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.

I know this is a standard question and that I can easily find solutions on this site or elsewhere. However, I came up with a proposed proof and would like someone to review it for me. If this is known, my apologies.

Let $A_{\alpha}$ be a family of open intervals. Given $\alpha, \alpha'$ we say $A_{\alpha} \sim A_{\alpha'}$ if there exist $\alpha_{1}, ..., \alpha_{n}$ such that $A_{\alpha} \cap A_{\alpha_{1}} \neq \emptyset, ..., A_{\alpha_{n}} \cap A_{\alpha'} \neq \emptyset$.

We see that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation. Consider $A$ to be an equivalence class and $F$ to be the union of all elements of $A$. Considering $a = \inf F$, $b = \sup F$ (where $a, b$ take values in the extended reals), we claim $F = (a, b)$.

Let $a < x < b$. It suffices to see $x \in F$. This is clear since there exists $\alpha, \alpha'$ with $A_{\alpha}, A_{\alpha'}$ in $A$ such that $A_{\alpha}$ contains points smaller than $x$ (since $x$ is not the infimum) and $A_{\alpha'}$ contains points greater than $x$. Taking $\alpha_{1}, ..., \alpha_{n}$ as in the definition we see that for some $i$, $A_{\alpha_{i}}$ contains $x$.

If it is not true that $A_{\alpha} \sim A_{\alpha'}$ then $A_{\alpha} \cap A_{\alpha'} = \emptyset$. Thus each $F$ is disjoint, and the union of $A_{\alpha}$ is the union of the $F$. Therefore any open subset of $\mathbb{R}$ is the union of disjoint open intervals

share|improve this question
    
I don't follow the definition of the equivalence relation. Are $\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n$ arbitrary index sets? What do $A_{\alpha_2},...,A_{\alpha_{n-1}}$ get intersected with? –  Kevin Carlson Oct 27 '12 at 19:16
    
@Kevin: One another: $A_\alpha\cap A_{\alpha_1}\ne\varnothing$, $A_{\alpha_k}\cap A_{\alpha_{k+1}}\ne\varnothing$ for $k=1,\dots,n$, and $A_{\alpha_n}\cap A_{\alpha\,'}\ne\varnothing$. It’s a chain. –  Brian M. Scott Oct 27 '12 at 19:23
    
Right, thanks, Brian. I'm sure there's some obvious condition on the $A_{\alpha_i}$ that's implicit, but as it reads now it seems we could take a single $\alpha_1=\alpha\cup\alpha'$ to get every $A_\alpha\sim A_{\alpha'}$ through $A_\alpha\cup A_{\alpha'}$. –  Kevin Carlson Oct 27 '12 at 19:26
    
@KevinCarlson: Not sure what you mean by $\alpha \cup \alpha'$. The $\alpha$ are part of an implicit index family. –  Pedro Oct 27 '12 at 19:40
1  
If you want to prove something about "every open set $\Omega\subset{\mathbb R}$" such a set should occur in your proof. –  Christian Blatter Oct 27 '12 at 19:57
show 1 more comment

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The idea is sound, but the implementation could be better. Here’s a fairly careful write-up missing only a few details.

Let $U$ be a non-empty open subset of $\Bbb R$, and let $\mathscr{I}$ be the family of all open intervals contained in $U$. For $I,J\in\mathscr{I}$ write $I\sim J$ iff there are $I_0=I,I_1,\dots,I_n=J\in\mathscr{I}$ such that $I_k\cap I_{k+1}\ne\varnothing$ for $k=0,\dots,n-1$; clearly $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $\mathscr{I}$. For $I\in\mathscr{I}$ let $[I]$ be the $\sim$-equivalence class of $I$, and let $U_I=\bigcup[I]$; clearly $U_I$ is open.

Suppose that $U_I\cap U_J\ne\varnothing$ for some $I,J\in\mathscr{I}$; then there are $I'\in[I]$ and $J'\in[J]$ such that $I'\cap J'\ne\varnothing$. Clearly $I\sim I'\sim J'\sim J$, so $I\sim J$, and $[I]=[J]$. Thus, $\{U_I:I\in\mathscr{I}\}$ is a partition of $U$ into open subsets.

Suppose that $I,J\in\mathscr{I}$ and $I\cap U\ne\varnothing$; then $I\cup J\in\mathscr{I}$. (Why?) An easy induction on $n$ then shows that if $I_0,\dots,I_n\in\mathscr{I}$, and $I_k\cap I_{k+1}\ne\varnothing$ for $k=0,\dots,n-1$, then $\bigcup_{k=0}^nI_k\in\mathscr{I}$. Fix $I\in\mathscr{I}$, and suppose that $x,y\in U_I$ with $x<y$. Then there are $I_x,I_y\in[I]$ such that $x\in I_x$ and $y\in I_y$. Now $I_x\sim I\sim I_y$, so there are $I_x=I_0,\dots,I_n=I_y\in[I]$ such that $I_k\cap I_{k+1}\ne\varnothing$ for $k=0,\dots,n-1$. Let $J=\bigcup_{k=0}^nI_k$; then $x,y\in J\in[I]$, so $[x,y]\subseteq J\subseteq U_I$. This shows that $U_I$ is order-convex: if $x,y\in U_I$ and $x<z<y$, then $z\in U_I$.

The order-convex subsets of $\Bbb R$ are precisely the intervals, so the open, order-convex subsets of $\Bbb R$ are the open intervals (including the open rays), so $\{U_I:I\in\mathscr{I}\}$ is a partition of $U$ into open intervals, as desired.


You can also prove it by defining an equivalence relation directly on $U$: for $x,y\in U$, $x\sim y$ iff $\big[\min\{x,y\},\max\{x,y\}\big]\subseteq U$. This makes some of the argument a little easier and some a little harder; overall it’s probably pretty much a wash.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your fourth paragraph is a little bit sketchy with $A_\alpha \sim A_{\alpha'}$ via the $\alpha_i$ implying some $\alpha_i$ contains $x$. The gaps would be filled in with an induction starting from the union of two overlapping intervals being an interval, so that you can read $A_\alpha\sim A_{\alpha'}$ as $B=\left[A_\alpha\cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} A_{alpha_i}\right]\sim A_{\alpha'}$ where $B$ and $A_{\alpha'}$ are overlapping intervals. So there's no real problem there.

I thought your last paragraph was wrong, but I guess you were thinking without specifying that $\cup_\alpha A_\alpha=U$ represents an arbitrary open set. It does, but you should start the proof with $U$, not with $A_\alpha$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.