Simple question about “vacuous truth”.(Proof writing) Logical translation of a mathematical propositionHow does definition of nowhere dense imply not dense in any subset?Vacuous Truth and Universal Conditional Statementsvacuous truth -> empty set is both included and not included in every set?In any metric space: is the intersection of a countable sequence of dense, open sets always non-empty and dense?Are my solutions correct?How is it possible to draw any meaningful statements in mathematics from vacuous truths?Empty set, subsets, and vacuous truthsProve the equivalent conditions for nowhere dense subset.A set $A$ is nowhere dense if and only if every non-empty open set has a non-emtpy open subset disjoint from $overlineA$(Proof writing) Logical translation of a mathematical proposition

Need a non-volatile memory IC with near unlimited read/write operations capability

What does the multimeter dial do internally?

What exactly is a "murder hobo"?

What is the meaning of "prairie-dog" in this sentence?

Can you create a free-floating MASYU puzzle?

Use ContourPlot data in ParametricPlot

How can I use my cell phone's light as a reading light?

How was the website able to tell my credit card was wrong before it processed it?

Category-theoretic treatment of diffs, patches and merging?

Was it ever illegal to name a pig "Napoleon" in France?

How should I ask for a "pint" in countries that use metric?

How to say "is going" in Russian in "this game is going to perish"

When is one 'Ready' to make Original Contributions to Mathematics?

What are the consequences for a developed nation to not accept any refugees?

Why am I getting unevenly-spread results when using $RANDOM?

How can I review my manager, who is fine?

QR codes, do people use them?

Which is a better conductor, a very thick rubber wire or a very thin copper wire?

How can I reset Safari when Safari is broken?

Interpretation of non-significant results as "trends"

What factors could lead to bishops establishing monastic armies?

Possibility to correct pitch from digital versions of records with the hole not centered

Does the Wild Magic sorcerer's Tides of Chaos feature grant advantage on all attacks, or just the first one?

Uniform initialization by tuple



Simple question about “vacuous truth”.


(Proof writing) Logical translation of a mathematical propositionHow does definition of nowhere dense imply not dense in any subset?Vacuous Truth and Universal Conditional Statementsvacuous truth -> empty set is both included and not included in every set?In any metric space: is the intersection of a countable sequence of dense, open sets always non-empty and dense?Are my solutions correct?How is it possible to draw any meaningful statements in mathematics from vacuous truths?Empty set, subsets, and vacuous truthsProve the equivalent conditions for nowhere dense subset.A set $A$ is nowhere dense if and only if every non-empty open set has a non-emtpy open subset disjoint from $overlineA$(Proof writing) Logical translation of a mathematical proposition






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5












$begingroup$


In my homework there is an exercise that asks to show the following result:




Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
iff every open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




I was thinking in the case of the empty set. My question:



"$emptyset$ contains an element of $A$" is false or is vacuously true?



If it is false, then the necessary condition for the denseness of $A$ will always be false, because there will always be the (open) empty set in $E$ which does not contain any element of $A$. In this case, logically, $A$ would never be a dense subset of $E$. Is my argument right or am I going crazy?



Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$


















    5












    $begingroup$


    In my homework there is an exercise that asks to show the following result:




    Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
    iff every open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




    I was thinking in the case of the empty set. My question:



    "$emptyset$ contains an element of $A$" is false or is vacuously true?



    If it is false, then the necessary condition for the denseness of $A$ will always be false, because there will always be the (open) empty set in $E$ which does not contain any element of $A$. In this case, logically, $A$ would never be a dense subset of $E$. Is my argument right or am I going crazy?



    Thanks in advance.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$


      In my homework there is an exercise that asks to show the following result:




      Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
      iff every open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




      I was thinking in the case of the empty set. My question:



      "$emptyset$ contains an element of $A$" is false or is vacuously true?



      If it is false, then the necessary condition for the denseness of $A$ will always be false, because there will always be the (open) empty set in $E$ which does not contain any element of $A$. In this case, logically, $A$ would never be a dense subset of $E$. Is my argument right or am I going crazy?



      Thanks in advance.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      In my homework there is an exercise that asks to show the following result:




      Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
      iff every open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




      I was thinking in the case of the empty set. My question:



      "$emptyset$ contains an element of $A$" is false or is vacuously true?



      If it is false, then the necessary condition for the denseness of $A$ will always be false, because there will always be the (open) empty set in $E$ which does not contain any element of $A$. In this case, logically, $A$ would never be a dense subset of $E$. Is my argument right or am I going crazy?



      Thanks in advance.







      general-topology logic metric-spaces






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago









      Eric Wofsey

      202k14 gold badges235 silver badges367 bronze badges




      202k14 gold badges235 silver badges367 bronze badges










      asked 8 hours ago









      DanmatDanmat

      1598 bronze badges




      1598 bronze badges




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          9












          $begingroup$

          The formulation you quoted is slightly wrong, it should have been:




          Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
          iff every non-empty open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




          So you're not going crazy. In the formulation you gave no set will ever be dense and we've defined a "vacuous property". And the corrected formulation (by vacuous truth, as there are no non-empty open subsets to check) indeed allows us even to say that $emptyset$ is dense in the empty space $emptyset$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            It is what I was thinking. If I dont exclude the empty set, it would imply that no subset in $E$ would be dense. Do you agree??
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            8 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Danmat Yes, indeed. We want it to mean $overlineA=X$ and the correct formulation does that.
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            8 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            $P iff Q$ is equivalent to $neg P iff neg Q$. So if $Q$ is always false, it means that $P$ is always false too. What do you think of this argument?
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            8 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @Danmat Fine, but what's your point with that argument? what is $P$ and $Q$ here?
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            8 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Danmat Sure. But you still have to show that $E$ always has a dense subset to finish the argument. (e.g. by noting $E$ is always dense in $E$). But the exercise is false, let's just stop flogging a dead horse, shall we? Just do the corrected exercise instead.
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            7 hours ago


















          2












          $begingroup$

          The empty set contains no elements, from $A$ or any other set. This is not an instance of vacuous truth, this is just false.



          The vacuous truth that I think you're thinking of is of the form $forall x in emptyset, P(x)$, where $P$ is some predicate. It doesn't matter what the predicate is, or how laughably false it might be (e.g. "$x$ is a square prime"), the preceding statement is considered true simply by virtue of there being nothing preventing it from being false. Its negation, $exists x in emptyset : neg P(x)$, is always false, simply because it asserts the existence of an element $x$ of the empty set.



          But this is not the case here. You do have a "for all" statement; you are considering all open subsets of $E$, which indeed includes the empty set, and hence is a non-empty set! You therefore do not get vacuous truth. Instead, you now have a counterexample: the empty set does not intersect with any $A$, so according to this (false) result, no set is dense.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I tried to argument about it. I took it very seriously. But I got stucked in formal logic. See here please. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3284613/…
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            4 hours ago



















          0












          $begingroup$

          Let $p in X subset E$ open. So, there exists $r > 0$ such that $B(p, r) subset X$.



          As $barA = E$, $p$ is adherent to $A$. Therefore $B(p,r) cap A neq emptyset$. Thus, there is $q in A$ and $q in B(p,r) subset X$, this is, $A cap X neq emptyset$



          reciprocally, suppose it absurd that $barA neq E$. Therefore, there is an element $x in E$ such that $x not in barA$. Thus, $x in E - barA Rightarrow x in mboxint(E - A) subset E - A$. So, $B(x, varepsilon) cap A = emptyset$, absurd ! Therefore, $barA = E$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$















            Your Answer








            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%2f3284473%2fsimple-question-about-vacuous-truth%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            9












            $begingroup$

            The formulation you quoted is slightly wrong, it should have been:




            Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
            iff every non-empty open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




            So you're not going crazy. In the formulation you gave no set will ever be dense and we've defined a "vacuous property". And the corrected formulation (by vacuous truth, as there are no non-empty open subsets to check) indeed allows us even to say that $emptyset$ is dense in the empty space $emptyset$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              It is what I was thinking. If I dont exclude the empty set, it would imply that no subset in $E$ would be dense. Do you agree??
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Danmat Yes, indeed. We want it to mean $overlineA=X$ and the correct formulation does that.
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              $P iff Q$ is equivalent to $neg P iff neg Q$. So if $Q$ is always false, it means that $P$ is always false too. What do you think of this argument?
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              8 hours ago











            • $begingroup$
              @Danmat Fine, but what's your point with that argument? what is $P$ and $Q$ here?
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              8 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @Danmat Sure. But you still have to show that $E$ always has a dense subset to finish the argument. (e.g. by noting $E$ is always dense in $E$). But the exercise is false, let's just stop flogging a dead horse, shall we? Just do the corrected exercise instead.
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              7 hours ago















            9












            $begingroup$

            The formulation you quoted is slightly wrong, it should have been:




            Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
            iff every non-empty open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




            So you're not going crazy. In the formulation you gave no set will ever be dense and we've defined a "vacuous property". And the corrected formulation (by vacuous truth, as there are no non-empty open subsets to check) indeed allows us even to say that $emptyset$ is dense in the empty space $emptyset$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              It is what I was thinking. If I dont exclude the empty set, it would imply that no subset in $E$ would be dense. Do you agree??
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Danmat Yes, indeed. We want it to mean $overlineA=X$ and the correct formulation does that.
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              $P iff Q$ is equivalent to $neg P iff neg Q$. So if $Q$ is always false, it means that $P$ is always false too. What do you think of this argument?
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              8 hours ago











            • $begingroup$
              @Danmat Fine, but what's your point with that argument? what is $P$ and $Q$ here?
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              8 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @Danmat Sure. But you still have to show that $E$ always has a dense subset to finish the argument. (e.g. by noting $E$ is always dense in $E$). But the exercise is false, let's just stop flogging a dead horse, shall we? Just do the corrected exercise instead.
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              7 hours ago













            9












            9








            9





            $begingroup$

            The formulation you quoted is slightly wrong, it should have been:




            Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
            iff every non-empty open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




            So you're not going crazy. In the formulation you gave no set will ever be dense and we've defined a "vacuous property". And the corrected formulation (by vacuous truth, as there are no non-empty open subsets to check) indeed allows us even to say that $emptyset$ is dense in the empty space $emptyset$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            The formulation you quoted is slightly wrong, it should have been:




            Let $(E,d)$ be a metric space. Show that a subset $A$ is dense in $E$
            iff every non-empty open set in $(E,d)$ contains an element of $A$.




            So you're not going crazy. In the formulation you gave no set will ever be dense and we've defined a "vacuous property". And the corrected formulation (by vacuous truth, as there are no non-empty open subsets to check) indeed allows us even to say that $emptyset$ is dense in the empty space $emptyset$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 8 hours ago

























            answered 8 hours ago









            Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma

            124k3 gold badges52 silver badges135 bronze badges




            124k3 gold badges52 silver badges135 bronze badges











            • $begingroup$
              It is what I was thinking. If I dont exclude the empty set, it would imply that no subset in $E$ would be dense. Do you agree??
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Danmat Yes, indeed. We want it to mean $overlineA=X$ and the correct formulation does that.
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              $P iff Q$ is equivalent to $neg P iff neg Q$. So if $Q$ is always false, it means that $P$ is always false too. What do you think of this argument?
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              8 hours ago











            • $begingroup$
              @Danmat Fine, but what's your point with that argument? what is $P$ and $Q$ here?
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              8 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @Danmat Sure. But you still have to show that $E$ always has a dense subset to finish the argument. (e.g. by noting $E$ is always dense in $E$). But the exercise is false, let's just stop flogging a dead horse, shall we? Just do the corrected exercise instead.
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              7 hours ago
















            • $begingroup$
              It is what I was thinking. If I dont exclude the empty set, it would imply that no subset in $E$ would be dense. Do you agree??
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Danmat Yes, indeed. We want it to mean $overlineA=X$ and the correct formulation does that.
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              $P iff Q$ is equivalent to $neg P iff neg Q$. So if $Q$ is always false, it means that $P$ is always false too. What do you think of this argument?
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              8 hours ago











            • $begingroup$
              @Danmat Fine, but what's your point with that argument? what is $P$ and $Q$ here?
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              8 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @Danmat Sure. But you still have to show that $E$ always has a dense subset to finish the argument. (e.g. by noting $E$ is always dense in $E$). But the exercise is false, let's just stop flogging a dead horse, shall we? Just do the corrected exercise instead.
              $endgroup$
              – Henno Brandsma
              7 hours ago















