0

First off I am new to working with balls in metric spaces so my might seem dumb to those who know better than I I don’t want to down voted cause of it

Ref: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2124668/585321 In this proof r=0.5d(x,y). My question can the constant be smaller than it and prove the theorem

And in general is it possible?

Larry
  • 1
  • How come it can’t be smaller. I don’t understand. In reproving Theorem 27 it seems to work Unless it is a completely different matter – Larry Feb 08 '20 at 13:20
  • What exactly is the question? I don't see one. – Henno Brandsma Feb 08 '20 at 15:58
  • The question is what happens in r=kd(x,y) if k<0.5 Kavi states it cannot be. I read on PhysicsForum.com dealing with balls and metric spaces that 1/2 makes the proof easier and occasionally allows sets to be disjointed (a definite plus) .I won’t make any suppositions after since I seem to be choking on them – Larry Feb 08 '20 at 16:49
  • I think Kavi mis-interpreted your question. – Paul Sinclair Feb 08 '20 at 20:29

1 Answers1

0

The object is to prove in a metric space that points are closed, by showing that the complement of a point is always open.

So if $(M, d)$ is a metric space and $x \in M$, we want to show that $M \setminus \{x\}$ is open. Suppose $y \in M, y \ne x$. Then $d(x, y) > 0$.

Let $r$ be any number satisfying $0 < r \le d(x,y)$. Then $x \notin B_r(y)$, the open ball of radius $r$ about $y$. This is because $B_r(y) = \{z \in M\mid d(y,z) < r\}$, but $d(x,y) \ge r$. Hence $B_r(y) \subseteq M - \{x\}$.

Since $M - \{x\}$ contains a ball around each of its elements, it is open, and its complement $\{x\}$ is closed.


The value of $k$ used in $r = kd(x,y)$ can therefore be any number in $(0,1]$. szw1710 for some reason decided to prove that $y$ had a ball that was bounded away from $x$, which isn't actually necessary for this problem (but is true for any $k < 1$). They just used $r = \frac 12 d(x,y)$ as a convenient choice. Afterall, they just needed one value that worked, not every possible value.

Paul Sinclair
  • 43,643
  • So k<1/2 and work ? I actually deleted one part of the question. I redid Theorem 27 from set theory and metric spaces by kaplansky with letting r=1/3 . Letting r=1/3 didn’t seem to violate the theorem. Thanks – Larry Feb 09 '20 at 13:42
  • Sorry to disappoint, but I don't own a copy of Set Theory and Matric Spaces by Kaplansky, so I have no idea what Theorem 27 in it is. Word of advice - always state the theorem you are talking about, instead of giving a reference to it that most people will not have access to. Another word of advice, you can find the basics of using mathjax here, so you can know that the element sign is \in and not have to use the Euro symbol as a substitute. – Paul Sinclair Feb 09 '20 at 16:10