The set of points $p$ such that $|p-p_0|>r$ is open, for any $p_0$ and any $r ge 0$.












0












$begingroup$


I started the problem off by assuming that $|p-p_0| = r + delta$



and that $|q-p| < frac{delta}{2}$ or equivalently that $q in B(p, frac{delta}{2})$.



Then we have that



$|q-p_0|=|(p-p_0) + (q-p)| le |p-p_0| + |q-p| < r + delta + frac{delta}{2}$.



Then,



$r < |q-p_0| < r + frac{3 delta}{2}$. Subtracting $r$ from the inequality I get that



$0<|q-p_0|-r< frac{3 delta}{2}$. But I'm not sure that I can do this since I think that I'm supposed to show that $r< |q-p_0|$ which I get from $0<|q-p_0| - r$. Although, I already assumed that $r<|q-p_0|$ so things seem off, but I don't know how to fix this proof.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    I started the problem off by assuming that $|p-p_0| = r + delta$



    and that $|q-p| < frac{delta}{2}$ or equivalently that $q in B(p, frac{delta}{2})$.



    Then we have that



    $|q-p_0|=|(p-p_0) + (q-p)| le |p-p_0| + |q-p| < r + delta + frac{delta}{2}$.



    Then,



    $r < |q-p_0| < r + frac{3 delta}{2}$. Subtracting $r$ from the inequality I get that



    $0<|q-p_0|-r< frac{3 delta}{2}$. But I'm not sure that I can do this since I think that I'm supposed to show that $r< |q-p_0|$ which I get from $0<|q-p_0| - r$. Although, I already assumed that $r<|q-p_0|$ so things seem off, but I don't know how to fix this proof.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      I started the problem off by assuming that $|p-p_0| = r + delta$



      and that $|q-p| < frac{delta}{2}$ or equivalently that $q in B(p, frac{delta}{2})$.



      Then we have that



      $|q-p_0|=|(p-p_0) + (q-p)| le |p-p_0| + |q-p| < r + delta + frac{delta}{2}$.



      Then,



      $r < |q-p_0| < r + frac{3 delta}{2}$. Subtracting $r$ from the inequality I get that



      $0<|q-p_0|-r< frac{3 delta}{2}$. But I'm not sure that I can do this since I think that I'm supposed to show that $r< |q-p_0|$ which I get from $0<|q-p_0| - r$. Although, I already assumed that $r<|q-p_0|$ so things seem off, but I don't know how to fix this proof.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I started the problem off by assuming that $|p-p_0| = r + delta$



      and that $|q-p| < frac{delta}{2}$ or equivalently that $q in B(p, frac{delta}{2})$.



      Then we have that



      $|q-p_0|=|(p-p_0) + (q-p)| le |p-p_0| + |q-p| < r + delta + frac{delta}{2}$.



      Then,



      $r < |q-p_0| < r + frac{3 delta}{2}$. Subtracting $r$ from the inequality I get that



      $0<|q-p_0|-r< frac{3 delta}{2}$. But I'm not sure that I can do this since I think that I'm supposed to show that $r< |q-p_0|$ which I get from $0<|q-p_0| - r$. Although, I already assumed that $r<|q-p_0|$ so things seem off, but I don't know how to fix this proof.







      real-analysis






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 9 '18 at 19:12









      K.MK.M

      693412




      693412






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          How much topology do you know? Depending on what level of exposure you have had you may be able to resolve this quite easily.



          My approach would be something like the following:



          Let $p_0inmathbb{R}$ be fixed, let $rgeq 0$, and consider the set of points ${p : |p-p_0|>r}$. This set is equal to ${p : p_0-p>r}cup{p : p-p_0>r} = (-infty,p_0-r)cup(p_0+r,infty)$. The union of two open sets is open, and what was needed to be shown has been.



