Baire's Category Theorem Proof
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I've searched online for this specific direction of proving Baire's Category Theorem but couldn't find anything substantive. I believe this attempts to prove it in the contrapositive way that, for example wikipedia, does. I'm posting it here to ask for proof verification. I'm following E.T. Copson, Metric Spaces.
Thrm: Any complete metric space $(X, d)$ cannot be expressed as a countable union of nowhere dense sets.
Proof: Sketch: We inductively constructed nested closed balls and use Cantor's Intersection Thrm to show that (with necessary conditions) $cap_n overline{B_{r_n}(x_n)} = {x}$ for some $x in X$, but that $x$ does not belong in any of the nowhere dense sets, thus contradiction.
Some facts:
1) Suppose it is, i.e. $X = cup_n S_n$ where $overline{Ext(S_n)} = X forall n in mathbb{N}$.
2) Then any $x in X$ is an adherent point, i.e. $forall epsilon > 0, B_{epsilon}(x) cap Ext(S_n) neq emptyset$.
3) Then for any $y in B_{epsilon}(x) cap Ext(S_n)$ for the $x$ in (2), we have $exists r > 0, overline{B_r(y)} subset Ext(S_n)$ (since $Ext(S_n)$ is open).
Now for construction:
Base: Construct $overline{B_{r_1}(x_1)}$ as follows: We know we can find some $overline{B_{r_1}(y_1)}$ such that it is disjoint from $S_1$. (from 2 and 3)) Denote this as $B_1$.
Induction: Given $B_{n-1} = cap_k^{n-1} overline{B_{r_k}(x_k)}$, we know $B$ is disjoint from $S_1, S_2, ..., S_{n-1}$. Now since we can find some $x in X$ that is an adherent point of $Ext(S_n)$ in $B$ (from 2), we can also find a closed ball $overline{B_{r_n}(y_n)}$ such that $r_n < r_{n-1}/2$(this is to make sure the diameter of the intersection tends to 0), and is disjoint from $S_n$ (from 3). Then we have $B_n = B_{n-1} cap overline{B_{r_n}(y_n)}$.
By our induction hypothesis and Cantor's intersection thrm, there must exist $x$ that is disjoint from all $S_n$'s, which is not possible because $X$ is constructed by a union of $S_n$'s.
real-analysis proof-verification metric-spaces baire-category
edited Dec 6 at 3:55
Alex Ravsky
37.8k32079
asked Nov 28 at 0:36
OneRaynyDay
301111
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I've searched online for this specific direction of proving Baire's Category Theorem but couldn't find anything substantive. I believe this attempts to prove it in the contrapositive way that, for example wikipedia, does. I'm posting it here to ask for proof verification. I'm following E.T. Copson, Metric Spaces.
Thrm: Any complete metric space $(X, d)$ cannot be expressed as a countable union of nowhere dense sets.
Proof: Sketch: We inductively constructed nested closed balls and use Cantor's Intersection Thrm to show that (with necessary conditions) $cap_n overline{B_{r_n}(x_n)} = {x}$ for some $x in X$, but that $x$ does not belong in any of the nowhere dense sets, thus contradiction.
Some facts:
1) Suppose it is, i.e. $X = cup_n S_n$ where $overline{Ext(S_n)} = X forall n in mathbb{N}$.
2) Then any $x in X$ is an adherent point, i.e. $forall epsilon > 0, B_{epsilon}(x) cap Ext(S_n) neq emptyset$.
3) Then for any $y in B_{epsilon}(x) cap Ext(S_n)$ for the $x$ in (2), we have $exists r > 0, overline{B_r(y)} subset Ext(S_n)$ (since $Ext(S_n)$ is open).
Now for construction:
Base: Construct $overline{B_{r_1}(x_1)}$ as follows: We know we can find some $overline{B_{r_1}(y_1)}$ such that it is disjoint from $S_1$. (from 2 and 3)) Denote this as $B_1$.
Induction: Given $B_{n-1} = cap_k^{n-1} overline{B_{r_k}(x_k)}$, we know $B$ is disjoint from $S_1, S_2, ..., S_{n-1}$. Now since we can find some $x in X$ that is an adherent point of $Ext(S_n)$ in $B$ (from 2), we can also find a closed ball $overline{B_{r_n}(y_n)}$ such that $r_n < r_{n-1}/2$(this is to make sure the diameter of the intersection tends to 0), and is disjoint from $S_n$ (from 3). Then we have $B_n = B_{n-1} cap overline{B_{r_n}(y_n)}$.
