Isn't this proof of a theorem about the closedness of a set wrong?












9












$begingroup$


I was reading a proof of the following theorem in my textbook:




A set $A$ is closed iff $A' subseteq A$.



Proof: Suppose $A$ is closed and $x in A'$. If $x notin A$, then $xin A^c$, an open set. Thus $mathcal{N}(x, delta)subseteq A^c$ for some positive $delta$. But then $mathcal{N}(x, delta)$ can contain no points of $A$. Thus $x$ is not an accumulation point of $A$ and so $xnotin A'$, a contradiction. We conclude that $xin A$. Therefore $A'subseteq A$.



Now suppose $A'subseteq A$. To show that $A$ is closed, we show $A^c$ is open. If $A^c$ is not open, there is $xin A^c$ that is not an interior point of $A^c$. Therefore, no $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ is a subset of $A^c$; that is, each $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. This point must be different from $x$, since $xin A^c$. Thus $xin A'$. But $A'subseteq A$, so $xin A$. This is a contradiction. We conclude that $A$ is closed.




Somewhere along the proof, the complement of $A$ is proven to be open. In order to achieve this, the author first assumes that it's not open and produces a contradiction. But isn't that wrong since it's possible for a set to be neither open nor closed?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
    $endgroup$
    – angryavian
    Jan 8 at 22:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 8 at 22:47






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 22:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
    $endgroup$
    – Jim
    Jan 8 at 23:11
















9












$begingroup$


I was reading a proof of the following theorem in my textbook:




A set $A$ is closed iff $A' subseteq A$.



Proof: Suppose $A$ is closed and $x in A'$. If $x notin A$, then $xin A^c$, an open set. Thus $mathcal{N}(x, delta)subseteq A^c$ for some positive $delta$. But then $mathcal{N}(x, delta)$ can contain no points of $A$. Thus $x$ is not an accumulation point of $A$ and so $xnotin A'$, a contradiction. We conclude that $xin A$. Therefore $A'subseteq A$.



Now suppose $A'subseteq A$. To show that $A$ is closed, we show $A^c$ is open. If $A^c$ is not open, there is $xin A^c$ that is not an interior point of $A^c$. Therefore, no $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ is a subset of $A^c$; that is, each $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. This point must be different from $x$, since $xin A^c$. Thus $xin A'$. But $A'subseteq A$, so $xin A$. This is a contradiction. We conclude that $A$ is closed.




Somewhere along the proof, the complement of $A$ is proven to be open. In order to achieve this, the author first assumes that it's not open and produces a contradiction. But isn't that wrong since it's possible for a set to be neither open nor closed?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
    $endgroup$
    – angryavian
    Jan 8 at 22:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 8 at 22:47






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 22:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
    $endgroup$
    – Jim
    Jan 8 at 23:11














9












9








9





$begingroup$


I was reading a proof of the following theorem in my textbook:




A set $A$ is closed iff $A' subseteq A$.



Proof: Suppose $A$ is closed and $x in A'$. If $x notin A$, then $xin A^c$, an open set. Thus $mathcal{N}(x, delta)subseteq A^c$ for some positive $delta$. But then $mathcal{N}(x, delta)$ can contain no points of $A$. Thus $x$ is not an accumulation point of $A$ and so $xnotin A'$, a contradiction. We conclude that $xin A$. Therefore $A'subseteq A$.



Now suppose $A'subseteq A$. To show that $A$ is closed, we show $A^c$ is open. If $A^c$ is not open, there is $xin A^c$ that is not an interior point of $A^c$. Therefore, no $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ is a subset of $A^c$; that is, each $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. This point must be different from $x$, since $xin A^c$. Thus $xin A'$. But $A'subseteq A$, so $xin A$. This is a contradiction. We conclude that $A$ is closed.




Somewhere along the proof, the complement of $A$ is proven to be open. In order to achieve this, the author first assumes that it's not open and produces a contradiction. But isn't that wrong since it's possible for a set to be neither open nor closed?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I was reading a proof of the following theorem in my textbook:




A set $A$ is closed iff $A' subseteq A$.



Proof: Suppose $A$ is closed and $x in A'$. If $x notin A$, then $xin A^c$, an open set. Thus $mathcal{N}(x, delta)subseteq A^c$ for some positive $delta$. But then $mathcal{N}(x, delta)$ can contain no points of $A$. Thus $x$ is not an accumulation point of $A$ and so $xnotin A'$, a contradiction. We conclude that $xin A$. Therefore $A'subseteq A$.



Now suppose $A'subseteq A$. To show that $A$ is closed, we show $A^c$ is open. If $A^c$ is not open, there is $xin A^c$ that is not an interior point of $A^c$. Therefore, no $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ is a subset of $A^c$; that is, each $delta$-neighborhood of $x$ contains a point of $A$. This point must be different from $x$, since $xin A^c$. Thus $xin A'$. But $A'subseteq A$, so $xin A$. This is a contradiction. We conclude that $A$ is closed.




