Results 1 to 4 of 4

Math Help - a question about lebesque numbers

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    From
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    128

    a question about lebesque numbers

    so we have that {U_alpha} where alpha is in A (indexing set) is a finite open cover of a compact metric space X. i did the first part of problem which was to show that there exists ε>0 such that for each x in X, the open ball B(x;ε) is contained in one of the U_alpha's.

    so here such an ε is called the lebesque number of the cover (definition)

    now i need to show that if at least one of the U_alpha's is a proper subset of X, then there is a largest lebesque number for the cover.

    the hint given is that if one of the open sets in the cover is proper, the lebesque numbers are bounded. and since cover is finite, the least upper bound of lebesque number is again a lebesque number.

    can someone explain the problem? thanks.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by squarerootof2 View Post
    so we have that {U_alpha} where alpha is in A (indexing set) is a finite open cover of a compact metric space X. i did the first part of problem which was to show that there exists ε>0 such that for each x in X, the open ball B(x;ε) is contained in one of the U_alpha's.

    so here such an ε is called the lebesque number of the cover (definition)

    now i need to show that if at least one of the U_alpha's is a proper subset of X, then there is a largest lebesque number for the cover.

    the hint given is that if one of the open sets in the cover is proper, the lebesque numbers are bounded. and since cover is finite, the least upper bound of lebesque number is again a lebesque number.

    can someone explain the problem? thanks.
    There's something wrong with the statement of this problem. For the result to be true, it is necessary that every U_\alpha (not just one of them) should be a proper subset of X. Otherwise, if U_{\alpha} = X for some α, then clearly every ball, whatever its centre and radius, will lie in that U_{\alpha}.

    So suppose that all the sets U_{\alpha} are proper subsets of X. Choose x_0 in X. Since a compact metric space is bounded, some ball centred at x_0, with sufficiently large radius R, will be the whole of X (and thus will not be a subset of any of the U_{\alpha}s). Therefore a Lebesgue number of the cover must be less that R. Hence the set of all Lebesgue numbers of the cover is bounded above. You have already proved that it is nonempty. Therefore it has a supremum, call it δ. We want to show that δ is the largest Lebesgue number of the cover.

    The problem is that the supremum of a set need not always belong to the set. So we need to prove that δ is a Lebesgue number of the cover. To do this, we have to show that every ball of radius less than δ is contained in some member of the cover. So let B(x,r) be a ball centred at some point x, with radius r<δ. By the definition of supremum, there exists a number ε with r<ε<δ, such that ε is a Lebesgue number of the cover. But since r<ε it follows from the definition of Lebesgue number that any ball of radius r (in particular B(x,r)) must lie in some U_{\alpha}, which is what we wanted to prove.

    [I'm sure that if Henri Lebesgue were still alive, he would want to point out that his name is spelt with a g, not a q.]
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Opalg View Post
    [I'm sure that if Henri Lebesgue were still alive, he would want to point out that his name is spelt with a g, not a q.]
    Is this a common mistake? I been spelling it with a q for a long time. Never realized it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    From
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    128
    i checked the book and it turns out the book actually spelled his name with a g, somehow i saw it as a q... sorry about that mistake.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Eve/odd numbers question
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 19th 2010, 09:56 AM
  2. Analysis, riemann and lebesque integrable
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 27th 2010, 04:01 PM
  3. Prime numbers question
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: June 5th 2009, 02:37 PM
  4. lebesque measurablity
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 13th 2008, 07:22 AM
  5. lebesque integral
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 4th 2007, 10:05 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum