Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Solution for Exercise 15 from Chapter 02 in Baby Rudin #14

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 12, 2024
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions Books/BabyRudin/Chapter02/ex15.cecilia.tex
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
\subsection*{Exercise 15 (Cecilia)}
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] $.

Loading