Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

Baby Rudin gives the example of the set of all integers being not open if it is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$.

If we consider the set of integers in $\mathbb{R}$, is this set also not open? I can find a neighbourhood which will contain any point, $p$, however is it a requirement that a neighbourhood contains more than one point?

I'm trying to understand this fully and have searched through the various posts that have a slight relation and can not find out specifically how these take interior and isolated points into account and how these relate to openess.

share|cite|improve this question
1  
The set of integers is not an open set in $\mathbb R$. In the real numbers, no neighborhood contains a single point. – Thomas Andrews Feb 13 at 14:06
    
You are correct. $\mathbb{Z}$ is not an open subset of $\mathbb{R}$. But your argument in the second paragraph doesn't really say why that's true. I think you know what you are trying to say, but haven't said it. – Ethan Bolker Feb 13 at 14:07
    
$\mathbb{Z}$ is not open in $\mathbb{R}$. And if in addition you were to ask if $\mathbb{Z}$ is closed or not closed in $\mathbb{R}$ the answer would be that $\mathbb{Z}$ is closed in $\mathbb{R}$. – Jeppe Stig Nielsen Feb 13 at 16:42
    
@Jeppe Stig Nielson Yeah, I understand the existence of limit points and how that relates. My only issue was openess and isolated points really. There was the other question of the requirement that a neighborhood have more than one point for it to be a neighborhood. Which I assume is a requirement. Therefore you can't have a neighborhood of a singleton set. – in and out o' mind Feb 13 at 16:58
up vote 9 down vote accepted

A set $U\subset \mathbb R$ is open if and only if for every $x\in U$, there exists some $\epsilon > 0$ such that $(x-\epsilon, x+\epsilon)$ is a subset of $U$.

For $U=\mathbb Z$, this is clearly not the case:

  • Take $x=0$
  • Take any $\epsilon > 0$.
  • Then, $\min\{x+\frac\epsilon2, x+\frac12\}$ is an element of $(x-\epsilon, x+\epsilon)$, but it is not an element of $\mathbb Z$.
  • Therefore, $(x-\epsilon, x+\epsilon)$ is not a subset of $\mathbb Z$ for any value of $\epsilon$
  • Therefore, $\mathbb Z$ is not open.
share|cite|improve this answer
    
Would you then call each integer in the set isolated and then would it be wrong to generalize a set of isolated points as being not open? – in and out o' mind Feb 13 at 15:30
2  
@inandouto'mind It's even worse: a set with any isolated point is not open. For example, $(0,1)\cup \{2\}$ is not open. – 5xum Feb 13 at 16:01

$\mathbb{Z}$ is not open in $\mathbb{R}$.

One way to see this is that given any $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ we have for every $\epsilon>0$ that $(n-\epsilon, n+\epsilon)$ is not contained in $\mathbb{Z}$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.