Relatively Open Sets in Metric Spaces
Explanation
Let’s say there are two metric spaces . And suppose a subset is given. If is open with respect to the entire space , then by the definition of being open and interior points, remains an open set even when is considered the entire space. This is because the situation involves a reduction of the whole set hence there is no way the neighborhood of grows larger. On the contrary, the fact that is open with respect to the whole space does not guarantee that is also open in . That is, being open is not an absolute property but a relative concept determined by what the entire set is. See the example below.
Example
, ,
By definition, is open with respect to the whole space . However, expanding the whole space to makes it no longer an open set. This is because there exists no neighborhood of any that satisfies .
, ,
Just like Example 1, is an open set with respect to the whole space . However, when the whole space is expanded to , is no longer an open set.
Therefore, when clarifying what it means to be open, the expression “relatively open” is used.
Definition
Given two metric spaces , , let’s denote it as . If for every there exists a constant that satisfies the following condition, then is called a relatively open set in .
The expression above doesn’t redefine openness but states ‘if is open when the entire space is considered ’ in formula form. In other words, it can be explained differently as ‘it is possible to form a neighborhood of that is included in with only elements in ’. A theorem regarding this is presented.
Theorem
Suppose we’re given two metric spaces , . And let . Then the following two propositions are equivalent.
(a) is relatively open in .
(b) There exists an open set in such that holds.
This can be useful in situations where the total space is reduced. For example, consider a scenario where we were dealing with open sets such as in the total space , but the space gets reduced to . Then, since , we cannot deal with the original open sets in . At this point, according to the theorem, we can simply capture the open sets in as .
Proof
(a) (b)
By assumption, for every there exists a positive number that satisfies the following.
Now, let’s denote the set of s that are as . Then, becomes a neighborhood of in . Since a neighborhood is an open set1, is an open set in , and since the union of open sets is an open set,
is an open set in . It is trivial that for all , holds. Therefore, the following holds.
On the other hand, by the way we captured , the following holds.
Therefore, by , ,
and since is an open set in , (a) (b) holds.
(a) (b)
is an open set in , and let’s denote it as . Then, every has a neighborhood that satisfies . Also, by the inclusion of sets, the following holds.
This is exactly the same meaning as , hence is an open set in .
■
See theorem 1 ↩︎