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.

As a self-studier, I was reading a proof that any open subset, U, of $\mathbb{R}$ is a disjoint union of open intervals. The proof was based on an equivalence relation where x~y if (x,y) is contained in U.

I have two questions regarding the verification that this is a valid equivalence relation. (Sorry if they are obvious.)

First, for reflexivity, x~x, is (x,x) the null set?

Second, regarding transivity, if x < y < z are elements of U, with x~y and y~z, then (x,y) and (y,z) are both contained in U. My question is how can it be claimed that x~z, i.e., that (x,z) is in U, since y is not in either of the sets (although it was stated that y is an element of U).

Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
The solution is very simple: It's a typo in the definition of the equivalence. The author meant $x\sim y$ if the ${\it closed}\ $ interval $[x,y]$ is contained in $U$. –  Christian Blatter Jul 16 '11 at 8:24
    
@Andrew: For and other approach to show that any open set is the union of... see Royden's Real Analysis 3rd edition p. 42. –  leo Jul 16 '11 at 18:21

2 Answers 2

up vote 0 down vote accepted

$U$ is open then $\mathbb{R}-U$ is close. Suppose that $(x,y)\subseteq U$ and $(y,z)\subseteq U$. Suppose that $y\not\in U$. Since $\mathbb{R}-U$ is close, there exist a sequence $(y_n)$ in $\mathbb{R}-U$ with $y_n\to y$. Let $r= \min\{(z-y)/2,(y-x)/2\}$. Then exist $N\in \mathbb{N}$ such that if $n\geq N$, $|y_n-y|\lt r$. Then for $n\geq N$, $y_n\in (x,y)$ or $y_n\in (y,z)$, in any case $y_n\in U$ and $y_n\in\mathbb{R}-U$. This is impossible. Therefore, $y\in U$.

share|improve this answer
    
In general, if $A\subseteq C$ and $B\subseteq C$ then $A\cup B \subseteq C$. Thus $(x,y)\cup (y,z)\cup \{y\} \subseteq U$, i.e. $(x,z)\subseteq U$. –  leo Jul 16 '11 at 2:36
    
Thanks, Leo for your help. I am sorry I was so tardy in expressing my appreciation. Best, Andrew –  Andrew Sep 15 '11 at 21:53
    
You're welcome @Andrew, no problem :) –  leo Sep 17 '11 at 1:55
  1. If you check definitions, $(x,y)$ is most likely defined as the set of all $w$ with $x < w < y$. So $(x,x)$ would be the set of all $w$ with $x < w < x$. What set is that?

  2. Try drawing a picture to see what is going on here. More formally, note that to show $(x,z) \subset U$, you have to show that for any $w$ with $x < w < z$, we have $w \in U$. Now necessarily either $w < y$, or $w = y$, or $w > y$. Show that in each case it follows that $w \in U$.

share|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.