Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - closure union identity

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3

    closure union identity

    I'm trying to prove that the closure of the union is the union of the closures.

    Where for topological space (X, \mathcal T),
    \overline{A} = \cap \{F \subseteq X : A \subseteq F\, and\, F\, is \, closed\}
    denotes the closure of A.

    I'm trying to prove \overline{A\cup B} = \overline{A} \cup \overline{B}

    ===========

    This is what I have so far:

    First, proving \overline{A\cup B} \subseteq \overline{A} \cup \overline{B}:
    We know \overline{A}, \overline{B} are closed,
    so \overline{A} \cup \overline{B} is closed.
    Furthermore, A \subseteq \overline{A}, B \subseteq \overline{B},
    so A \cup B \subseteq \overline{A} \cup \overline{B}.
    Since \overline{A} \cup \overline{B} is a closed set containing A \cup B, we have \overline{A\cup B} \subseteq \overline{A} \cup \overline{B}.

    Now to prove \overline{A} \cup \overline{B} \subseteq \overline{A\cup B}:

    ... This is where I'm stuck ...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,605
    Thanks
    1574
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by CatNoob View Post
    Now to prove \overline{A} \cup \overline{B} \subseteq \overline{A\cup B}:
    ... This is where I'm stuck ...
    Recall that A\subseteq A\cup B so \overline{A}\subseteq \overline{A\cup B}. Likewise \overline{B}\subseteq \overline{A\cup B}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3
    Wow, thanks Plato. Why didn't I see that.

    Also, is the first part of the proof correct? Is there an easier way?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by CatNoob View Post
    Also, is the first part of the proof correct? Is there an easier way?
    That's the easiest way to prove it here! That said, it can be proven just by using the axioms of a closure operator, if that in any way interests you.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Drexel28 View Post
    That's the easiest way to prove it here! That said, it can be proven just by using the axioms of a closure operator, if that in any way interests you.
    What are the axioms of the closure operator? I just know the definition of closure given above.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by CatNoob View Post
    What are the axioms of the closure operator? I just know the definition of closure given above.
    It's not super important for this case, but it's an intertesting alternative way to define a topological space. Namely, call a closure space to be an ordered pair \left(X,\text{cl}_X\right) where X is a non-empty set and \text{cl}_X:2^{X}\to 2^{X} (here 2^X is the power set) such that for every E,G\in 2^X


    \begin{aligned}&\mathbf{(1)}\quad \text{cl}_X\left(\varnothing\right)=\varnothing\\ &\mathbf{(2)}\quad E\subseteq \text{cl}_X\left(E\right)\\ &\mathbf{(3)}\quad \text{cl}_X\left(E\cup G\right)=\text{cl}_X\left(E\right)\cup\text{cl}_X\  left(G\right)\\ &\mathbf{(4)}\quad \text{cl}_X\left(\text{cl}_X\left(E\right)\right)=  \text{cl}_X\left(E\right)\end{aligned}


    Clearly every topological space induces a closure operator, the normal one. What's more interesting is that if one defines on a closure space \left(X,\text{cl}_X\right) the set \mathcal{T}=\left\{E\in 2^X:\text{cl}_X\left(X-E\right)=E\right\} then \mathcal{T} is a topology on X. What's really interesting about this whole things is that these two notions of topological spaces (the normal definition and the definition which makes closure space and topological space synonomous) are really equivalent. What I mean by this is if you start with a topological space \left(X,\mathcal{J}\right) and creat from this the usual closure operator \text{cl}_X (the intersection of all the closed sets containing the set in question) and then create from this the topology \mathcal{T} induced by the closure operator (as I previously mentioned) then one can see that \mathcal{T}=\mathcal{J}. Conversely, if one starts with a closure space \left(X,\text{cl}_X\right) and create the topology \mathcal{T} induced by this closure operator and then defines the usual closure operator \text{cl}'_X on the topological space \left(X,\mathcal{T}\right) (the intersection of all closed supersets) then \text{cl}_X=\text{cl}'_X. Kind of interesting, huh? What's weird is that while the formulation of topological spaces seen today is probably the most natural the concept of a closure space predates it, as can be seen in the works of Kuratowski.


    Sorry for the rant, just thought I'd share.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. conclude that the closure of a union is the union of the closures.
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 13th 2011, 06:50 PM
  2. Relation between topological closure and algebraic closure
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 4th 2010, 02:45 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 28th 2010, 01:10 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 11th 2009, 12:56 PM
  5. Closure
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 6th 2009, 09:06 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum