Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Prove that for any $x_0 \in X$ and any $r>0$, the open ball $B_r(x_o)$ is open.

My attempt: Let $y\in B_r(x_0)$. By definition, $d(y,x_0)<r$. I want to show there exists an $r_1\in\mathbb{R^+}$ s.t. $B_{r_{1}}(y)\subseteq B_r(x_0)$. Let $a\in B_{r_{1}}(y)$. Then, $d(a,y)<r_1$. For $a\in B_{r}(x_0)$, $d(a,x_0)<r$. I want to show $d(a,y)<r_1$ implies $d(a,x_0)<r$. By triangle inequality, $d(a,y)\leq d(a,x_0) + d(y,x_0) \rightarrow$ $d(a,y)<r_1\leq d(a,x_0)+d(y,x_0)<2r...$

I'm a little stuck after this point.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 40 down vote accepted

You need to specify $r_1$.

For $y\in B_r(x_0)$, let $r_1=r-d(y,x_0)$. Then if $x\in B_{r_1}(y)$ $$ d(x,x_0)\le d(x,y)+d(y,x_0)< r_1+ d(y,x_0)=r. $$ So $ B_{r_1}(y)\subseteq B_r(x_0)$. This shows that $B_r(x_0)$ is open.

enter image description here

share|cite|improve this answer
Really great answer thanks, how did you make the diagram? What software did you use? – Dan smith Dec 20 '14 at 12:39
@Dansmith Thanks. The software was JSXGraph. – David Mitra Dec 20 '14 at 12:46

Since you want to conclude that $d(a,x_0)$ isn’t too big, you should apply the triangle inequality to it, not to $d(a,y)$: $d(a,x_0)\le d(a,y)+d(y,x_0)<r_1+d(y,x_0)$. In other words, you need to choose $r_1$ so that $r_1+d(y,x_0)\le r$. Can you explain now how to do that? Remember, $y$ is a particular point of $B_r(x_0)$, so $d(y,x_0)$ is a fixed number.

share|cite|improve this answer

In the second line, you have indicated that you want to find an $r_1$ such that $d(a,y)<r_1$. This is good.

First, what can you say about $d(x_0,y)$, since $y$ is in $B_r(x_0)$? $d(x_0,y)=p \leq r$.

Now, the choice for $r_1$ is clearer since we want $B_{r_1}(y)$ to be inside $B_r(x_0)$. Let it be $r_1=r-p$, since this is intuitively how much farther from $x_0$ our points are allowed to lie while still being in the ball $B_r(x_0)$.

Finally, lets show that this was a good choice. Pick a point $a$ in $B_{r_1}(y)$ Then by the triangle inequality focusing on $ d(x_0,a)$, we get $d(x_0,a) \leq d(x_0,y)+d(y,a)$, and since we so cleverly chose our $r_1$, things will work out nicely. It is vital that you focus on $ d(x_0,a)$. You were focusing instead on $d(x_0,y)$ which is why you did not get you the bound you want. This will show that $a$ is indeed in the open ball $B_r(x_0)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Let $ B_r^{\delta}(a) $ be given and $ x \in B_r^{\delta}(a) $ then $\delta(a, x) = \epsilon < r $

now look at $ B_{\gamma}^{\delta}(x) $ for $ \gamma < r - \epsilon $ then $ \forall y \in B_{\gamma}^{\delta}(x)$ we have $ \delta(y,x) < \gamma $

so then $ \delta(y,a) <= \delta (y,x) + \delta(x,a) <= r - \epsilon + \epsilon = r$ and the Result follows.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.