1

Suppose we have a countably infinite family of non-empty, bounded open sets, $A_{0},A_{1},\dots$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $A_{i}\supseteq A_{i+1}$ for all $i$. If the intersection $$A=\bigcap_{i=0}^{\infty}A_{i}$$ is non-empty and closed, is it true that we have $$\bar A=\bigcap_{i=0}^{\infty}\bar{A_{i}}$$ where $\bar X$ denotes the closure of $X$? I think it is true intuitively, but I can not seem to prove it.

Edit: $A$ should be non-empty

Ben
  • 575

1 Answers1

3

It is not true.

Counterexample:

Looking at the union of two open real intervals (except for $A_0$):

Let $A_0 = (0, 3)$

Let $A_i = (0, 1/i) \cup (1-1/i, 1+1/i)$ for $i>0$

The intersection is $\{1\}$ but the intersection of the closures is $\{0, 1\}$.


But this is true:

Let a sequence of subsets

$A_{0},A_{1}, A_2\dots$ in $\mathbb{R}$ be bounded, open and nested (i.e. $A_{i}\supseteq A_{i+1}$ for all $i$) intervals. Assume also than each $A_{i+1}$ has different endpoints than $A_{i}$.

THEN

The intersection of the $A_i$ is either a singleton or a closed interval $[a,b]$. Also, you get the same result by intersecting the closures of the $A_i$ (i.e. adding the interval endpoints).

Proof: On reflection, you can simply apply the Nested Interval Theorem to this situation.

Note that with these assumptions, the open intervals are squeezing down from both the left and right sides.

CopyPasteIt
  • 11,366