0

I'm currently learning about open and closed sets (in the context of compactness) and I've run into something I don't quite understand. One of the definitions of a closed set is that its complement is open. However any closed interval $[a,b]$ (denote as $A$ for simplicity) is considered to be a closed set, but its complement $(-\infty,a)\cup(b,\infty)$ (denoted $A^c)$ doesn't appear to be open to me by the definition that every element of an open set has a neighbourhood contained in the open set. So to me, picking some value close to $a$ or $b$, lets call it $c$, $\exists$ $\epsilon>0$, s.t. the set $(c-\epsilon,c+\epsilon)$ will not entirely be contained in $A^c$ (some of it will be within the pocket $[a,b]$ which is not part of $A^c)$. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding some of these definitions, or maybe I'm misusing them completely but any clarity would be greatly appreciated.

aort01
  • 361

2 Answers2

0

If some positive $c$ is in the complement of $[a,b]$ then $c > b$. If you let $\epsilon = (c-b)/2$ then the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $c$ is in the complement of $[a,b]$.

Ethan Bolker
  • 95,224
  • 7
  • 108
  • 199
  • 1
    ah I see my interpretation of the definition was incorrect. It in fact is not for all epsilon but rather for some epsilon, the neighbourhood is contained within the open interval. This makes sense, thank you – aort01 Nov 19 '23 at 20:15
0

To fix the ideas, take $a=0$ and $b=1$. Then $$ A^c = (-\infty,0) \cup (1,\infty). $$ Take $c \in A^c$, it is either in $(-\infty,0)$ or in $(1,\infty)$. To fix the ideas, assume it is in $(1,\infty)$. Then for sure, if you pick $\epsilon > 0$ too large it may happens that $(c-\epsilon , c+\epsilon)$ won't be contained in $A^c$ because it won't be contained in $(1,\infty)$. For instance, take $\epsilon = c+1$. But you can take $\epsilon > 0$ small enough, such that $$ (c-\epsilon , c+\epsilon) \subset (1,\infty). $$ For instance, $\epsilon = (c-1)/2$ works. And this is actually all we want or need!

blamethelag
  • 2,007