Dense
From Maths
Revision as of 19:21, 28 October 2016 by Alec (Talk | contribs) (Added references, added metric space definition)
Stub grade: B
This page is a stub
This page is a stub, so it contains little or minimal information and is on a to-do list for being expanded.The message provided is:
Revise page, add some links to propositions or theorems using the dense property. Also more references, then demote
Contents
[hide]Definition
Let (X,\mathcal{ J }) be a topological space and let A\in\mathcal{P}(X) be an arbitrary subset of X. We say "A is dense in X if[1]:
- \overline{A}=X - that is to say that the closure of A is the entirety of X itself.
Some authors give the following equivalent definition to A being dense[2]:
- \forall U\in\mathcal{J}\exists a\in A[U\ne\emptyset\implies y\in U], which is obviously equivalent to: \forall U\in\mathcal{J}[U\ne\emptyset \implies A\cap U\ne\emptyset] (see Claim 1 below)
- In words:
Metric spaces definition
Let (X,d) me a metric space, we say that E\in\mathcal{P}(X) (so E is an arbitrary subset of X) if[2]:
- \forall x\in X\forall\epsilon>0[B_\epsilon(x)\cap E\ne\emptyset] - where B_r(x) denotes the open ball of radius r, centred at x
Proof of claims
Claim 1
This is used for both cases, and it should really be factored out into its own page. Eg:
Grade: C
This page requires one or more proofs to be filled in, it is on a to-do list for being expanded with them.
Please note that this does not mean the content is unreliable. Unless there are any caveats mentioned below the statement comes from a reliable source. As always, Warnings and limitations will be clearly shown and possibly highlighted if very important (see template:Caution et al).
The message provided is:
This proof has been marked as an page requiring an easy proof
The message provided is:
It is obvious that (B_\epsilon(x)\cap E\ne\emptyset)\iff(\exists y\in E[y\in B_\epsilon(x)])
This proof has been marked as an page requiring an easy proof
See also
Notes
- Jump up ↑ This is a trivial restatement of the claim and not worth going on its own page, unless it can be generalised (eg detached from dense-ness)