In "Complex Variables and Applications" by Brown and Churchill (McGraw-Hill) the proof of: $$\textit{S is an open set $\implies$ each of its points is an interior point}$$ is left as an exercise. Here are the important definitions that one can use: $$\textbf{$\epsilon$ Neighbourhood}: |z-z_0|<\epsilon$$ $$\textbf{$z_0$ Interior point}: \exists\,\,\ \text{an}\,\,\, \epsilon\text{-neighbourhood containing only}\, z\in S$$ $$\textbf{$z_0$ Exterior point}: \exists\,\,\ \text{an}\,\,\, \epsilon\text{-neighbourhood containing no}\, z\in S$$ $$\textbf{$z_0$ Boundary point}: \text{all neighbourhood of $z_0$ have at least a point in $S$ and one not in $S$}$$ $$\textbf{$S$ Open}: \text{does not contain any of its boundary points}$$

I've tried to prove this in the following way, however I got stuck. Can someone tell me how to make it mathematically rigorous, using the above definitions?

$S$ is an Open Set $\implies$ $S$ does not contain any any of its boundary points. So $$\text{if} \,\, [\forall \epsilon>0, (\exists z_1\in S\,\,\ \text{and}\,\,\ \exists z_2\notin S ):(|z_1-z_0|<\epsilon \,\,\text{and} \,\,\ |z_2-z_0|<\epsilon)] \implies z_0\notin S$$ Hence taking the converse of the above we have $$\text{if}\,\, z_0\in S \implies \exists \epsilon>0, (\forall z_1\in S\,\,\ \text{or}\,\,\ \forall z_2\notin S ):|z_1-z_0|\geq \epsilon \,\,\text{or} \,\,\ |z_2-z_0|\geq \epsilon)$$

Which doesn't really tell me much. I am really not sure I've even negated it correctly or that my definition with the quantifiers is correct.

  • $\begingroup$ This are the exact words in the book "A point $z_0$ is said to be an interior point of a set $S$ whenever there is some neighborhood of $z_0$ that contains only points of $S$". Is it different from what I wrote? Or is it different from what you wrote? They look pretty similar to me, please tell me if there's some gap between them $\endgroup$ – Euler_Salter Dec 3 '16 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ Forgive me, I misunderstood you definition. However it is a bit confusing because it seems that you are referring to a specific point $z$. Specifically, if I say that $A$ contains only $z\in S$ what I immediately think is that $A=\{z\}$, whatever $z$ is, while you only meant $A\subseteq S$. $\endgroup$ – Caligula Dec 3 '16 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ I removed the "logic" tag - that's for questions within the specific field of mathematical logic. $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Dec 3 '16 at 19:00

Using your definitions (of which some are not very well stated), we can proceed this way.

You want to prove that each point $z$ of an open set $S$ is an interior point. Now, since $S$ is open, $z$ can't be a boundary point, so negating the definition of boundary point, it follows that there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $z$ such that two things can happen:

  • or $U$ contains only point of $S$;

  • or $U$ contains only point outside $S$.

Since $U$ intersect $S$ at least in $z$, the latter is impossible, so you have proved that $U\subseteq S$. This means that $z$ is interior in $S$.

Following the comment, I'll try to rephrase the proof in more logically strict terms - but note that using words instead of quantifiers is not something to despise, as it increases greatly the clearity of proofs.

The fact $S$ is open means that

$\forall\,z\in S, z\notin \partial S$

where $\partial S$ is the boundary. Now, $z\in \partial S$ if and only if

$\forall \,U\in\mathscr{U}_z,\,U\cap S\neq \varnothing \text{ and } U\cap (S^c)\neq \varnothing$

where $(-)^c$ is the complement and $\mathscr{U}_z$ denotes the set of all open neighborhoods for $z$ (it has the structure of a filter if you know what it means). Hence, negating the latter will imply that

$\exists \,U\in \mathscr{U}_z$ such that $U\cap S = \varnothing$ or $U\cap (S^c)=\varnothing$

Then you conclude as before: the only possible conclusion is that $U\cap (S^c)=\varnothing$ and that is equivalent to $U\subseteq S$.

  • $\begingroup$ I like your wordy proof, I'm quite a fan of these, as in most of my homework I exactly do them. However I wanted to train myself in proving things in a "tedious" way, i.e. using a logic definition and using either negations of it or contrapositives to get to the statement we want to prove. Would you know how I could rephrase those definitions or actually going from there to the wanted result? Thanks $\endgroup$ – Euler_Salter Dec 3 '16 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ I edited my answer with some more logic inside it. $\endgroup$ – Caligula Dec 3 '16 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! It makes sense! It's a nice proof, based a lot on sets! I have no idea what a filter is in mathematics, however the set $U_z$ makes sense $\endgroup$ – Euler_Salter Dec 4 '16 at 2:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.