2
$\begingroup$

I need to proof that $\mathbb{R}$ can't be written like a countable union of disjoint closed no empty.

If anyone can give me a hint I would really appreciate it.

EDIT: Note that the closed aren't necessarily intervals.

(If I consider the collection $C=\lbrace \mathbb{R} \rbrace$ the problem is trivial).

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

To be clear, we want prove the following: Let $\{X_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a collection of non-empty closed subsets of $\mathbb{R}$. Then $\mathbb{R} \neq \cup_{n=1}^{\infty} X_n$. Outline of a proof: By contradiction. Assume that $\mathbb{R} = \cup_{n=1}^{\infty} X_n$. Let $U = \cup_{n=1}^{\infty} X_n^o$ (where $X_n^o$ means the interior of $X_n$). Then $U$ is open. Moreover, $U$ is dense. Indeed, if $\varnothing \neq (a,b) \subset U^c$ then $[a/2,b/2]$ is a non-empty complete metric space which is covered by the countable union of nowhere dense closed sets $\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}\big(X_n \backslash X_n^o\big)$, contradicting the Baire Category Theorem. So $U$ is dense and therefore $U^c$ is nowhere dense and closed. Now, convince yourself that $U^c = \cup_{n=1}^{\infty} \partial X_n$ (where $\partial X_n$ is the boundary of $X_n$). $U^c$ is itself a closed subset and hence a complete metric space (with the induced metric from $\mathbb{R}$). Therefore, we can apply the Baire Category Theorem and infer that since $U^c = \cup_{n=1}^{\infty} \partial X_n$ then there is (at least) one of the sets $\partial X_n$ which is dense in some open subset of $U^c$ (with the induced topology). This says that there is some non-empty open interval $B \subset \mathbb{R}$ for which $B \cap U^c \neq \varnothing$ and $\partial X_n$ is dense in $B \cap U^c$. With $\partial X_n$ closed, then $B \cap U^c \subset \partial X_n$. But this creates a contradiction, since if some $x \in \partial X_n$ is also in $B$, then by the definition of a boundary point there must be some other point $y \in X_m \neq X_n$ such that $y \in B$, which will imply that $\partial X_m \cap B \neq \varnothing$ (why!?) further implying $\partial X_m \cap \partial X_n \neq \varnothing$ from which we can conclude that $X_m$ and $X_n$ are not disjoint.

$\endgroup$

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.