4
$\begingroup$

Every nonempty set in $\mathbb{R}$ is the countable union of open intervals.

I read the following proof, but I still want to know why either the $I_q$'s are the same or are disjoint. If someone could provide a nice explanation it would be greatly appreciated.

The following is the proof I found on this page - Any open subset of $\Bbb R$ is a at most countable union of disjoint open intervals. [Collecting Proofs]

Let $U \subseteq R$ be open and let $x \in U$. Either $x$ is rational or irrational. If $x$ is rational, define \begin{align}I_x = \bigcup\limits_{\substack{I\text{ an open interval} \\ x~\in~I~\subseteq~U}} I,\end{align} which, as a union of non-disjoint open intervals (each $I$ contains $x$), is an open interval subset to $U$. If $x$ is irrational, by openness of $U$ there is $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $(x - \varepsilon, x + \varepsilon) \subseteq U$, and there exists rational $y \in (x - \varepsilon, x + \varepsilon) \subseteq I_y$ (by the definition of $I_y$). Hence $x \in I_y$. So any $x \in U$ is in $I_q$ for some $q \in U \cap \mathbb{Q}$, and so \begin{align}U \subseteq \bigcup\limits_{q~\in~U \cap~\mathbb{Q}} I_q.\end{align} But $I_q \subseteq U$ for each $q \in U \cap \mathbb{Q}$; thus \begin{align}U = \bigcup\limits_{q~\in~U \cap~\mathbb{Q}} I_q, \end{align} which is a countable union of open intervals.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Here $I_x$ is defined as the union of all open intervals in $U$ containing $x$ (the universal quantifier is not explicitly mentioned in the notation, which could be the source of the confusion). Therefore the intervals $I_x$ are by definition maximal. If two of them overlap then they are necessarily the same, since otherwise they would not be maximal.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see. So if lets say $I_x$ and $I_y$ overlap, then $x\in I_y$, so $I_y$ would already be included in the union which makes up $I_x$. So, $I_y \subseteq I_x$. We could make the same argument by switching $x$'s and $y$'s and we would have equality. Nice. $\endgroup$ – Sarah Jan 20 '14 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ This answer really helped me, thank you! $\endgroup$ – Bman72 Jun 13 '14 at 6:53
2
$\begingroup$

You wonder why for $a,b\in\mathbb Q$ we have either $I_a=I_b$ or $I_a\cap I_b=\emptyset$. Assume $I_a\cap I_b\ne\emptyset$ and $x\in I_a\cap I_b$. Then $x\in I_a, I_b$ implies $I_a\subseteq I_x$. Then $a\in I_a\subseteq I_x$ implies $I_x\subseteq I_a$, hence $I_x=I_a$. By the same argument $I_x=I_b$, i.e. $I_a=I_b$.

$\endgroup$

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.