By our induction hypothesis and Cantor's intersection thrm, there must exist $x$ that is disjoint from all $S_n$'s, which is not possible because $X$ is constructed by a union of $S_n$'s.
real-analysis proof-verification metric-spaces baire-category
edited Dec 6 at 3:55
Alex Ravsky
37.8k32079
asked Nov 28 at 0:36
OneRaynyDay
301111
This is off topic in the sense that it is unclear what you are asking for. The Wikipedia page gives a proof and presumably Copson gives a proof. What are you asking us to do?
– Rob Arthan
Nov 28 at 1:28
If I’m not mistaken, the Wikipedia page presents 3 different approaches to the baires category theorem, and only BCT1 is given a proof on the main page. The one I am trying to prove is BCT3, which is not on the page. One can make an argument that BCT3 follows from BCT1 but I’m trying to prove it directly.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:33
I forgot to note that I’m not 100% sure if this is the same as Copsons proof, and I’m asking for verification that it indeed is.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:40
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I've searched online for this specific direction of proving Baire's Category Theorem but couldn't find anything substantive. I believe this attempts to prove it in the contrapositive way that, for example wikipedia, does. I'm posting it here to ask for proof verification. I'm following E.T. Copson, Metric Spaces.
Thrm: Any complete metric space $(X, d)$ cannot be expressed as a countable union of nowhere dense sets.
Proof: Sketch: We inductively constructed nested closed balls and use Cantor's Intersection Thrm to show that (with necessary conditions) $cap_n overline{B_{r_n}(x_n)} = {x}$ for some $x in X$, but that $x$ does not belong in any of the nowhere dense sets, thus contradiction.
Some facts:
1) Suppose it is, i.e. $X = cup_n S_n$ where $overline{Ext(S_n)} = X forall n in mathbb{N}$.
2) Then any $x in X$ is an adherent point, i.e. $forall epsilon > 0, B_{epsilon}(x) cap Ext(S_n) neq emptyset$.
3) Then for any $y in B_{epsilon}(x) cap Ext(S_n)$ for the $x$ in (2), we have $exists r > 0, overline{B_r(y)} subset Ext(S_n)$ (since $Ext(S_n)$ is open).
Now for construction:
Base: Construct $overline{B_{r_1}(x_1)}$ as follows: We know we can find some $overline{B_{r_1}(y_1)}$ such that it is disjoint from $S_1$. (from 2 and 3)) Denote this as $B_1$.
Induction: Given $B_{n-1} = cap_k^{n-1} overline{B_{r_k}(x_k)}$, we know $B$ is disjoint from $S_1, S_2, ..., S_{n-1}$. Now since we can find some $x in X$ that is an adherent point of $Ext(S_n)$ in $B$ (from 2), we can also find a closed ball $overline{B_{r_n}(y_n)}$ such that $r_n < r_{n-1}/2$(this is to make sure the diameter of the intersection tends to 0), and is disjoint from $S_n$ (from 3). Then we have $B_n = B_{n-1} cap overline{B_{r_n}(y_n)}$.
By our induction hypothesis and Cantor's intersection thrm, there must exist $x$ that is disjoint from all $S_n$'s, which is not possible because $X$ is constructed by a union of $S_n$'s.
real-analysis proof-verification metric-spaces baire-category
edited Dec 6 at 3:55
Alex Ravsky
37.8k32079
asked Nov 28 at 0:36
OneRaynyDay
301111
I've searched online for this specific direction of proving Baire's Category Theorem but couldn't find anything substantive. I believe this attempts to prove it in the contrapositive way that, for example wikipedia, does. I'm posting it here to ask for proof verification. I'm following E.T. Copson, Metric Spaces.
Thrm: Any complete metric space $(X, d)$ cannot be expressed as a countable union of nowhere dense sets.
Proof: Sketch: We inductively constructed nested closed balls and use Cantor's Intersection Thrm to show that (with necessary conditions) $cap_n overline{B_{r_n}(x_n)} = {x}$ for some $x in X$, but that $x$ does not belong in any of the nowhere dense sets, thus contradiction.
Some facts:
1) Suppose it is, i.e. $X = cup_n S_n$ where $overline{Ext(S_n)} = X forall n in mathbb{N}$.
2) Then any $x in X$ is an adherent point, i.e. $forall epsilon > 0, B_{epsilon}(x) cap Ext(S_n) neq emptyset$.
3) Then for any $y in B_{epsilon}(x) cap Ext(S_n)$ for the $x$ in (2), we have $exists r > 0, overline{B_r(y)} subset Ext(S_n)$ (since $Ext(S_n)$ is open).
Now for construction:
Base: Construct $overline{B_{r_1}(x_1)}$ as follows: We know we can find some $overline{B_{r_1}(y_1)}$ such that it is disjoint from $S_1$. (from 2 and 3)) Denote this as $B_1$.
Induction: Given $B_{n-1} = cap_k^{n-1} overline{B_{r_k}(x_k)}$, we know $B$ is disjoint from $S_1, S_2, ..., S_{n-1}$. Now since we can find some $x in X$ that is an adherent point of $Ext(S_n)$ in $B$ (from 2), we can also find a closed ball $overline{B_{r_n}(y_n)}$ such that $r_n < r_{n-1}/2$(this is to make sure the diameter of the intersection tends to 0), and is disjoint from $S_n$ (from 3). Then we have $B_n = B_{n-1} cap overline{B_{r_n}(y_n)}$.
By our induction hypothesis and Cantor's intersection thrm, there must exist $x$ that is disjoint from all $S_n$'s, which is not possible because $X$ is constructed by a union of $S_n$'s.
real-analysis proof-verification metric-spaces baire-category
real-analysis proof-verification metric-spaces baire-category
edited Dec 6 at 3:55
Alex Ravsky
37.8k32079
asked Nov 28 at 0:36
OneRaynyDay
301111
edited Dec 6 at 3:55
Alex Ravsky
37.8k32079
asked Nov 28 at 0:36
OneRaynyDay
301111
edited Dec 6 at 3:55
Alex Ravsky
37.8k32079
edited Dec 6 at 3:55
Alex Ravsky
37.8k32079
edited Dec 6 at 3:55
Alex Ravsky
37.8k32079
37.8k32079
asked Nov 28 at 0:36
OneRaynyDay
301111
asked Nov 28 at 0:36
OneRaynyDay
301111
asked Nov 28 at 0:36
OneRaynyDay
301111
301111
This is off topic in the sense that it is unclear what you are asking for. The Wikipedia page gives a proof and presumably Copson gives a proof. What are you asking us to do?
– Rob Arthan
Nov 28 at 1:28
If I’m not mistaken, the Wikipedia page presents 3 different approaches to the baires category theorem, and only BCT1 is given a proof on the main page. The one I am trying to prove is BCT3, which is not on the page. One can make an argument that BCT3 follows from BCT1 but I’m trying to prove it directly.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:33
I forgot to note that I’m not 100% sure if this is the same as Copsons proof, and I’m asking for verification that it indeed is.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:40
add a comment |
This is off topic in the sense that it is unclear what you are asking for. The Wikipedia page gives a proof and presumably Copson gives a proof. What are you asking us to do?
– Rob Arthan
Nov 28 at 1:28
If I’m not mistaken, the Wikipedia page presents 3 different approaches to the baires category theorem, and only BCT1 is given a proof on the main page. The one I am trying to prove is BCT3, which is not on the page. One can make an argument that BCT3 follows from BCT1 but I’m trying to prove it directly.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:33
I forgot to note that I’m not 100% sure if this is the same as Copsons proof, and I’m asking for verification that it indeed is.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:40
This is off topic in the sense that it is unclear what you are asking for. The Wikipedia page gives a proof and presumably Copson gives a proof. What are you asking us to do?
– Rob Arthan
Nov 28 at 1:28
This is off topic in the sense that it is unclear what you are asking for. The Wikipedia page gives a proof and presumably Copson gives a proof. What are you asking us to do?
– Rob Arthan
Nov 28 at 1:28
If I’m not mistaken, the Wikipedia page presents 3 different approaches to the baires category theorem, and only BCT1 is given a proof on the main page. The one I am trying to prove is BCT3, which is not on the page. One can make an argument that BCT3 follows from BCT1 but I’m trying to prove it directly.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:33
If I’m not mistaken, the Wikipedia page presents 3 different approaches to the baires category theorem, and only BCT1 is given a proof on the main page. The one I am trying to prove is BCT3, which is not on the page. One can make an argument that BCT3 follows from BCT1 but I’m trying to prove it directly.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:33
I forgot to note that I’m not 100% sure if this is the same as Copsons proof, and I’m asking for verification that it indeed is.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:40
I forgot to note that I’m not 100% sure if this is the same as Copsons proof, and I’m asking for verification that it indeed is.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:40
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3016529%2fbaires-category-theorem-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3016529%2fbaires-category-theorem-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This is off topic in the sense that it is unclear what you are asking for. The Wikipedia page gives a proof and presumably Copson gives a proof. What are you asking us to do?
– Rob Arthan
Nov 28 at 1:28
If I’m not mistaken, the Wikipedia page presents 3 different approaches to the baires category theorem, and only BCT1 is given a proof on the main page. The one I am trying to prove is BCT3, which is not on the page. One can make an argument that BCT3 follows from BCT1 but I’m trying to prove it directly.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:33
I forgot to note that I’m not 100% sure if this is the same as Copsons proof, and I’m asking for verification that it indeed is.
– OneRaynyDay
Nov 28 at 1:40