3

This may be a basic question. It's well known that open sets in $\mathbb{R}$ are the union of disjoint open intervals. Does it similarly hold that open sets in $\mathbb{R}^n$ are the union of disjoint connected open sets? Moreover, is a connected open set the union of disjoint connected convex sets? Thanks.

epimorphic
  • 3,219
Wang Ming
  • 131
  • 2
    I assume you don't consider the fact that every set $S$ is a union of the ${s}$ where all $s\in S$ is a partition of $S$ into disjoint convex sets very interesting. – Milo Brandt Feb 15 '15 at 16:10
  • @WangMing Note that in addition to voting, you can accept answers by clicking the ✔ beneath the voting arrows. And for archival purposes, the first part of this question was already answered here. – epimorphic Feb 26 '15 at 05:46

2 Answers2

2

The first property you ask for is fairly trivial to show; in particular, for any open set $O$ define an equivalence relation $$a\sim b$$ defined by the property that, if $S$ is a set of disjoint open sets covering $O$, then $a\in s\in S$ implies $b\in s$ - that is, $a$ and $b$ are in the same connected component. The equivalence classes of this can easily be shown to be disjoint open sets, whose union is $O$.

The second property is somewhat more difficult, but still doable. One approach is essentially to build an octree as a partition. In particular, let $S$ be the set of intervals of the form $$\left[\frac{x_1}{2^n},\frac{x_1+1}{2^n}\right)\times \left[\frac{x_2}{2^n},\frac{x_2+1}{2^n}\right)\times \left[\frac{x_3}{2^n},\frac{x_3+1}{2^n}\right)$$ along with the set $\mathbb R^2$ itself. That is, we have axis aligned cubes whose corners are at "adjacent" dyadic rationals - if we put $8$ of these cubes together, we get a bigger cube which is also in the set. Then, we can quickly come up with a partition $P\subseteq S$ of $O$ - in particular, let $P$ be the set of $s\in S$ such that $s\subseteq O$ but for which there does not exist any $s'\in S$ which (strictly) contains $s$ but is contained in $O$ - that is, $P$ is the set of cubes of maximal size fitting in $O$.

This is a partition since, for any $p\in O$, there is some ball around $p$ contained in $O$ - and therefore, as every point is contained in a cube of arbitrarily small radius, there is some $s\in S$ such that $p\in s\subseteq O$. We can then argue that if two cubes $s_1,s_2\in S$ contain $p$, then either $s_1\subseteq s_2$ or $s_2\subseteq s_1$ (because of how the cubes nest) - and thus, the set of cubes containing $p$ forms a chain when ordered by inclusion - and our partition has the property that the union over such a chain is still in $S$ - therefore, we conclude that there is a maximal element in $S$ containing $p$ and that this is in $P$, thus $P$ is a partition.

We can generalize this argument to say that, if $S$ is a set satisfying:

  • If $s_1,s_2\in S$ then $s_1\cap s_2$ is either $s_1$, $s_2$, or the empty set.
  • Every subset $S'\subseteq S$ which is totally ordered by inclusion (i.e. a chain) has that the union of all $s\in S'$ is a member of $S$. (Equivalently, every subset of $S'$ has a least upper bound when ordered by inclusion)
  • For any open set $O$ and $p\in O$, there exists a $s\in S$ which contains $p$ and which is contained wholly within $O$.

then there is a partition $P$ of any open set satisfying $P\subseteq S$. In our particular example, we chose a suitable $S$ composed of convex sets with non-empty interior.

