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.

Here is my problem:

Find two closed subsets or real numbers such that $d(A,B)=0$ but $A\cap B=\varnothing$.

I tried to use the definition of being close for subsets like intervals but I couldn't find any closed sets. Any hint? Thank you.

share|improve this question
2  
i think there's a few questions on the same topic, e.g. math.stackexchange.com/questions/250254/… –  citedcorpse Jun 14 '13 at 9:00
2  
$\phi$ (\phi) is not the same symbol as $\emptyset$ (\emptyset) or $\varnothing$ (\varnothing). –  Zev Chonoles Jun 14 '13 at 9:03
    
@ZevChonoles: Yes I checked the edit and know what is the code. –  Basil R Jun 14 '13 at 9:04

5 Answers 5

up vote 10 down vote accepted

Hint: You cannot do this for bounded closed sets. Think about $\Bbb N$ and a set $\{a_n\mid n\in\Bbb N\}$ such that $\lim\frac n{a_n}=1$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you Asaf. It was a nightmare –  Basil R Jun 14 '13 at 9:14
2  
The condition that $\lim (n-a_n)=0$ seems more promising than $\lim\frac{n}{a_n}=1$. –  Did Jun 14 '13 at 11:06

Take the following two sets:

$$A = \mathbb{N}$$ $$B = \{n + 2^{-n}:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$$

Then both are obviously closed subsets of the reals, and for any $\varepsilon>0$ you have some $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\frac{1}{n}<\varepsilon$, and thus $d(A,B) = 0$.

Also notice that if you took one of the two sets to be bounded (say $A$), then it would be compact. In that case if $d(A,B) = 0$ you would have two sequences of points $S_A=\{a_n\}\subseteq A$ and $S_B=\{b_n\}\subseteq B$ such that $d(a_n,b_n)\rightarrow 0$. Then $S_B$ must be bounded by some $M$. $C = B\cap [-M,M]\supseteq S_B$ is compact. By compactness we get two convergent subsequences of $S_A$ and $S_B$. Their limits are contained in $A$ and $B$ respectively (since the sets are closed) and must be the same point since $d(a_n,b_n)\rightarrow 0$. This is a contradiction, and thus neither one of the sets can be bounded.

share|improve this answer
    
(+1) nice answer. –  Mhenni Benghorbal Jun 14 '13 at 9:10
2  
One tiny detail: $2$ is in both your $A$ and $B$ ($2 = 1 + \frac11$). Try replacing $B$ with $C = \{n + 2^{-n} \in \mathbb R \mid n \in \mathbb N\}$. –  kahen Jun 14 '13 at 12:21
    
@kahen Wouldn't 1 be in both your sets assuming 0 is included in the natural numbers? –  MatsT Jun 14 '13 at 14:27
2  
@MatsT Only dirty rotten set theorists (hi, Asaf :D) think that $0$ should be in $\mathbb N$. –  kahen Jun 14 '13 at 14:34
    
@MatsT: I usually denote by $\mathbb{N}_0 = \mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$. –  Daniel Robert-Nicoud Jun 14 '13 at 20:45

In $\mathbb{R}^2$, a visual example is $A= \mathbb{R} \times \{0\}$ and $B= \{(x,e^x) \mid x \in \mathbb{R} \}$.

share|improve this answer

Consider the following two sets: $$A=\{2,3,4,5,...\},~~~B=\{2\frac{1}{2},3\frac{1}{3},4\frac{1}{4},...\}$$

share|improve this answer

Consider $A=\{\frac{1}{2k} : k\in \mathbb{N}\}$ and $B=\{\frac{1}{2k+1} : k\in \mathbb{N}\}$.

Clearly $\frac{1}{2k} - \frac{1}{2k+1} = \frac{1}{4k^2 +2k}$ tends to $0$.

share|improve this answer
    
Neither of these are closed, since $0$ is a limit point of both but isn't contained in either. –  dbaupp Jun 14 '13 at 14:47
    
Ah, yes. I thought for a moment that none of them have limit points... –  Fanni Jun 14 '13 at 14:57

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.