Intervals are [a,b], right?

What is NOT an interval? Is it a single point?

Printable View

- Oct 29th 2009, 11:26 AMFurbyliciousWhat is NOT an interval?
Intervals are [a,b], right?

What is NOT an interval? Is it a single point? - Oct 29th 2009, 11:31 AMTuriski
Lots of things aren't intervals.

I'm not sure about points, but if you could give a little context I think that would help. - Oct 29th 2009, 11:47 AMFurbylicious
- Oct 29th 2009, 11:53 AMTuriski
An interval is a set of real numbers that lie between two given numbers.

so [a,a] is a valid interval. So is [a,a), it's just that it's an empty one.

Things not this are not intervals. Does this answer your question? - Oct 29th 2009, 12:00 PMFurbylicious
Give an example of something that isn't an interval then.

- Oct 29th 2009, 12:03 PMTuriski
A formal proof is not an interval.

[Unless you can find some crazy way to reduce it down to a set of 'continuous' numbers (probably not the right term), which, by the way, would be totally awesome and I'd love to see that.] - Oct 29th 2009, 12:25 PMSwlabr
- Oct 29th 2009, 01:06 PMPlato
- Oct 30th 2009, 08:03 AMHallsofIvy
unions of non-overlapping intervals are not intervals:

is not an interval.

The set of all rational numbers in [0,1] not only is not an interval but**contains**no interval because, between any two rational numbers, there is an irrational number. - Oct 30th 2009, 11:23 AMFailure
- Oct 30th 2009, 11:35 AMFailure
But that's the definition used only by

*some*authors, as you write. Intervals are not at all generally defined*that*way. It is, in my humble opinion (and I could quote several books in my side), much more natural to define intervals as the connected subsets of - without slapping any further condition(s) on top of that basic requirement.

Quote:

So basically there are eight types, four bounded and four unbounded:

Because it is required that an interval contain at least two points, is not an interval.

*askance*at you if you told them that is*not*an interval... - Oct 30th 2009, 11:46 AMPlato
- Oct 30th 2009, 12:07 PMFailure
Well, Walter Rudin does it repeatedly, in "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" as well as in "Real & Complex Analysis". Jean Dieudonné does it, in "Foundations of Modern Analysis". And if Dieudonné does it I take it for granted that all the other members of the Bourbaki Group would at least go along with that. (I think it would be not particularly useful to you if I mentioned German authors: but being Swiss German, many of my books are in .. you guessed it .. German.)

Wikipedia also defines intervals in such a way that the "interval" [a,a] is just taken to be the singleton set {a}.

Defining intervals this way ("my way", i.e. Rudin's and Dieudonné's way), allows one to say something simple in a simple way: the image of an interval under a continuous function is an interval. You could not say the*exact*same thing as succinctly if you defined interval in such a way as to exclude singleton sets.

Of course, all definitions are arbitrary - but some definitions are more arbitrary than others.... - Oct 30th 2009, 01:23 PMPlato
How very odd. Your edditions/translations of Rudin and Dieudonne differ so from mine.

In both 'Big Rudin' and 'Little Rudin' that I have, this definition appears:

“The segment (a,b) is the set of all real numbers, x , such that a<x<b.”

Then he notes that a interval is a segment that includes its endpoints.

To me that rules out {a} being an interval.

Virtually the same statement appears on page 17 of my translation of Dieudonne.

This is odd, don't you think? - Oct 30th 2009, 05:21 PMtonio
Interpretations sometimes, but nowhere coud I find any source requiring any minimal number of points for something to be considered a real interval, and I think the huge majority of mathematicians would agree that {a} = [a,a] is a closed interval, in particular since the usual topology on is Hausdorff and thus every singleton is a closed set, but of course: I could be wrong.

Tonio