Difference between revisions of "Equivalent statements to a set being dense"
(Created page with "{{Stub page|grade=A*|msg=Demote to grade C or D once more theorems have been sought out and the page resembles a page rather than its current state}} ==Statements== * A set...") |
(Hugely fleshed out, added more cases, added metric space section, added references.) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Stub page|grade=A*|msg=Demote to grade C or D once more theorems have been sought out and the page resembles a page rather than its current state}} | {{Stub page|grade=A*|msg=Demote to grade C or D once more theorems have been sought out and the page resembles a page rather than its current state}} | ||
+ | : See [[Motivation:Dense set]] for the motivation of [[dense set]]. This page describes equivalent conditions to a set being [[dense]]. | ||
+ | __TOC__ | ||
==Statements== | ==Statements== | ||
− | * [[A set is dense if and only if every non-empty open subset contains a point of it]]{{rITTMJML}} | + | Let {{Top.|X|J}} be a [[topological space]] and let {{M|E\in\mathcal{P}(X)}} be an arbitrary [[subset of]] {{M|X}}. Then "{{M|E}} is [[dense set|dense]] in {{Top.|X|J}}" is equivalent to any of the following: |
+ | # {{M|1=\forall U\in\mathcal{J}[U\ne\emptyset\implies U\cap E\ne\emptyset]}}<ref group="Note">In the interests of making the reader aware of caveats of formal logic as well as differences, this is equivalent to: | ||
+ | # {{M|1=\forall U\in\mathcal{J}[U\ne\emptyset\implies\exists y\in E[y\in U]]}} | ||
+ | # {{M|1=\forall U\in\mathcal{J}\exists y\in E[U\ne\emptyset\implies y\in U]}} | ||
+ | # (Obvious permutations of these) | ||
+ | {{Todo|Show them and be certain myself. I can ''believe'' these are equivalent, but I have not shown it!}}</ref>{{rFAVIDMH}} | ||
+ | #* [[A set is dense if and only if every non-empty open subset contains a point of it]]{{rITTMJML}} - definition in {{rFAVIDMH}} | ||
+ | # The [[closure]] of {{M|E}} is {{M|X}} itself{{rFAVIDMH}} | ||
+ | #* This is the definition we use and the definition given by{{rITTMJML}}. | ||
+ | # {{M|1=\forall U\in\mathcal{J}[U\ne\emptyset\implies \neg(U\subseteq X-E)]}}{{rFAVIDMH}} (I had to use [[negation]]/{{M|\neg}} as {{C|\not{\subseteq}<nowiki/>}} doesn't render well ({{M|\not{\subseteq} }})) | ||
+ | #* {{M|X-E}} contains no ''[[non-empty]]'' [[open set]] of {{M|X}}{{rFAVIDMH}} | ||
+ | # {{XXX|Symbolic form}}{{rFAVIDMH}} | ||
+ | #* {{M|X-E}} has no {{plural|interior point|s}}{{rFAVIDMH}} (i.e: {{M|1=\text{interior}(E)=E^\circ=\emptyset}}, the [[interior]] of {{M|E}} is empty) | ||
+ | {{Todo|Factor these out into their own pages and link to}} | ||
+ | ===[[Metric space]] cases=== | ||
+ | Suppose {{M|(X,d)}} is a [[metric space]] and {{Top.|X|J}} is the [[topological space induced by the metric space]], then the following are equivalent to an arbitrary [[subset of]] {{M|X}}, {{M|E\in\mathcal{P}(X)}} being dense in {{Top.|X|J}}: | ||
+ | # {{M|1=\forall x\in X\forall\epsilon>0[B_\epsilon(x)\cap E\ne\emptyset]}}{{rFAVIDMH}}{{rW2014LNFARS}} | ||
+ | #* Words | ||
+ | #* This is obviously the same as: {{M|1=\forall x\in X\forall\epsilon>0\exists y\in E[y\in B_\epsilon(x)]}} - definition in {{rW2014LNFARS}} | ||
+ | {{Todo|Factor these out into their own pages and link to}} | ||
+ | ==Proof of claims== | ||
+ | Dense {{iff}} [[A set is dense if and only if every non-empty open subset contains a point of it]] is done already! | ||
+ | {{Requires proof|grade=A|msg=Would be good to at least post a picture of the work, routine and proofs are abundently available, see page 74 in{{rFAVIDMH}}}} | ||
+ | ===Metric spaces claims=== | ||
+ | ==Notes== | ||
+ | <references group="Note"/> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
{{Theorem Of|Topology|Metric Space}} | {{Theorem Of|Topology|Metric Space}} |
Latest revision as of 20:18, 28 October 2016
- See Motivation:Dense set for the motivation of dense set. This page describes equivalent conditions to a set being dense.
Contents
Statements
Let [ilmath](X,\mathcal{ J })[/ilmath] be a topological space and let [ilmath]E\in\mathcal{P}(X)[/ilmath] be an arbitrary subset of [ilmath]X[/ilmath]. Then "[ilmath]E[/ilmath] is dense in [ilmath](X,\mathcal{ J })[/ilmath]" is equivalent to any of the following:
- [ilmath]\forall U\in\mathcal{J}[U\ne\emptyset\implies U\cap E\ne\emptyset][/ilmath][Note 1][1]
- The closure of [ilmath]E[/ilmath] is [ilmath]X[/ilmath] itself[1]
- This is the definition we use and the definition given by[2].
- [ilmath]\forall U\in\mathcal{J}[U\ne\emptyset\implies \neg(U\subseteq X-E)][/ilmath][1] (I had to use negation/[ilmath]\neg[/ilmath] as \not{\subseteq} doesn't render well ([ilmath]\not{\subseteq} [/ilmath]))
- TODO: Symbolic form[1]
- [ilmath]X-E[/ilmath] has no interior points[1] (i.e: [ilmath]\text{interior}(E)=E^\circ=\emptyset[/ilmath], the interior of [ilmath]E[/ilmath] is empty)
TODO: Factor these out into their own pages and link to
Metric space cases
Suppose [ilmath](X,d)[/ilmath] is a metric space and [ilmath](X,\mathcal{ J })[/ilmath] is the topological space induced by the metric space, then the following are equivalent to an arbitrary subset of [ilmath]X[/ilmath], [ilmath]E\in\mathcal{P}(X)[/ilmath] being dense in [ilmath](X,\mathcal{ J })[/ilmath]:
- [ilmath]\forall x\in X\forall\epsilon>0[B_\epsilon(x)\cap E\ne\emptyset][/ilmath][1][3]
- Words
- This is obviously the same as: [ilmath]\forall x\in X\forall\epsilon>0\exists y\in E[y\in B_\epsilon(x)][/ilmath] - definition in [3]
TODO: Factor these out into their own pages and link to
Proof of claims
Dense if and only if A set is dense if and only if every non-empty open subset contains a point of it is done already!
The message provided is:
Metric spaces claims
Notes
- ↑ In the interests of making the reader aware of caveats of formal logic as well as differences, this is equivalent to:
- [ilmath]\forall U\in\mathcal{J}[U\ne\emptyset\implies\exists y\in E[y\in U]][/ilmath]
- [ilmath]\forall U\in\mathcal{J}\exists y\in E[U\ne\emptyset\implies y\in U][/ilmath]
- (Obvious permutations of these)
TODO: Show them and be certain myself. I can believe these are equivalent, but I have not shown it!
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Functional Analysis - Volume 1: A gentle introduction - Dzung Minh Ha
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Introduction to Topological Manifolds - John M. Lee
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Warwick 2014 Lecture Notes - Functional Analysis - Richard Sharp