            $begingroup$
            It is what I was thinking. If I dont exclude the empty set, it would imply that no subset in $E$ would be dense. Do you agree??
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            8 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            It is what I was thinking. If I dont exclude the empty set, it would imply that no subset in $E$ would be dense. Do you agree??
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            8 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @Danmat Yes, indeed. We want it to mean $overlineA=X$ and the correct formulation does that.
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            8 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @Danmat Yes, indeed. We want it to mean $overlineA=X$ and the correct formulation does that.
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            8 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            $P iff Q$ is equivalent to $neg P iff neg Q$. So if $Q$ is always false, it means that $P$ is always false too. What do you think of this argument?
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            8 hours ago





            $begingroup$
            $P iff Q$ is equivalent to $neg P iff neg Q$. So if $Q$ is always false, it means that $P$ is always false too. What do you think of this argument?
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            8 hours ago













            $begingroup$
            @Danmat Fine, but what's your point with that argument? what is $P$ and $Q$ here?
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            8 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @Danmat Fine, but what's your point with that argument? what is $P$ and $Q$ here?
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            8 hours ago




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            @Danmat Sure. But you still have to show that $E$ always has a dense subset to finish the argument. (e.g. by noting $E$ is always dense in $E$). But the exercise is false, let's just stop flogging a dead horse, shall we? Just do the corrected exercise instead.
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            7 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @Danmat Sure. But you still have to show that $E$ always has a dense subset to finish the argument. (e.g. by noting $E$ is always dense in $E$). But the exercise is false, let's just stop flogging a dead horse, shall we? Just do the corrected exercise instead.
            $endgroup$
            – Henno Brandsma
            7 hours ago













            2












            $begingroup$

            The empty set contains no elements, from $A$ or any other set. This is not an instance of vacuous truth, this is just false.



            The vacuous truth that I think you're thinking of is of the form $forall x in emptyset, P(x)$, where $P$ is some predicate. It doesn't matter what the predicate is, or how laughably false it might be (e.g. "$x$ is a square prime"), the preceding statement is considered true simply by virtue of there being nothing preventing it from being false. Its negation, $exists x in emptyset : neg P(x)$, is always false, simply because it asserts the existence of an element $x$ of the empty set.



            But this is not the case here. You do have a "for all" statement; you are considering all open subsets of $E$, which indeed includes the empty set, and hence is a non-empty set! You therefore do not get vacuous truth. Instead, you now have a counterexample: the empty set does not intersect with any $A$, so according to this (false) result, no set is dense.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              I tried to argument about it. I took it very seriously. But I got stucked in formal logic. See here please. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3284613/…
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              4 hours ago
















            2












            $begingroup$

            The empty set contains no elements, from $A$ or any other set. This is not an instance of vacuous truth, this is just false.



            The vacuous truth that I think you're thinking of is of the form $forall x in emptyset, P(x)$, where $P$ is some predicate. It doesn't matter what the predicate is, or how laughably false it might be (e.g. "$x$ is a square prime"), the preceding statement is considered true simply by virtue of there being nothing preventing it from being false. Its negation, $exists x in emptyset : neg P(x)$, is always false, simply because it asserts the existence of an element $x$ of the empty set.



            But this is not the case here. You do have a "for all" statement; you are considering all open subsets of $E$, which indeed includes the empty set, and hence is a non-empty set! You therefore do not get vacuous truth. Instead, you now have a counterexample: the empty set does not intersect with any $A$, so according to this (false) result, no set is dense.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              I tried to argument about it. I took it very seriously. But I got stucked in formal logic. See here please. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3284613/…
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              4 hours ago














            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            The empty set contains no elements, from $A$ or any other set. This is not an instance of vacuous truth, this is just false.



            The vacuous truth that I think you're thinking of is of the form $forall x in emptyset, P(x)$, where $P$ is some predicate. It doesn't matter what the predicate is, or how laughably false it might be (e.g. "$x$ is a square prime"), the preceding statement is considered true simply by virtue of there being nothing preventing it from being false. Its negation, $exists x in emptyset : neg P(x)$, is always false, simply because it asserts the existence of an element $x$ of the empty set.



            But this is not the case here. You do have a "for all" statement; you are considering all open subsets of $E$, which indeed includes the empty set, and hence is a non-empty set! You therefore do not get vacuous truth. Instead, you now have a counterexample: the empty set does not intersect with any $A$, so according to this (false) result, no set is dense.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            The empty set contains no elements, from $A$ or any other set. This is not an instance of vacuous truth, this is just false.



