Closed Intervals with Infinite Endpoints: Explained

  • Thread starter Organic
  • Start date
  • Tags
    intervals
In summary: So, in summary, we can see that the concept of complete or all-encompassing sets is meaningless in the context of infinitesimal and infinite elements. This leads to the need for non-Euclidean mathematical systems like Complementary Logic, which go beyond the limitations of traditional Euclidean-based systems.
  • #1
Organic
1,224
0
Please look at: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Interval.html

My question is about this line:

"If one of the endpoints is +-oo , then the interval still contains all of its limit points, so (-oo,b] and [a,oo) are also closed intervals".

How come ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If a sequence within [itex][a,\infty)[/itex] converges it must converge to a value within [itex][a,\infty)[/itex], and so the interval is by definition closed.


Suppose you have a sequence that converges to [itex]p[/itex]. If [itex]p<a[/itex], then the sequence must contain a point in the interval [itex](p,a)[/itex] and so the sequence is not actually in the interval.

So if the sequence is in the interval we must have [itex]p\geq a[/itex]. Thus [itex]p\in[a,\infty)[/itex]. Thus any convergent sequence in the interval converges to a point in the interval. Thus the interval is closed.
 
  • #3
It depends on what definition of closed you're using, but [tex](-\infty,b][/tex] is indeed a closed set in [tex]\Re[/tex] under the usual topology.

If you think of closed as 'contains all of its own limit points', then you can see that
[tex](-\infty,b][/tex]
does indeed contain all real limit points of sequences of reals that only contain numbers from [tex](-\infty,b][/tex].

This is relatively easy to prove:
Let's say we have a sequence [tex]S[/tex] such that [tex]s \in S \rightarrow s \in (-\infty,b][/tex], and that [tex]x[/tex] is a limit point of [tex]S[/tex].
Assume, by contradiction, that [tex]x[/tex] is not in [tex](-\infty,b][/tex]. Then clearly [tex]x > b[/tex]. Now, because [tex]x[/tex] is a limit point of [tex]S[/tex], for any [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex] there exists some [tex]s' \in S[/tex] with [tex]|s'-x| < \epsilon[/tex], but if [tex]\epsilon=\frac{x-b}{2}[/tex] then there cannot be any suitable [tex]s' \in (-\infty,b][/tex]

Alternatively, if you start with the notion that [tex](a,b)[/tex] is an open set in [tex]\Re[/tex] then you can see that [tex](b,\infty)[/tex] is an open set, since it is [tex]\Cup_{x \in \Re, x>=b} (x,x+1)[/tex]. Then it's compliment [tex](\infty,b][/tex] must be closed.

P.S. Sorry, I don't have the tex for union handy.
 
  • #4
If you are thinking that [itex](-\infty,b][/itex] and [itex][a,\infty)[/itex] do not include all limit points because they do not include [itex]-\infty[/itex] or [itex]\infty[/itex], remember that the those are not in standard real number system. That is why we never say "[itex][-\inft,b][/itex] or [itex][a,\infty][/itex].

"[itex][a,\infty)[/itex]" really means "a and all real numbers larger than a".
 
  • #5
If you are thinking that [itex](-\infty,b][/itex] and [itex][a,\infty)[/itex] do not include all limit points because they do not include [itex]-\infty[/itex] or [itex]\infty[/itex], remember that the those are not in the standard real number system. That is why we never say "[itex][-\infty,b][/itex] or [itex][a,\infty][/itex].

"[itex][a,\infty)[/itex]" really means "a and all real numbers larger than a".
 
  • #6
When we find a 1-1 map between some point x to some R number, then if x in R then for any x in R, we can find some x0 < x OR some x < x2.

Therefore x0 OR x2 are always unreachable for any given x.

Let x0 be -oo(= inifinitely many objects < x).

Let x2 be oo(= inifinitely many objects > x).

No given x can reach x0 or x2.

Therefore x0 OR x2 must be the unreachable limits of any R number.