          As far as your own proof is concerned, you basically just got a little too obsessed with your inequalities; all you should be trying to show is that there is an open neighborhood surrounding $p$ entirely contained inside your set. If you work with a point $p$ that is $r+delta$ away from $p_0$, then the ball you have defined will suffice, but you won't show that via the triangle inequality. You will still probably want to break into cases.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I know very basic topology. When you have the interval $(-infty, p_0-r)$, is that because $p_0-r>p$, do we just assume that $p> -infty$? Also with the cases that you mentioned, do you mean when $q$ is in the ball surrounding $p$ and contained in the "line" connecting $p$ to $p_0$ and when $q$ is not on the "line" connecting $p_0$ to $p$?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M We don't have to assume that $p>-infty$; $p$ is a real number, so it has to be larger than $-infty$. The cases I am referring to are when $p>p_0$ and $p<p_0$. This will allow you to get rid of those pesky absolute value bars.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:37










          • $begingroup$
            I thought that $p$ and $p_0$ are points, do $p$ and $p_0$ denote the distances from $0$, respectively?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:43










          • $begingroup$
            @K.M They are both specific points, but they are points in $mathbb{R}$, so we can compare them, add them, subtract them, etc. There is no difference between a point and a signed distance from $0$ in $mathbb{R}$.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:46






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M If we were working in $mathbb{R}^n$ then "absolute values" really mean euclidean distances, and then you can't break into cases because there is no finite number of directions to consider. You would then want to be extra careful in your analysis, either leveraging more topology or cleverly arguing with the reverse triangle inequality.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:01











          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',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          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
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032819%2fthe-set-of-points-p-such-that-p-p-0r-is-open-for-any-p-0-and-any-r-g%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$

          How much topology do you know? Depending on what level of exposure you have had you may be able to resolve this quite easily.



          My approach would be something like the following:



          Let $p_0inmathbb{R}$ be fixed, let $rgeq 0$, and consider the set of points ${p : |p-p_0|>r}$. This set is equal to ${p : p_0-p>r}cup{p : p-p_0>r} = (-infty,p_0-r)cup(p_0+r,infty)$. The union of two open sets is open, and what was needed to be shown has been.



          As far as your own proof is concerned, you basically just got a little too obsessed with your inequalities; all you should be trying to show is that there is an open neighborhood surrounding $p$ entirely contained inside your set. If you work with a point $p$ that is $r+delta$ away from $p_0$, then the ball you have defined will suffice, but you won't show that via the triangle inequality. You will still probably want to break into cases.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I know very basic topology. When you have the interval $(-infty, p_0-r)$, is that because $p_0-r>p$, do we just assume that $p> -infty$? Also with the cases that you mentioned, do you mean when $q$ is in the ball surrounding $p$ and contained in the "line" connecting $p$ to $p_0$ and when $q$ is not on the "line" connecting $p_0$ to $p$?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M We don't have to assume that $p>-infty$; $p$ is a real number, so it has to be larger than $-infty$. The cases I am referring to are when $p>p_0$ and $p<p_0$. This will allow you to get rid of those pesky absolute value bars.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:37










          • $begingroup$
            I thought that $p$ and $p_0$ are points, do $p$ and $p_0$ denote the distances from $0$, respectively?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:43










          • $begingroup$
            @K.M They are both specific points, but they are points in $mathbb{R}$, so we can compare them, add them, subtract them, etc. There is no difference between a point and a signed distance from $0$ in $mathbb{R}$.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:46






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M If we were working in $mathbb{R}^n$ then "absolute values" really mean euclidean distances, and then you can't break into cases because there is no finite number of directions to consider. You would then want to be extra careful in your analysis, either leveraging more topology or cleverly arguing with the reverse triangle inequality.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:01
















          0












          $begingroup$

          How much topology do you know? Depending on what level of exposure you have had you may be able to resolve this quite easily.



          My approach would be something like the following:



          Let $p_0inmathbb{R}$ be fixed, let $rgeq 0$, and consider the set of points ${p : |p-p_0|>r}$. This set is equal to ${p : p_0-p>r}cup{p : p-p_0>r} = (-infty,p_0-r)cup(p_0+r,infty)$. The union of two open sets is open, and what was needed to be shown has been.



