Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Proving that $A\subset B \implies \hat A \subset \hat B$ where, $ \hat X $ implies closure of $X$. I want to prove this strictly using contradiction. So,I started out assuming $\exists x \in \hat A \text{ and } x \notin \hat B$

Since, $A \subset B, x\in (\hat A-A)$ (else it would be in B automatically).

Now, I need to somehow prove that any point in $\hat A - A$ either is a part of B or a part of $\hat B - B$.

Any leads? I don't want solution. This is homework.

share|improve this question
    
What definition of closure are you using? –  Trevor Wilson Sep 10 '12 at 23:03
    
@TrevorWilson, The closure of A would be the smallest closed set such that A would be a subset of closure(A). –  Inquest Sep 10 '12 at 23:06
1  
You're thinking too hard. –  robjohn Sep 10 '12 at 23:20

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

If you must use contradiction, consider that if $a\in\hat{A}$ but $a\not\in\hat{B}$, then there is an open neighborhood $U$ containing $a$ so that $U\cap\hat{B}=\varnothing\Rightarrow U\cap A=\varnothing$.

share|improve this answer
    
This is what I used: If $x \in (\hat A - A)$, x is a limit point of A. Thus, every punctured neighborhood of x has a non-empty intersection with A. Since $A \subset B$, every neighborhood of x has a non-empty intersection with B. Thus, x is also a limit point of B. Thus, $x \in \hat B$ which is a contradiction. Is this correct? –  Inquest Sep 11 '12 at 14:20
    
@Inquest: The proof is fine. However, this is a direct proof, thinly veiled as a proof by contradiction. What you have done is say "assume not Y", then you prove Y without using that assumption, then you say "contradiction". To shorten the proof, leave out the "assume not Y" and the "contradiction" and just leave the direct proof. –  robjohn Sep 11 '12 at 16:40
    
I kinda noticed that but I am on a holy war to prove everything with contradiction. :P My notebook is filled with Let us assume that <> is not true. –  Inquest Sep 11 '12 at 18:58
    
@Inquest: Following what I had started leads to a less artificial seeming contradiction. Finish off by saying that since $a\in\hat{A}$, for each open $U$ containing $a$, we have $U\cap A\not=\varnothing$; contradiction. –  robjohn Sep 11 '12 at 19:46

You have already given your definition of closure. So you know that $A \subseteq B \subseteq \hat{B}$ yes? This is by definition of $\hat{B}$ containing $B$ (if you drop the word "closed" in the definition and just look at set containment). Then $\hat{B}$ is a closed set containing $A$ yes? And then $\hat{A}$ by definition is.....

share|improve this answer

$A\subset B\subset X$. $\bar{B}$ is a closed set containing $A$, hence...

$\bar{A}\subset\bar{B}$.

share|improve this answer
    
The OP has explicitly stated not to give a full solution. –  user38268 Sep 10 '12 at 23:11
    
@BenjaLim: I have been trying to find a hint that is not a full answer. It is not easy. –  robjohn Sep 10 '12 at 23:18

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.