(x0,x] OR [x,x2), therefore [a,oo) OR (-oo,b] cannot be but half closed intervals.

Therefore the set of all R numbers (where R has a form of infinitely many objects) does not exist.


Shortly speaking, infinitely many objects cannot be related with the word all.

Fore clearer picture please look at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SPI.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #7
i wouldn't say that oo or -oo in real analysis refers to infinitely many objects, at least no more than do numbers like 1 or square root of 2. actually, in the cauchy sequence construction and dedikind cut construction of R, all numbers are sets with infinitely many objects but of the same kind of infinity. neither oo nor -oo are real numbers, they aren't really defined except that oo is a symbol one could interpret as infinity if one wants such that x<oo for all x in R.

quote from my real analysis book:
the symbols +oo and -oo are used here purely for convienience in notation and are not to be considered as being real numbers.

the convienience is, for example, when talking about intervals like
G={x in R : x>a}. now if F={x in R : a<x<b}, then the notation is (a,b). for G, this notation would become awkward: (a, (period)
so to make the two notations look alike, we just say (a, oo) when we actually mean (a, (period) oo is not the right endpoint of G; there is no right endpoint of G.
 
  • #8
Hi

My argument is very simple:

1) Things get infinitesimally small and never reach {}.

2) Things get infinitely big and never reach {__}.

Therefore things are in ({},{__}).

{__} is the full set, which its content is an infinitely long non-factorized-one line.

{__} is the opposite of {}, and vice versa.


Please see again this example:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SPI.pdf

Therefore no infinitesimally or infinitely many elements can be related to words like all or complete.

Therefore definitions like 'the complete list of N numbers' are meaningless.

The idea of transfinite universes is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Except that none of the things you're talking about have anything to do with math.
 
  • #10
Last edited:
  • #11
1) Things get infinitesimally small and never reach {}.

2) Things get infinitely big and never reach {__}.

i'm taking {__} to be for now the class of all sets or a universal object.

translations:
1) a set with elements will never be the empty set

2) a set not having all elements will never reach {__}.

so, master_coda, can you explain how nothing has anything to do with math?
 
  • #12
Well, the simple response is that the 'things' which Organic refers to are not mathematical objects.
It follows that notions about big and small things are also not mathematical and so on.

Hence, the argument that Organic makes is not mathematical in nature.

For mathematical associations to be drawn -- for example the implied notion that there is a correlation between Euclidean (ie. Plane) geometry and boolean logic, and Non-Euclidean geometry and non-boolean logic -- they need to be formalized, or at least described.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i'm taking {__} to be for now the class of all sets or a universal object.

translations:
1) a set with elements will never be the empty set

2) a set not having all elements will never reach {__}.

so, master_coda, can you explain how nothing has anything to do with math?

Well if all you have to do to talk about math is tie random math words together, then I would have to concede that what Organic says has something to do with math. Still, I would argue that he hasn't said anything meaningful or relevant.

His argument seems to boil down to "you can't talk about infinite sets because you can't count to infinity". Not only is that wrong, but it also portrays a profound lack of understanding of the mathematical concept of infinity. Or even an understanding of logic, since he asserts that "for all" is not a valid quantifier.


Organic asked a question about intervals. We posted a perfectly good answer to his question. Then we were told that our explanation was wrong. Apparently, when you change the definitions for everything, you get different results. Since we aren't told what those new definitions are, we can't even check these new results. It hardly matters anyway, since proving something about a different definition of "closed interval" doesn't prove anything about the original definition.
 
  • #14
(For some reason I couldn't post this morning, but here's what I was going to write)

It seems you're confused about what x0 and x2 are supposed to be; when you first use them:

When we find a 1-1 map between some point x to some R number, then if x in R then for any x in R, we can find some x0 < x OR some x < x2.

They seem like they're supposed to be real numbers.

However, when you next use them:

Let x0 be -oo...

Let x2 be oo...

They seem like they're supposed to be extended real numbers.

However...

Let x0 ... = inifinitely many objects < x.

Let x2 ... = inifinitely many objects > x.

