I need to figure out if $\mathbb{Q}$ is either open or closed in $\mathbb{R}$ and prove my assertions. I don't think it's either. I would like a review/critique of my proofs to make sure that there's not an easier way to do it.
To see that it's not open, take some $\frac{m}{n}$ with both $m$ and $n$ perfect squares so that $\left(\frac{m}{n}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is rational. We have that $x \mapsto x^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is continuous. Hence for any $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $\left(\frac{m}{n}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$, there exists a $\delta$-neighborhood of $\frac{m}{n}$ that maps into it. but
$$ \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{m}{n} - \frac{cm}{cn + 1} < \delta &\Leftrightarrow& \frac{m}{n(cn + 1)} < \delta n(cn + 1) \\ &\Leftrightarrow& \frac{m}{\delta n^{2}} < \left(nc^{2} + 1\right)^{2} \\ &\Leftrightarrow& \frac{m}{\delta n^{4}} < c^2 + \frac{2}{n}c + \frac{1}{n^{2}} \\ &\Leftrightarrow& \frac{m}{\delta n^{4}} < \left(c + \frac{1}{n}\right)^{2} \\ &\Leftrightarrow& \left(\frac{m}{\delta n^{4}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} - \frac{1}{n} < c \end{eqnarray*} $$
So we can make $\frac{cm}{cm + 1}$ as close to $\frac{m}{n}$ as we like by taking $c$ sufficiently large. If $cm$ is a perfect square, then $c$ must be a perfect square because $m$ is so we can just choose a $c$ that's not a perfect square and hence $\left(\frac{cm}{cn +1}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is irrational. Because we can place an irrational arbitrarily close to at least one positive rational, $\mathbb{Q}$ is not open.
To show that $\mathbb{Q}$ is not closed, simply pick some irrational $\alpha$ and let $\epsilon_n = \frac{1}{n}$. Let $x_n$ be chosen from between $\alpha - \epsilon_n$ and $\alpha$. Then the sequence $x_n$ converges to $\alpha$ which shows that the complement of $\mathbb{q}$ in $\mathbb{R}$ is not open as we can place a rational in any $\epsilon$-neighborhood of any irrational.
Proving that the rationals aren't open was so much harder than proving that they're not closed because my book hadn't proved that the irrationals are dense in $\mathbb{R}$ and so I couldn't use that. Is there some other way that I could do this?
\deltan
(which should be\delta n
). But probably the reason it was messing up is that while mostleft
andright
were incorrectly left without a control character, there was a single\left
that did not have a matching\right
. Once I fixed all the\left
and\right
s, it rendered correctly. – Arturo Magidin Apr 02 '11 at 05:46\left(
must have been the real offender. But without the preview working this is virtually impossible to catch. Great job! – t.b. Apr 02 '11 at 05:50