14

Can someone explain to me why the interior of rationals is empty? That is $\text{int}(\mathbb{Q}) = \emptyset$?

The definition of an interior point is "A point $q$ is an interior point of $E$ if there exists a ball at $q$ such that the ball is contained in $E$" and the interior set is the collection of all interior points.

So if I were to take $q = \frac{1}{2}$, then clearly $q$ is an interior point of $\mathbb{Q}$, since I can draw a ball of radius $1$ and it would still be contained in $\mathbb{Q}$.

And why can't I just take all the rationals to be the interior?

So why can't I have $\text{int}\mathbb{(Q)} = \mathbb{Q}$?

JKnecht
  • 6,543
Lemon
  • 12,664
  • Hint: what does contained in mean? – Alex Oct 30 '12 at 04:42
  • 1
    notice that "the ball is contained in $E$" means all of the points in the ball is contained in $E$, but any "ball" centered at a rational point contain some irrational point, which is not in $\mathbb{Q}$ – TTY Oct 30 '12 at 04:44
  • @Tao, but why do we even need to check those irrationals?Our ball will have holes, but we can't have that? – Lemon Oct 30 '12 at 04:47
  • 1
    I'm assuming you are using the standard definition, a "ball" on the real line, centered at a point $x$ with radius $r$ is defined (as long as I know)to be the set ${y: |y-x|<r}$, certainly in this definition we cannot have "holes" – TTY Oct 30 '12 at 04:53

6 Answers6

30

If the whole set is $\mathbb{Q}$, then $\text{int}(\mathbb{Q})=\mathbb{Q}$,

If the whole set is $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{R}^n$, then $\text{int}(\mathbb{Q})=\emptyset$,

because, $\forall q\in \mathbb{Q}, and \,\forall \epsilon>0, B_\epsilon(q)=\{x\in\mathbb{R}:|x-q|<\epsilon\}$ contains irrational numbers, which are not in the $\mathbb{Q}$, so $q$ is not a interior point of $\mathbb{Q}$.

the statement is proved.

the problem depends on the whole set you are talking about.

Vivaan Daga
  • 5,531
shi feng
  • 316
  • 2
  • 2
  • Oh okay, that makes more sense! – Lemon Oct 30 '12 at 05:36
  • Exactly, this makes perfect sense. If we don't know about (or consider) the rationals, then every point in Q is in its interior. It is only when we consider the rationals, that the definition changes. – ahron Dec 29 '21 at 10:10
2

I'm assuming since you're using the Euclidean Metric that you're viewing $\mathbb{Q}$ as a subset of $\mathbb{R}$. The emptiness of the interior follows from the density of the rationals in the reals. So in fact, you can't actually take an open set around a rational number and stay within the rationals because real numbers will always get in your way.

  • 1
    Empty interior doesn't follow from being dense. – Nick Matteo Sep 12 '14 at 00:29
  • The empty interior follows from $\mathbb{R}-\mathbb{Q}$ being dense in $\mathbb{R}$ and as Kundor remarked not from $\mathbb{Q}$'s density in $\mathbb{R}$.
    A thorough answer to this question and afew others can be found here: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1306770/example-of-non-open-dense-proper-subset-with-non-empty-interior
    – ABIM May 31 '15 at 17:51
1

The interior of rational numbers is not empty when the whole set is also rational numbers.

But if the whole set is real numbers, then any rational numbers would have a ball containing real numbers. By definition, this rational number is not an interior point because its ball contains real numbers which are not part of the set of rational numbers.

0

Think of it this way: we say $A$ is a subset of $B$ if for all $a \in A$, $a$ is in $B$.

Now, we say that the interior of some set $S$ is the set of all of its interior points. A point is an interior point if there exists a neighborhood $N$ of $x$, for some $x \in S$, such that $N$ is a subset of $S$.

Now, keeping in mind the definition of a subset, there exists no $\epsilon$ such that an irrational number is not contained within the neighborhood $(x - \epsilon, x + \epsilon)$ - hence, since there exists an $x \in N$ such that $x$ is not in $S$, given $I = \mathbb R \setminus \mathbb Q$, then there can be no such $N$ such that $N$ is a subset of $S$ - it fails to meet the definition of a subset.

When you consider what is required for a point to be considered an interior point, you can see that no such interior points exist, and thus $\operatorname{int}(\mathbb Q) = \emptyset$.

user251257
  • 9,229
0
  1. Definition: An element x is the interior point of A(subset of X) if there exists open set U containing x such that U contained in A.
  2. Let x=2, A=Q, X=R(Real Numbers),U=(1,3) Apply them on definition.
  3. The element 2 is interior point of Q if the open set U=(1,3) and 2 belongs to U such that (1,3)contained in Q.
  4. Look at the condition (bold line).. Do we have (1,3) contained in Q ? No ,since (1,3) contains an irrational number root2(root 2). but which doesn't belongs to Q.
  5. Hence i can find an open set containing 2 but which not satisfies the condition (Bold one). So int Q = empty.
  6. it's understood that it will not work for any Q's.
  7. Hence int Q= empty.
0

It is easy to show that there are irrational numbers between any two rational numbers. Let $q_1 < q_2$ be rational numbers and choose a positive integer $m$ such that $m(q_2-q_1)>2$. Taking some positive integer $m$ such that $m(b-a)>2$, the irrational number $m q_1+\sqrt{2}$ belongs to the interval $(mq_1, mq_2)$ and so the irrational number $q_1 + \frac{\sqrt{2}}{m}$ belongs to $(q_1,q_2)$.

With this in mind, there are irrational numbers in any neighbourhood of a rational number, which implies that $\textrm{int}(\mathbb{Q}) = \emptyset$.

PierreCarre
  • 20,974
  • 1
  • 18
  • 34