Now x0 and x2 are sets!

(x0,x] OR [x,x2)

And now they're back to real numbers again (or maybe extended real numbers).

Make up your mind, which is it?


cannot be but half closed intervals

That doesn't prevent them from being closed sets. (and thus closed intervals)

Heck, subsets of the real line can be both open and closed simultaneously! (in particular, [itex]\varnothing[/itex] and [/itex](-\infty, \infty)[/itex] have this property of being "clopen")


Therefore the set of all R numbers (where R has a form of infinitely many objects) does not exist.

This doesn't even have anything to do with the previous statements! Why do you say this?



Therefore definitions like 'the complete list of N numbers' is meaningless.

In your theory, maybe, but it is not meaningless in ordinary mathematical structures.
 
  • #15
The contents of {} and {__} are total states that cannot be explored by any information system, including Math Language.

Please read this: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MathLimits.pdf

Therefore any information system is limited to ({},{__}) where:

({},{_}):={x|{} <-- x(={.}) AND x(={._.})--> {_}}

Question: Is Universal set = {__} ?

Answer:

Universal set is
the balance of ({},{_}):={x|{} <-- x(={.}) AND x(={._.})--> {_}}


To understand this, Please read:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Everything.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ASPIRATING.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ET.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATheory.pdf


The 'Boolean Logic' which is an Euoclidian-Mthematics system is goning to be replaced by systems like 'Complementary Logic' which is a Non-Euoclidian-Mathematics system.

For example read this: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion43.html

Complementary Logic ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CompLogic.pdf and http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/4BPM.pdf ) goes beyond the above article.

Do you still do not realize that the Cantorian world is based on a private case of some broken symmetry?

Please take a long look at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SPI.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/LIM.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsBall.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsLimits.pdf

And if you understand the above, please take a long look at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MathLimits.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/GIF.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RealModel.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CK.pdf

And is you understand the above than please take a long look at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Moral.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/O-Harp.pdf

Yours,

Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Hi Hurkyl,

You are right, I don't no how to use standard notations, so to make my idea clear x0 and x2 stand for infinitely many R numbers where:

x0 < some given x where x is any arbitrary R subset.

x2 > some given x where x is any arbitrary R subset.

The arbitrary R subset is represented by 01 infinitely long sequence,
taken from set Rseq, which its content = [...000,...111)XOR(...000,...111]

Rseq cunstructed by:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NewDiagonalView.pdf
Therefore it can't be "clopen".

About "clopen" I have found this:

http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache.../ClopenSubset.html+math+clopen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Can you please explain "clopen" in a non-formal way?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
it is much more useful to actually point out the errors than to just say they are there. what's going on here is two differnet notions of intervals, which sort of resemble each other but not in a "rigorous" way, are being mixed up. ({}, {__}) has nothing to do with intervals like (a,b) for the first one, for one thing, is about much more than real numbers. the way i'd put it is that there is a "lattice" with {} at the bottom and {__} at the top. however, since not everything in between is "comparable," it doesn't make sense to use interval notation, in which there usually is a "total ordering," or at least a "linear ordering," involved in all elements in the interval.

His argument seems to boil down to "you can't talk about infinite sets because you can't count to infinity".
that is, i think, a straw man. that can't be his argument because he's talking about infinite sets. i also think he's referring to the absolute infinity and not just any infinite set. and in that sense, you can not count to the absolute infinity no matter what. that is to say i can prove, i think, that if P(X) is the absolute infinity, then X is the absolute infinity; hence, it cannot be achieved "from below." iow, you cannot count to it or power set to it. i think if you just unravel what organic is trying to say and get past the fact that he's using nonrigorous language, he's got kernels of truth.

in fact, he was using these statements on infinite sets like N, you know that N can be approached but never achieved. he had the right idea but what he means, i think, is the universal object, not N. when he did, i argued up until when i realized what he was really talking about.

i agree that if you change the definitions mid-sentence or mid-article, you have huge problems and that's something he has to work on but i think his nuggets of truths should be encouraged and we, like hurkyl, should be correcting the language rather than simply say it is incorrect. if that's not worth your time, i understand but if you just say it's incorrect without correction, that's not really worth organic's time.

ps: organic, they did try to correct your language but you didn't seem to listen! you have to make it clear that you're not talking about the same kind of intervals. you have to define what you mean and stick to it. look at any definition on mathworld.com or any textbook and make your definitions look like that. believe me, it's not so limiting to stick to that.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Hi phoenixthoth,

Please read my previous post (my answer to Hurkyl), and reply your remarks.

