From 3e90714cf88356f432ee8ea0699a96eab315928d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: ceciliachan1979 <75919064+ceciliachan1979@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:30:42 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] BabyRudin: Solution: Ex15 in Ch02

---
 Books/BabyRudin/Chapter02/ex15.tex | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Books/BabyRudin/Chapter02/ex15.tex

diff --git a/Books/BabyRudin/Chapter02/ex15.tex b/Books/BabyRudin/Chapter02/ex15.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dc26b13
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Books/BabyRudin/Chapter02/ex15.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+\subsection*{Exercise 15}
+To show that the theorem is not true for closed subsets, consider the family of set $ \overline{\{n\}} $ for $ n \in \mathbb{N} $ as subsets of the real number line.
+
+All the sets are closed because these isolated points have no additional limit points. (i.e any points that is not a natural number will have a neighborhood that does not intersect with the set.)
+Any finite intersection is not empty there is a maximum number that is being deleted by the sets, and the number after it is not deleted by any set and therefore belong to the intersection.
+But the infinite intersection is empty because there is no maximum number that is not deleted by any set.
+
+To show that the theorem is not true for bounded subsets, consider the family of set $ [1, 2] $ with $ r $ deleted for all real numbers $ r $.
+
+All the sets are bounded because they are all subsets of $ [1, 2] $.
+Any finite intersection is not empty because there are infinitely many real numbers in $ [1, 2] $ but we only deleted a finite number of them, so there must be a number that is not deleted.
+But the infinite intersection is empty because we deleted all the real numbers in $ [1, 2] $.
+