0

I have difficulty understanding the following result.

Theorem. Let $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$ an open subset. Then for each $\delta>0$ the set $A$ is countable union of close cube having disjointed interiors and diagonal smaller than $\delta.$

Proof. We consider the family of close cube $$C_k:=\bigg[0,\frac{1}{2^k}\bigg]^n$$ and the family of translates $$K_k:=\bigg\{C_k+\frac{q}{2^k}\bigg\}\quad k\in\mathbb{N},$$ where $q=(q_1,\dots, q_n)$, $q_k\in\mathbb{Z}$ for all $k=1,\dots, n.$

First Problem. I can't visualize these translated sets, could you give me a concrete example?

We note that if $k\le l$, $C\in K_k$ and $\hat{C}\in K_l$, then either $\hat{C}\in C$ or $\text{Int}(C)\cap\text{Int}(\hat{C})=\emptyset.$

Second Problem. Why is the above statement true?

Let $\delta >0$; let $k_0$ the smallest integer such that $\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2^k}<\delta.$ We define $$\mathcal{C}_{k_0}:=\{C\in K_{k_0}\;|\; C\subseteq A\};$$

for induction we define for all $k\ge k_0$ $$ P_k:=\bigcup_{l=k_0}^k\bigg[\bigcup_{C\in\mathcal{C}_l} C\bigg];$$ $$H_k:= A\setminus\text{Int}(P_k),$$ $$\mathcal{C}_{k+1}:=\{C\in K_{k+1}\;|\; C\subseteq H_k\}.$$

Third problem How do I prove at this point that: $$A=\bigcup_{k=k_0}^\infty P_k$$

Could someone explain the details of the proof? Thank you in advance.

Jack J.
  • 920
  • "I can't visualize these translated sets, could you give me a concrete example?" Take all of space and cut it up into cubes of size $2^k$. So if we are doing this in $\mathbb R^3$, then for $K_0$ we are cutting up space into on inch cubes. For $K_1$ we are cutting up space into $\frac 12$ inch cubes and so on. These cubes will all line up so that a cube will have a corner at the origin and sides aligning along the axes. All the rest will pack in. – fleablood Jul 29 '19 at 16:30
  • "Why is the above statement true?" If you take one of the cubes of a cut up space and another smaller cube from a cut up space, either the small cube will be aligned to fit in the bigger, or the may share a face but no interior, or they may be entirely separate. This is because the corners of the smaller cutting are designed to fit in exactly with the large cutting but cut into $2^{l-k}$ more pieces. – fleablood Jul 29 '19 at 16:36
  • Basically we are just pixelating space. Each $K_l$ is a pixelation of space into rectangles at twice the resolution of the last pixelization. – fleablood Jul 29 '19 at 16:40

1 Answers1

2

First problem (visualization): Probably the easiest is for $n=2, k=0$, that means tesselating the Euclidean plane with unit squares, like a chessboard, infinitely extended:

enter image description here

Somehwere is the origin point $(0,0)$ and $C_0$ with vertices $(0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (0,1)$, shown in black. All the other squares in $K_0$ are of the form $(q_1,q_2),(q_1+1,q_2),(q_1+1,q_2+1),(q_1,q_2+1), q_1,q_2 \in \mathbb Z.$

If $k$ becomes greater, nothing changes in the form, just the scale, as the squares get smaller and smaller. For $k=1$, $C_1$ is only a fourth of $C_0$, it has vertices $(0,0), (\frac12,0), (\frac12,\frac12)$ and $(0,\frac12)$. But since now the translate values are also allowed to talk half integer values, the remaining parts of $C_0$ are also covered by some translates in $K_1$.

Now if $n=3$, those squares becomes cubes, and it should be easy to understand how they fill the 3d space. For higher $n$, the $C_k$ are hypercubes, but that I can't visualize.

Second problem (inclusion or no common interior): With the above description, think about what happens when you move from $k$ to $k+1$ for some $n$. The hypercube $ C_k$ is divided into $2^n$ hypercubes of half it's side length. The same goes for all the translates in $K_k$. An element $\hat{C} \in K_{k+1}$ is contained in the element $C\in K_k$ that it was divided from. You could say $C$ is the parent of $\hat{C}$, and $\hat{C}$ the child of $C$.

So in this case a parent contains (in the subset sense) all of it's children and grandchildren, grandgrandchildren, etc.

Note also that different elements of the same 'generation' (in the same $K_k$) have no common interior!