Milo Brandt
  • 60,888
  • Dear Prof. Meelo, thank you very much for your answer. I'm sorry for that my reputation is not enough to vote up for your comment. – Wang Ming Feb 15 '15 at 17:15
  • @Meelo I'm curious as to what your method of extension to the unbounded case is. I was thinking of cutting up the ambient space $\mathbb R^n$ into hypercubes, but since the openness of the cubes are important to your argument, I still have to separately decompose the remaining grid of hypersurfaces into convex sets. Thankfully those surfaces are flat so I can just repeat the procedure in lower dimensions, but as you said in your comment to the question, using degenerate pieces feels a bit like cheating. Is it possible to cover unbounded open sets by disjoint balls of nonzero radius? – epimorphic Feb 26 '15 at 02:09
  • 1
    @epimorphic Oops. I was thinking of the same decomposition as you, but I didn't realize that that doesn't work (i.e. in mathematician lingo, "is easy") - it's salvageable though - let $O$ be open and $C$ be a (compact) hypercube. Repeating the same construction as before by choosing the most interior point inside $C$ ("interior" with respect to all of $O$, not just what's in $C$) will yield a partition of some set $X$ into balls, where $C\subset X \subset O$. (cont.) – Milo Brandt Feb 26 '15 at 02:37
  • 1
    ...One may show that $O\setminus X$ is open as for any $p\in O\setminus X$ there is some minimum distance to any point in $C$ and as there are only finitely many balls in the partition of radius greater than half this distance, there is some neighborhood of $p$ intersected by only finitely many (closed) balls in the partition of $X$ - and subtracting these balls from the neighborhood yields another neighborhood of $p$. Thus, $O\setminus X$ is open and we can repeat the construction, removing another hypercube (+overflow) – Milo Brandt Feb 26 '15 at 02:43
  • 1
    Er: Correction, $X$ must contain the intersection of $C$ and $O$, not all of $C$. – Milo Brandt Feb 26 '15 at 02:46
  • That seems to do it. Cheers :) – epimorphic Feb 26 '15 at 05:03
  • 1
    @epimorphic Agh, I reexamined that proof I put in comments, and though that proof is fine, it exposes a fatal flaw in the original proof I wrote - it only proves that the construction creates a partition of $C$ minus a set with no interior, since the "interiorness" of a point will change as balls are removed, and potentially (though I don't believe), the interiorness of a point will head to a limit of $0$ without ever being in a selected ball - meaning the proof I gave that every point would be contained is not applicable. I replaced the old proof with a wholly new, and more natural one. – Milo Brandt Mar 02 '15 at 02:03
  • Very nice catch. Minor nitpicks: The problem is in $\mathbb R^n$, not $\mathbb R^3$ or $\mathbb R^2$, so the answer should probably also be written in that general setting. In parallel, the exponent on the dyadic fractions should be changed to some other letter to not overload $n$, and it would be nice to specify that the exponent is a nonnegative or positive integer. And "cube of arbitrarily small radius" might be better worded as "cube of arbitrarily small side length" (though I suppose the former is correct in $\infty$-norm). – epimorphic Mar 11 '15 at 03:39
-1

The open sets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ in the standard Euclidean topology are generated by the open balls $B(x,\epsilon) = \{ y \in \mathbb{R}^n | ||x-y||<\epsilon \}$ where $\epsilon >0$ and $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Notably, for $n=1$ the $||x-y||$ (Euclidean norm) is just $|x-y|$, the absolute value.

It is true that in $\mathbb{R}$, the open sets are disjoint unions of intervals. For instance, the set $(-\infty,6) \cup (14,\infty)$ is a disjoint union of intervals, but if I write something like $(-\infty,6) \cup (4,\infty) = (-\infty, \infty)$, that is still an open set, even though I've written it as the union of non-disjoint open intervals.

After simplification of set union wherever it may occur, every open set in $\mathbb{R}^n$ will be the disjoint union of open balls, but it may not necessarily be written that way. Once we do all simplification, we should end up with a collection of disjoint open sets.

walkar
  • 3,844
  • 2
    These are not necessarily disjoint however. – Milo Brandt Feb 15 '15 at 16:00
  • @Meelo Notably, the requirements for the base of a topology do not specify that the elements have to be disjoint, merely that each one is an open set, for any $x$ at least one basis element contains it, and for $x$ in the intersection of any two basis elements, there is another basis element containing $x$ and sitting inside the intersection. – walkar Feb 15 '15 at 16:01
  • the requirement for a base does not, the OP's question does. – Thomas Feb 15 '15 at 16:13
  • Ah, I think I see the problem. Allow me to edit. – walkar Feb 15 '15 at 16:14
  • "every open set in $\mathbb{R}^n$ will be the disjoint union of open balls, but it may not necessarily be written that way". This is a nonsensical sentence, and seems to betray a fundamental misunderstanding about what we mean when we write that something is a "disjoint union" – jxnh Feb 15 '15 at 16:31