          As far as your own proof is concerned, you basically just got a little too obsessed with your inequalities; all you should be trying to show is that there is an open neighborhood surrounding $p$ entirely contained inside your set. If you work with a point $p$ that is $r+delta$ away from $p_0$, then the ball you have defined will suffice, but you won't show that via the triangle inequality. You will still probably want to break into cases.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I know very basic topology. When you have the interval $(-infty, p_0-r)$, is that because $p_0-r>p$, do we just assume that $p> -infty$? Also with the cases that you mentioned, do you mean when $q$ is in the ball surrounding $p$ and contained in the "line" connecting $p$ to $p_0$ and when $q$ is not on the "line" connecting $p_0$ to $p$?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M We don't have to assume that $p>-infty$; $p$ is a real number, so it has to be larger than $-infty$. The cases I am referring to are when $p>p_0$ and $p<p_0$. This will allow you to get rid of those pesky absolute value bars.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:37










          • $begingroup$
            I thought that $p$ and $p_0$ are points, do $p$ and $p_0$ denote the distances from $0$, respectively?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:43










          • $begingroup$
            @K.M They are both specific points, but they are points in $mathbb{R}$, so we can compare them, add them, subtract them, etc. There is no difference between a point and a signed distance from $0$ in $mathbb{R}$.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:46






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M If we were working in $mathbb{R}^n$ then "absolute values" really mean euclidean distances, and then you can't break into cases because there is no finite number of directions to consider. You would then want to be extra careful in your analysis, either leveraging more topology or cleverly arguing with the reverse triangle inequality.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:01














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          How much topology do you know? Depending on what level of exposure you have had you may be able to resolve this quite easily.



          My approach would be something like the following:



          Let $p_0inmathbb{R}$ be fixed, let $rgeq 0$, and consider the set of points ${p : |p-p_0|>r}$. This set is equal to ${p : p_0-p>r}cup{p : p-p_0>r} = (-infty,p_0-r)cup(p_0+r,infty)$. The union of two open sets is open, and what was needed to be shown has been.



          As far as your own proof is concerned, you basically just got a little too obsessed with your inequalities; all you should be trying to show is that there is an open neighborhood surrounding $p$ entirely contained inside your set. If you work with a point $p$ that is $r+delta$ away from $p_0$, then the ball you have defined will suffice, but you won't show that via the triangle inequality. You will still probably want to break into cases.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          How much topology do you know? Depending on what level of exposure you have had you may be able to resolve this quite easily.



          My approach would be something like the following:



          Let $p_0inmathbb{R}$ be fixed, let $rgeq 0$, and consider the set of points ${p : |p-p_0|>r}$. This set is equal to ${p : p_0-p>r}cup{p : p-p_0>r} = (-infty,p_0-r)cup(p_0+r,infty)$. The union of two open sets is open, and what was needed to be shown has been.



          As far as your own proof is concerned, you basically just got a little too obsessed with your inequalities; all you should be trying to show is that there is an open neighborhood surrounding $p$ entirely contained inside your set. If you work with a point $p$ that is $r+delta$ away from $p_0$, then the ball you have defined will suffice, but you won't show that via the triangle inequality. You will still probably want to break into cases.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 9 '18 at 19:24

























          answered Dec 9 '18 at 19:19









          GenericMathematicianGenericMathematician

          863




          863












          • $begingroup$
            I know very basic topology. When you have the interval $(-infty, p_0-r)$, is that because $p_0-r>p$, do we just assume that $p> -infty$? Also with the cases that you mentioned, do you mean when $q$ is in the ball surrounding $p$ and contained in the "line" connecting $p$ to $p_0$ and when $q$ is not on the "line" connecting $p_0$ to $p$?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M We don't have to assume that $p>-infty$; $p$ is a real number, so it has to be larger than $-infty$. The cases I am referring to are when $p>p_0$ and $p<p_0$. This will allow you to get rid of those pesky absolute value bars.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:37










          • $begingroup$
            I thought that $p$ and $p_0$ are points, do $p$ and $p_0$ denote the distances from $0$, respectively?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:43










          • $begingroup$
            @K.M They are both specific points, but they are points in $mathbb{R}$, so we can compare them, add them, subtract them, etc. There is no difference between a point and a signed distance from $0$ in $mathbb{R}$.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:46






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M If we were working in $mathbb{R}^n$ then "absolute values" really mean euclidean distances, and then you can't break into cases because there is no finite number of directions to consider. You would then want to be extra careful in your analysis, either leveraging more topology or cleverly arguing with the reverse triangle inequality.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:01


















          • $begingroup$
            I know very basic topology. When you have the interval $(-infty, p_0-r)$, is that because $p_0-r>p$, do we just assume that $p> -infty$? Also with the cases that you mentioned, do you mean when $q$ is in the ball surrounding $p$ and contained in the "line" connecting $p$ to $p_0$ and when $q$ is not on the "line" connecting $p_0$ to $p$?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:34