Thank you,

Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Literally, "clopen" means "open and closed".

In nice situations, it turns out there aren't very many clopen sets; in some of the more common topological spaces, like [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex] or [itex]\mathbb{C}^n[/itex], the only two clopen sets are the empty set and the entire space; in nice situations the only clopen sets are those that are unions of the connected components of a space; that is, you pick a few (maybe zero) points, and you get a clopen set by taking all of the points that can be connected to the selected points.


So, for example, if I make a topological space by choosing three disjoint lines l, m, and n, then the clopen sets are [itex]\varnothing[/itex], l, m, n, l U m, l U n, m U n, l U m U n.



In not so nice situations (e.g. the rational numbers), there can be more clopen sets. For instance, the interval [itex](\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3})[/itex] is clopen in the rational numbers; it's closed because it contains all of its limit points in the rational numbers, and it's open because it has no boundary points in the rational numbers.
 
  • #20
and a space could be called "connected" if and only if the only clopen sets are Ø and the whole space. so when hurkyl says nice, could mean "connected."
 
  • #21
Dear Hurkyl and phoenixthoth,


First, thank you for your clear explanation about "clopen"

But what if x0 and x2 stand for infinitely many sequences where:

x0 < some given x where x is any arbitrary Rseq member.

x2 > some given x where x is any arbitrary Rseq member.

The arbitrary Rseq member represented by 01 infinitely long sequence,
taken from set Rseq, which its content = [...000,...111)XOR(...000,...111]

Rseq cunstructed by:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NewDiagonalView.pdf
Therefore it can't be "clopen", but a half closed interval.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
clopen means closed and open.

a half-open interval like (a,b] is neither open nor closed. this is a good example showing that sets don't fall into two categories of open or closed.

as far as
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html
goes, i would have to say the same thing i said earlier: what is a connection in terms of something more concrete? ie, a set, a function, a category, a group, an ordered pair, etc...
 
  • #23
Last edited:
  • #24
no, it's not.

and oo is not an endpoint of the interval; the interval F=[a,oo) has no right endpoint.

one equivalent way to say it's closed is that if there is a sequence of points in F that converges, then the limit must be in F. this is something you can prove of F and so F is closed.

the interval G=(a, oo) is not closed because this is not the case:
the sequence {b_n}, where b_n = a+1/n, converges but not to a point in G.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Organic
"If one of the endpoints is +-oo , then the interval still contains all of its limit points, so (-oo,b] and [a,oo) are also closed intervals".

Is oo or -oo can be a notation for any collection of infinitely many objects?

[itex]+\infty[/itex] and [itex]-\infty[/itex] are just a shorthand notation being used. They do not represent actual objects.
 
  • #26
If so, then oo or -oo stands for the abstract idea of infinity.
Is it right?
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Organic
If so, then oo or -oo stands for the abstract idea of infinity.
Is it right?

In general, [itex]\infty[/itex] is the symbol used to represent some idea of infinity. However when it is used, it is used in a very rigorously defined way (if it's being used properly).

For example in [itex][a,+\infty)[/itex] it is being used as a shorthand for [itex]\lbrace x\in\mathbb{R}\colon a\leq x\rbrace[/itex]. Not "the interval between a and infinity".
 
  • #28
Ho, I see.

So how can we represent this idea?

x0 and x2 stand for infinitely many sequences where:

x0 < some given x where x is any arbitrary Rseq member.

x2 > some given x where x is any arbitrary Rseq member.