So to get at the statement from the proof:

$$C \in K_k, \hat{C} \in K_l, k \le l$$

Go up from $\hat{C}$ to its parent, grandparent etc. until it reaches it's ancestor in the generation $k$. If it is $C$, we know from above that $\hat{C} \subseteq C$. If it is not $C$, but $C'$, then $\hat{C} \subseteq C'$, but since $C$ and $C'$ have no common interior, so have $C$ and $\hat{C}$.

Third problem (A is the union):

First note that each $C_k$ consists of cubes that are subsets of $A$. It's true for the first $C_{k_0}$ (see the definition) and also for each new generation, as $H_k \subseteq A$ (see the defintion). Each $P_k$ is the union of elements in some $C_l$, so we get

$$P_k \subseteq A$$

and thus

$$\bigcup_{k=k_0}^\infty P_k \subseteq A.$$

Now for the other direction, we need the condition that $A$ is open for the first time. Let $p\in A$ be any point from $A$. We will show $p \in P_k$ for some $k$. Because of the openness of $A$, there is a small ball of radius $\epsilon$ around $p$ that completely lies in $A$.

Now let's set $k_p$ equal the some value that fullfilles $\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2^{k_p}} < \epsilon$ and $k_p > k_0$ (so we can consider $P_{k_p}$ a.s.o. as defined in the problem statement). As we've seen in the consideration for the first problem, each $K_k$ covers the whole $R^n$. So there is a $C \in K_{k_p}$ with $p \in C$. That $C$ is a hypercube of sidelength $\frac1{2^{k_p}}$, so it's main diagonal has length

$$\sqrt{n}\frac1{2^{k_p}} = \frac{\sqrt{n}}{2^{k_p}} < \epsilon.$$

Now the main diagonal of such a hypercube is the largest distance between any 2 points of the hypercube. That means that the distance from $p$ to any other point in $C$ is at most $\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2^{k_p}}$ and thus less than $\epsilon$. By the construction of $\epsilon$, that means each point of $C$ is in $A$!.

That means $C \subseteq A$. From the second problem we know that either $C \subseteq P_{k_p-1}$ or $C$ and $P_{k_p-1}$ have no common interior.

(This is a bit handwaving, as $P_{k_p-1}$ may contain points that were not interior to any hypercubes it is made of. But those points form $n-1$ dimensional manifolds, so the $n$-dimensional cube $C$ cannot 'hide' in them without also containing interior points of any building block of $P_{k_p-1}$.)

In the first case we are done, we have found $p \in C \subseteq P_{k_p-1}$. In the second case, we have $C \cap \text{Int}(P_{k_p-1}) = \emptyset$. That means $C \subseteq H_{k_p-1}$ and hence $C \in \mathcal{C}_{k_p}$ and thus $p \in C \subset P_{k_p}$ by the definition.

So in all cases we found that the arbitrary point $p \in A$ is in some $P_{k_p}$, so we finally get

$$\bigcup_{k=k_0}^\infty P_k = A.$$

Ingix
  • 14,494
  • @ingixThank you for your detailed answer. One clarification: so that the last part makes sense it must happen that $k_p\ge k_0$, at this point if we consider $k_{p}-1$, this could be bigger than $k_0$. Therefore it would no longer be correct to say that $C\subseteq P_{k_p}$ or $C\cap \text{Int}(P_{k_p})=\emptyset$? – Jack J. Jul 30 '19 at 08:21
  • How do we take $k_p\ge k_0$? – Jack J. Jul 30 '19 at 08:33
  • Maybe I understood: if $k_p\ge k_0$ we have done, if $k_p<k_0$ we consider $k_0$ – Jack J. Jul 30 '19 at 08:42
  • 1
    @JackJ., I forgot about $k_0$. Basically make sure that $k_p \ge k_0+1$. Then talking aboug $P_{k_p-1}$ makes sense I'll add thís to the solution. – Ingix Jul 30 '19 at 15:10
  • One last thing: since $A=H_{k_p-1}\cup\text{Int}(P_{k_p-1})$, $C\subseteq H_{k_p-1}$ or $C\subseteq \text{Int}(P_{k_p-1})$, in the second case $C$ have interior points in common with $\text{Int}(P_{k_p-1})$. It' correct? – Jack J. Jul 30 '19 at 16:22
  • 1
    Yes. $C$ is an $n$-dimensional hypercube and by definition $P_k$ is the union of $n-$-dimensional hypercubes (just made of bigger and smaller ones). That means if $C \subseteq \text{Int}(P_{k_p}) $, then there must als be interior points of $C$ inside $\text{Int}(P_{k_p})$. It's not true for general sets, but in this case, as both sets are hypercubes or unions of hypercubes of the same dimension, it is true. – Ingix Jul 30 '19 at 17:56