10
$\begingroup$

It seems intuitive to believe that most subsets of $\mathbb R$ are neither open nor closed.

For instance, if we consider the collection of all (open, closed, half-closed/open) intervals, then one can probably make precise the notion that "half" of all intervals in this collection are neither open nor closed. (Whether this will amount to a reasonable definition of what it means for most subsets to be neither open nor closed might be up for debate.)

If this intuition is correct, is there a way to formalise it? If not, how would we formalise its being wrong?

To be clear, I am happy for a fairly broad interpretation of the term "most". Natural interpretations include but are not limited to:

  1. Measure-theoretic (e.g. is there a natural measure on (a $\sigma$-algebra on) the power set of $\mathbb R$ that assigns negligible measure to $\tau$?)
  2. Topological (e.g. is there a natural topology on the power set of $\mathbb R$ where $\tau$ is meagre, or even nowhere dense?)
  3. Set-theoretic (e.g. does the power set of $\mathbb R$ have larger cardinality than $\tau$?)

Here, $\tau$ is (obviously) the Euclidean topology.

Actually, that last version of the question in parentheses might have the easiest answer: Let $\mathcal B$ be the Borel sets on $\mathbb R$. We have that $|\tau| \le | \mathcal B | = | \mathbb R | < \left| 2^{\mathbb R} \right|$. (For details on the equality, see here. For a much simpler proof, see this answer.)

Are there alternative ways to make this precise?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ A trivial answer to 1. and 2. would be to define a topology on $P(\Bbb R),$ the power-set of $\Bbb R$, as $\{\emptyset, P(\Bbb R)\setminus \tau, P(\Bbb R)\}$ and a measure $m$ with $m(P(\Bbb R))=1$ and $m(\tau)=0.$ But I don't think this is quite what you're hoping for. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Sep 16 '18 at 1:12
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielWainfleet Indeed. I was hoping the word "natural" would be enough to rule out such answers. Unless there are other reasons I'm not seeing that would make such a definition natural? $\endgroup$ – Theoretical Economist Sep 17 '18 at 22:43
11
$\begingroup$

Since each open non-empty subset of $\mathbb R$ can be written has a countable union of open intervals and since the set of all open intervals has the same cardinal as $\mathbb R$, the set of all open subsets of $\mathbb R$ has the same cardinal as $\mathbb R$. And since there is a bijection between the open subsets of $\mathbb R$ and the closed ones, the set of all closed subsets of $\mathbb R$ also has the same cardinal as $\mathbb R$. So, in the set-theoretical sense, most subsets of $\mathbb R$ are neither closed nor open.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks; I am aware of this fact (see the bottom of my post). However, I like your proof. It is much simpler than mine. $\endgroup$ – Theoretical Economist Sep 15 '18 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ @TheoreticalEconomist I wonder whether someon will provide a measure-theoretical or a topological answer. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Sep 15 '18 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that would certainly be much more interesting. $\endgroup$ – Theoretical Economist Sep 15 '18 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ To the proposer: The set of bounded open real intervals with rational end-points is a countable base (basis) for $\tau.$ For any topology $T$ with a countable base $B$ we have $|T|=|\{\cup C: C\in P(B)\}|\leq |P(B)|\leq 2^{\aleph_0}=|\Bbb R|.$.... So $|\tau|\leq |\Bbb R|.$ And we also have $|\tau|\geq |\{(r,r+1):r\in \Bbb R\}|=|\Bbb R|.$ $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Sep 16 '18 at 1:27

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.