤ r < 2S}, S2 = {r | 2S ≤ r < 3S}, ..., similarly for negative indices. Then the union of
all Si will cover the real line. As this is a countable union of countable sets, the set R would become
countable, which is not true. Hence the set is uncountable.

You might also like