Somewhere along the proof, the complement of $A$ is proven to be open. In order to achieve this, the author first assumes that it's not open and produces a contradiction. But isn't that wrong since it's possible for a set to be neither open nor closed?







general-topology






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 8 at 23:21









Asaf Karagila

302k32427757




302k32427757






New contributor




cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Jan 8 at 22:41









cppcodercppcoder

1484




1484




New contributor




cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






cppcoder is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
    $endgroup$
    – angryavian
    Jan 8 at 22:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 8 at 22:47






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 22:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
    $endgroup$
    – Jim
    Jan 8 at 23:11














  • 5




    $begingroup$
    What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
    $endgroup$
    – angryavian
    Jan 8 at 22:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 8 at 22:47






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Jan 8 at 22:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
    $endgroup$
    – Jim
    Jan 8 at 23:11








5




5




$begingroup$
What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Jan 8 at 22:43




$begingroup$
What exactly is wrong? The proof starts with the assumption that $A^c$ is not open; it is not assuming that $A^c$ is closed.
$endgroup$
– angryavian
Jan 8 at 22:43




1




1




$begingroup$
To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
Jan 8 at 22:47




$begingroup$
To show that $P,Q$ are equivalent, you can prove $P implies Q$ and $lnot P implies lnot Q$.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
Jan 8 at 22:47




2




2




$begingroup$
He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Jan 8 at 22:48




$begingroup$
He makes absolutely no assumptions about whether $A^c$ is closed. He only assume $A^c$ is not open. He gets a contradiction which means..... It is false that $A^c$ is not open. That means $A^c$ is open. That's all.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Jan 8 at 22:48




1




1




$begingroup$
As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
$endgroup$
– Jim
Jan 8 at 23:11




$begingroup$
As one of my professors used to say: “sets are not doors.”
$endgroup$
– Jim
Jan 8 at 23:11










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















14












$begingroup$

No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – cppcoder
    Jan 8 at 22:57



















5












$begingroup$

There are four possiblities



1) $A^c$ is open and closed.



2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.



3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.



4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.



He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.



However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.



So it comes down to:



I) $A^c$ is open. or



II) $A^c$ is not open.



He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.



But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066825%2fisnt-this-proof-of-a-theorem-about-the-closedness-of-a-set-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    14












    $begingroup$

    No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
      $endgroup$
      – cppcoder
      Jan 8 at 22:57
















    14












    $begingroup$

    No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
      $endgroup$
      – cppcoder
      Jan 8 at 22:57














    14












    14








    14





    $begingroup$

    No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    No problems here. Note that the author doesn't assume $A^c$ to be closed. Just that it isn't open. And since "open" means "for any point in the set, we have a certain property", we get that "not open" means "for at least one point in the set, we don't have that property". The point $x$ they choose is one such point guaranteed to exist by that assumption.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 8 at 22:47









    ArthurArthur

    112k7107190




    112k7107190












    • $begingroup$
      Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
      $endgroup$
      – cppcoder
      Jan 8 at 22:57


















    • $begingroup$
      Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
      $endgroup$
      – cppcoder
      Jan 8 at 22:57
















    $begingroup$
    Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – cppcoder
    Jan 8 at 22:57




    $begingroup$
    Yes, you're right. I'm such an idiot. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – cppcoder
    Jan 8 at 22:57











    5












    $begingroup$

    There are four possiblities



    1) $A^c$ is open and closed.



    2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.



    3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.



    4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.



    He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.



    However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.



    So it comes down to:



    I) $A^c$ is open. or



    II) $A^c$ is not open.



    He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.



    But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      5












      $begingroup$

      There are four possiblities



      1) $A^c$ is open and closed.



      2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.



      3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.



      4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.



      He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.



      However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.



      So it comes down to:



      I) $A^c$ is open. or



      II) $A^c$ is not open.



      He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.



      But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        5












        5








        5





        $begingroup$

        There are four possiblities



        1) $A^c$ is open and closed.



        2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.



        3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.



        4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.



        He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.



        However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.



        So it comes down to:



        I) $A^c$ is open. or



        II) $A^c$ is not open.



        He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.



        But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        There are four possiblities



        1) $A^c$ is open and closed.



        2) $A^c$ is open and not closed.



        3) $A^c$ is not open and closed.



        4) $A^c$ is not open and not closed.



        He assumed: $A^c$ is not open. That means either $3$ or $4$. He got a contradiction. That shows that both $3$ and $4$ are both false. Thus the only possibilities are $1$ or $2$. So he concludes either $1$ or $2$ is true. Which means.... $A^c$ is open.



        However as he didn't give a carnivore's fig whether $A^c$ was closed or not he made no mention of it at all.



        So it comes down to:



        I) $A^c$ is open. or



        II) $A^c$ is not open.



        He assumes II) gets a contradiction, and concludes I). $A^c$ is open. Now maybe $A^c$ is closed. Or maybe it isn't. He doesn't care and made no assumptions to the fact.



        But he does know, and correctly so. That $A^c$ is open....







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 8 at 23:02









        fleabloodfleablood

        68.7k22685




        68.7k22685






















            cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            cppcoder is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066825%2fisnt-this-proof-of-a-theorem-about-the-closedness-of-a-set-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

            Alcedinidae

            Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?