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M We don't have to assume that $p>-infty$; $p$ is a real number, so it has to be larger than $-infty$. The cases I am referring to are when $p>p_0$ and $p<p_0$. This will allow you to get rid of those pesky absolute value bars.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:37










          • $begingroup$
            I thought that $p$ and $p_0$ are points, do $p$ and $p_0$ denote the distances from $0$, respectively?
            $endgroup$
            – K.M
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:43










          • $begingroup$
            @K.M They are both specific points, but they are points in $mathbb{R}$, so we can compare them, add them, subtract them, etc. There is no difference between a point and a signed distance from $0$ in $mathbb{R}$.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 19:46






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @K.M If we were working in $mathbb{R}^n$ then "absolute values" really mean euclidean distances, and then you can't break into cases because there is no finite number of directions to consider. You would then want to be extra careful in your analysis, either leveraging more topology or cleverly arguing with the reverse triangle inequality.
            $endgroup$
            – GenericMathematician
            Dec 9 '18 at 20:01
















          $begingroup$
          I know very basic topology. When you have the interval $(-infty, p_0-r)$, is that because $p_0-r>p$, do we just assume that $p> -infty$? Also with the cases that you mentioned, do you mean when $q$ is in the ball surrounding $p$ and contained in the "line" connecting $p$ to $p_0$ and when $q$ is not on the "line" connecting $p_0$ to $p$?
          $endgroup$
          – K.M
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:34




          $begingroup$
          I know very basic topology. When you have the interval $(-infty, p_0-r)$, is that because $p_0-r>p$, do we just assume that $p> -infty$? Also with the cases that you mentioned, do you mean when $q$ is in the ball surrounding $p$ and contained in the "line" connecting $p$ to $p_0$ and when $q$ is not on the "line" connecting $p_0$ to $p$?
          $endgroup$
          – K.M
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:34




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @K.M We don't have to assume that $p>-infty$; $p$ is a real number, so it has to be larger than $-infty$. The cases I am referring to are when $p>p_0$ and $p<p_0$. This will allow you to get rid of those pesky absolute value bars.
          $endgroup$
          – GenericMathematician
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:37




          $begingroup$
          @K.M We don't have to assume that $p>-infty$; $p$ is a real number, so it has to be larger than $-infty$. The cases I am referring to are when $p>p_0$ and $p<p_0$. This will allow you to get rid of those pesky absolute value bars.
          $endgroup$
          – GenericMathematician
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:37












          $begingroup$
          I thought that $p$ and $p_0$ are points, do $p$ and $p_0$ denote the distances from $0$, respectively?
          $endgroup$
          – K.M
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:43




          $begingroup$
          I thought that $p$ and $p_0$ are points, do $p$ and $p_0$ denote the distances from $0$, respectively?
          $endgroup$
          – K.M
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:43












          $begingroup$
          @K.M They are both specific points, but they are points in $mathbb{R}$, so we can compare them, add them, subtract them, etc. There is no difference between a point and a signed distance from $0$ in $mathbb{R}$.
          $endgroup$
          – GenericMathematician
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:46




          $begingroup$
          @K.M They are both specific points, but they are points in $mathbb{R}$, so we can compare them, add them, subtract them, etc. There is no difference between a point and a signed distance from $0$ in $mathbb{R}$.
          $endgroup$
          – GenericMathematician
          Dec 9 '18 at 19:46




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @K.M If we were working in $mathbb{R}^n$ then "absolute values" really mean euclidean distances, and then you can't break into cases because there is no finite number of directions to consider. You would then want to be extra careful in your analysis, either leveraging more topology or cleverly arguing with the reverse triangle inequality.
          $endgroup$
          – GenericMathematician
          Dec 9 '18 at 20:01




          $begingroup$
          @K.M If we were working in $mathbb{R}^n$ then "absolute values" really mean euclidean distances, and then you can't break into cases because there is no finite number of directions to consider. You would then want to be extra careful in your analysis, either leveraging more topology or cleverly arguing with the reverse triangle inequality.
          $endgroup$
          – GenericMathematician
          Dec 9 '18 at 20:01


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032819%2fthe-set-of-points-p-such-that-p-p-0r-is-open-for-any-p-0-and-any-r-g%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Ellipse (mathématiques)

          Quarter-circle Tiles

          Mont Emei