0
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathbb{R}$ provided with the metric $d(x,y)=|x-y|$. I have shown that the collections of sets $$S_1=\left \{\left (\frac{x}{2}, \frac{3x}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}, \ \ \ \ \ S_2=\left \{\left (x-\frac{1}{2}, x+\frac{1}{2}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}$$ are open covers of $A=\left \{\frac{1}{n} : n\in \mathbb{N}\right \}\subset \mathbb{R}$.

To check if they have a finite subcover, we have to check if $S_1$ and $S_2$ respectively, have a finite subset which is also a cover of $A$, right?

For example, we have that $\displaystyle{\tilde{S}_1=\left \{\left (\frac{x}{4}, \frac{3x}{4}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}}$ is a subset of $S_1$, isn't it?

This is not a cover of $A$, since for $n=1$ the element $a$ is not in $\tilde{S}_1$. The same holds also when we consider a subset of the form $\left \{\left (\frac{x}{i}, \frac{3x}{i}\right ): 0<x<1\right \}$ with $i>2$.

Does this mean that $S_1$ has no finite subcover?

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are right that all these families are subsets of $S_1$, but this does not mean that $S_1$ has no finite subcover. But you indeed cannot find a finite subcover in $S_1$, and to see this you should note that otherwise some of $(x/2,3x/2)$ will contain all $1/n$ starting from some $n_0$. Now you can obtain a contradiction easily. $\endgroup$ – SMM Apr 28 '18 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean that the set $A$ is not finite, and that's why we cannot find a finite subcover? @SMM $\endgroup$ – Mary Star Apr 28 '18 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No. For any finite subcover, say consisted of $(x_i/2,3x_i/2)$ for $0\leq i\leq k$, you can find $n$, such that $1/n$ is less than all $x_i/2$. This is because all $x_i>0$, but $\lim_n 1/n=0$. So, this subcover does not covers $1/n$. Since the subcover was arbitrarily chosen, this means that finite subcover does not exist. (This is not what I first had in mind, but I now see that it is more clear.) $\endgroup$ – SMM Apr 28 '18 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ What is "the element $a$"? $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Apr 28 '18 at 18:03
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, it is $a=\frac{1}{n}$ for some $n$. @DanielWainfleet $\endgroup$ – Mary Star Apr 28 '18 at 18:11
1
$\begingroup$

Let $F$ be a non-empty finite subset of $S_1$. Then $F=\{(x/2,3x/2): x\in G\}$ where $G$ is a finite non-empty subset of $(0,1).$ Let $y=\min \{x/2:x\in G\}.$

Then $y>0.$ If $z$ is any member of $ \cup F$ then for some $x\in G$ we have $z\in (x/2,3x/2)$ so $z>x/2\geq y.$

Take $n\in \Bbb N$ with $1/n<y.$ Then $1/n$ is less than every member of $ \cup F.$ So $1/n\not \in \cup F$. So $F$ is not a cover of $A. $

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ On the other hand, if $x=1/2$ then $(x-1/2,x+1/2)=(0,1)\in S_2.$ And $A\subset (0,1).$ So $\{(0,1)\}$ is a $1$-member subset of $ S_2$ and is a cover of $A.$ $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Apr 28 '18 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ Why do we take $\frac{1}{n}<y$ ? $\endgroup$ – Mary Star Apr 28 '18 at 18:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We have $\cup F\subset (y,\infty)$ so $\cup F$ is disjoint from $(0,y).$ But $1/n\in (0,y)\cap A$ if $n\in \Bbb N$ is large enough. So $A$ has members that don't belong to $\cup F$..... So $A$ is not a subset of $\cup F$.... Therefore $F$ is not a cover of $ A.$....This applies to $any$ non-empty finite $F\subset S_1$. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Apr 28 '18 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ How can we justify formally that $\frac{1}{n}\in (0,y)$ for large $n$ ? $\endgroup$ – Mary Star Apr 28 '18 at 21:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes we can say that. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Apr 29 '18 at 3:32

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.