The arbitrary Rseq member represented by 01 infinitely long sequence,
taken from set Rseq, which its content = [...000,...111)XOR(...000,...111]

Rseq cunstructed by:
http://www.geocities.com/complement...iagonalView.pdf
 
  • #29
So x0 and x2 are infinite sets of sequences?
 
  • #30
Yes, and therefore can never be completed.
 
  • #31
Well, before you can find x0 and x2, you need to define an ordering. Given two infinite sets of sequences (call them a and b), how do you determine if [itex]a<b[/itex]?
 
  • #33
You need to provide a clear definition. That pdf just contains your issues with the diagonal method.

How do you determine if [itex]a<b[/itex]?
 
  • #35
Your definition doesn't work. Your "interval" [a,...111) contains two different types of objects. "...111" is a sequence while "a" is a set of sequences. How do you have an interval when you have two different types of objects?
 
<h2>1. What is a closed interval with infinite endpoints?</h2><p>A closed interval with infinite endpoints is a mathematical concept that represents a range of values that includes both positive and negative infinity. It is denoted by the symbol [-∞, ∞] and includes all real numbers between -∞ and ∞, including -∞ and ∞ themselves.</p><h2>2. How is a closed interval with infinite endpoints different from a closed interval with finite endpoints?</h2><p>A closed interval with finite endpoints has specific, defined values for its lower and upper bounds, whereas a closed interval with infinite endpoints includes all real numbers between -∞ and ∞. Additionally, a closed interval with finite endpoints can be graphed as a line segment, while a closed interval with infinite endpoints cannot be graphed in the same way.</p><h2>3. What is the purpose of using a closed interval with infinite endpoints?</h2><p>A closed interval with infinite endpoints is often used in mathematical and scientific calculations to represent a range of values that has no upper or lower limit. It is also useful for discussing the behavior of functions as they approach infinity.</p><h2>4. How is a closed interval with infinite endpoints used in calculus?</h2><p>In calculus, a closed interval with infinite endpoints is used to represent the domain of a function that has no upper or lower limit. This allows for the evaluation of limits, derivatives, and integrals of functions that approach infinity at certain points.</p><h2>5. Are there any real-life applications of closed intervals with infinite endpoints?</h2><p>Yes, closed intervals with infinite endpoints are used in various fields such as physics, engineering, and economics to model and analyze phenomena that have no upper or lower bound. For example, in physics, they are used to represent the range of possible values for a physical quantity that has no theoretical limit.</p>

1. What is a closed interval with infinite endpoints?

A closed interval with infinite endpoints is a mathematical concept that represents a range of values that includes both positive and negative infinity. It is denoted by the symbol [-∞, ∞] and includes all real numbers between -∞ and ∞, including -∞ and ∞ themselves.

2. How is a closed interval with infinite endpoints different from a closed interval with finite endpoints?

A closed interval with finite endpoints has specific, defined values for its lower and upper bounds, whereas a closed interval with infinite endpoints includes all real numbers between -∞ and ∞. Additionally, a closed interval with finite endpoints can be graphed as a line segment, while a closed interval with infinite endpoints cannot be graphed in the same way.

3. What is the purpose of using a closed interval with infinite endpoints?

A closed interval with infinite endpoints is often used in mathematical and scientific calculations to represent a range of values that has no upper or lower limit. It is also useful for discussing the behavior of functions as they approach infinity.

4. How is a closed interval with infinite endpoints used in calculus?

In calculus, a closed interval with infinite endpoints is used to represent the domain of a function that has no upper or lower limit. This allows for the evaluation of limits, derivatives, and integrals of functions that approach infinity at certain points.

5. Are there any real-life applications of closed intervals with infinite endpoints?

Yes, closed intervals with infinite endpoints are used in various fields such as physics, engineering, and economics to model and analyze phenomena that have no upper or lower bound. For example, in physics, they are used to represent the range of possible values for a physical quantity that has no theoretical limit.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
987
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
166
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
141
Views
5K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top