Real Analysis | Open subsets of ℝ.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- We give the standard definition of an open subset of the real numbers, give a few examples, and prove some classic results.
Please Subscribe: www.youtube.co...
Merch: teespring.com/...
Personal Website: www.michael-pen...
Randolph College Math: www.randolphcol...
Randolph College Math and Science on Facebook: / randolph.science
Research Gate profile: www.researchga...
Google Scholar profile: scholar.google...
If you are going to use an ad-blocker, considering using brave and tipping me BAT!
brave.com/sdp793
Buy textbooks here and help me out: amzn.to/31Bj9ye
Buy an amazon gift card and help me out: amzn.to/2PComAf
Books I like:
Abstract Algebra:
Judson(online): abstract.ups.edu/
Judson(print): amzn.to/2Xg92wD
Dummit and Foote: amzn.to/2zYOrok
Gallian: amzn.to/2zg4YEo
Artin: amzn.to/2LQ8l7C
Differential Forms:
Bachman: amzn.to/2z9wljH
Number Theory:
Crisman(online): math.gordon.edu...
Strayer: amzn.to/3bXwLah
Andrews: amzn.to/2zWlOZ0
Analysis:
Abbot: amzn.to/3cwYtuF
How to think about Analysis: amzn.to/2AIhwVm
Calculus:
OpenStax(online): openstax.org/s...
OpenStax Vol 1: amzn.to/2zlreN8
OpenStax Vol 2: amzn.to/2TtwoxH
OpenStax Vol 3: amzn.to/3bPJ3Bn
My Filming Equipment:
Camera: amzn.to/3kx2JzE
Lense: amzn.to/2PFxPXA
Audio Recorder: amzn.to/2XLzkaZ
Microphones: amzn.to/3fJED0T
Lights: amzn.to/2XHxRT0
White Chalk: amzn.to/3ipu3Oh
Color Chalk: amzn.to/2XL6eIJ
I believe the mistake at 6:10 is putting a minus sign in front of the parentheses instead of a plus
I wonder however do we need 1/2 coefficient when picking ε, just getting the minimum seems to be enough 🤔
Michael Penn and the three "C's" of Real Analysis. Clear, Concise, and Comprehensive.
This is such a great playlist that I'm actually looking forward for any new video.
Like a netflix series, but better
This deadass is a great playlist, keep it up!
Very much appreciated all the editing done to save a few seconds here and there. Must have been a lot of work but it makes the video much more smooth. Beautifully done thank you.
life saver playlist. Clear explanation and nice speed.
Note that for the finite intersection of open sets, it's enough to show that the intersection of two open sets is open. [This principle holds for any class of objects closed under some combination of two of them: from two you get any finite quantity.]
If it holds for two, it follows that (((U_1 * U_2) * U_3) * U_4) is open, and so on by induction [where * is the combination of two objects, here the intersection of two sets].
This would probably make for a slightly easier proof, at least with respect to notation.
Thanks nice remark! I guess Michael's approach might be in a way instructive sort of low level approach, and then it comes as a bummer what you said, sort of automating via induction
What a beautiful refresher for me Michael. Thank you. This reminds me my first college math back in 1987, french math curricula. Dedekind's approach is also very interesting for the construction of R. R is bounded and complete (with Bolzano-Weirstrass theorem). All Cauchy sequences are convergent. And we can also prove that any real number is a limit of a rational sequence. Meaning, the set of rational numbers denses in R. Those key results came back spontaneously to my mind while watching your video. Thank you.
R is most certainly not compact my friend
Thank you for correcting me. It's been a long time I did this real analysis.
@@spencerpencer that's true, that's why we used the Alexandroff's extension
and the limit of rational means that Q is dense in R
@@bobajaj4224 Alexandroff compactidication of R. I have recollection of that.
Thanks Prof. Penn. I'm glad you are making these videos. They are valuable for us and I hope you'll continue to post such videos.
12:32 I believe we can make epsilon as small as we want since the intersection of open intervals is open.
This guy is brilliant and his proofs are unassailable ( i cant find any mistake). He is the like jesus of math , saving undergrad math majors from failing. :P I don't even have to speed up the video because he moves so quickly through the proofs. Never a dull moment.
Why are you take the epsilon as the half of the minimum? Not just the minimum?
Great video as usual also them gains are showing itself
Thank you !
18:32
These are really good, thanks!
I love General Topology; and A Counterexample in GT
so helpful
Sir please tell how to find the integral of (x/(xsinx +cosx ))^2 without using integration by parts
Im confused. I thought the empty set is equivalent to the complement of R and so since R is open then it's complement which is the empty set is closed. Am I wrong?
Yes, the empty set is closed
It's a very simple concept
@@mr.knight8967 very easy too
Take a=Pi and epsilon = sqrt of 2. How to calculate (a-epsilon, a+epsilon)? Is this neighborhood well defined? Thanks.
Is this course or playlist following Rudin's "principles of mathematical analysis "? Great work. Will follow!
late reply, but its following Abbotts understanding analysis.
@@spicyy812thanks 🙏
Is this topic connected to Metric Spaces?
when take an epsilon from each set in the finite intersection, does this step require the axiom of choice? Since there could be an uncountable number of epsilons
Although there exist uncointably many choices of epsilon for each set, there are only finitely many sets from which we choose epsilon, so we don't need the axiom of choice .
I think the choice of epsilons from each of finitely many sets can be done by mathematical induction.
@@사기꾼진우야내가죽여 The fact that each set is open means that the epsilon has been chosen for us right?
For the proof of the finite insection of open intervals, doesn't that only hold if the intersection is non-empty?
If the intersection of a finite number of open sets is the empty set, that still works since the empty set is open!
If you want to talk about the "empty intersection" which is when you are intersecting no sets, this is the whole set, which is also open. (This is like multiplying no copies of a number together and getting 1. Written usually as x^0 =1.)
@@griffine6111 I get that the theorem still holds, since he showed the empty set is open. He's just taking an element of the intersection for the proof, which is kinda difficult if it's the empty set.
It's implied that the intersection is non-empty, since we know the empty set is open.
I believe the proof implies that the intersection is non-empty. If the intersection were empty, then we use the fact that the empty set is open.
This will be the greastest playlist of all time
🔥🔥🔥
im first
And I'm second