            The vacuous truth that I think you're thinking of is of the form $forall x in emptyset, P(x)$, where $P$ is some predicate. It doesn't matter what the predicate is, or how laughably false it might be (e.g. "$x$ is a square prime"), the preceding statement is considered true simply by virtue of there being nothing preventing it from being false. Its negation, $exists x in emptyset : neg P(x)$, is always false, simply because it asserts the existence of an element $x$ of the empty set.



            But this is not the case here. You do have a "for all" statement; you are considering all open subsets of $E$, which indeed includes the empty set, and hence is a non-empty set! You therefore do not get vacuous truth. Instead, you now have a counterexample: the empty set does not intersect with any $A$, so according to this (false) result, no set is dense.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 4 hours ago

























            answered 8 hours ago









            Theo BenditTheo Bendit

            24.9k1 gold badge25 silver badges61 bronze badges




            24.9k1 gold badge25 silver badges61 bronze badges











            • $begingroup$
              I tried to argument about it. I took it very seriously. But I got stucked in formal logic. See here please. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3284613/…
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              4 hours ago

















            • $begingroup$
              I tried to argument about it. I took it very seriously. But I got stucked in formal logic. See here please. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3284613/…
              $endgroup$
              – Danmat
              4 hours ago
















            $begingroup$
            I tried to argument about it. I took it very seriously. But I got stucked in formal logic. See here please. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3284613/…
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            4 hours ago





            $begingroup$
            I tried to argument about it. I took it very seriously. But I got stucked in formal logic. See here please. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3284613/…
            $endgroup$
            – Danmat
            4 hours ago












            0












            $begingroup$

            Let $p in X subset E$ open. So, there exists $r > 0$ such that $B(p, r) subset X$.



            As $barA = E$, $p$ is adherent to $A$. Therefore $B(p,r) cap A neq emptyset$. Thus, there is $q in A$ and $q in B(p,r) subset X$, this is, $A cap X neq emptyset$



            reciprocally, suppose it absurd that $barA neq E$. Therefore, there is an element $x in E$ such that $x not in barA$. Thus, $x in E - barA Rightarrow x in mboxint(E - A) subset E - A$. So, $B(x, varepsilon) cap A = emptyset$, absurd ! Therefore, $barA = E$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$

















              0












              $begingroup$

              Let $p in X subset E$ open. So, there exists $r > 0$ such that $B(p, r) subset X$.



              As $barA = E$, $p$ is adherent to $A$. Therefore $B(p,r) cap A neq emptyset$. Thus, there is $q in A$ and $q in B(p,r) subset X$, this is, $A cap X neq emptyset$



              reciprocally, suppose it absurd that $barA neq E$. Therefore, there is an element $x in E$ such that $x not in barA$. Thus, $x in E - barA Rightarrow x in mboxint(E - A) subset E - A$. So, $B(x, varepsilon) cap A = emptyset$, absurd ! Therefore, $barA = E$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                Let $p in X subset E$ open. So, there exists $r > 0$ such that $B(p, r) subset X$.



                As $barA = E$, $p$ is adherent to $A$. Therefore $B(p,r) cap A neq emptyset$. Thus, there is $q in A$ and $q in B(p,r) subset X$, this is, $A cap X neq emptyset$



                reciprocally, suppose it absurd that $barA neq E$. Therefore, there is an element $x in E$ such that $x not in barA$. Thus, $x in E - barA Rightarrow x in mboxint(E - A) subset E - A$. So, $B(x, varepsilon) cap A = emptyset$, absurd ! Therefore, $barA = E$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                Let $p in X subset E$ open. So, there exists $r > 0$ such that $B(p, r) subset X$.



                As $barA = E$, $p$ is adherent to $A$. Therefore $B(p,r) cap A neq emptyset$. Thus, there is $q in A$ and $q in B(p,r) subset X$, this is, $A cap X neq emptyset$



                reciprocally, suppose it absurd that $barA neq E$. Therefore, there is an element $x in E$ such that $x not in barA$. Thus, $x in E - barA Rightarrow x in mboxint(E - A) subset E - A$. So, $B(x, varepsilon) cap A = emptyset$, absurd ! Therefore, $barA = E$.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 7 hours ago

























                answered 7 hours ago









                Allan RamosAllan Ramos

                1319 bronze badges




                1319 bronze badges



























                    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%2f3284473%2fsimple-question-about-vacuous-truth%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

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單