0

Let $(f_1,\cdots,f_n)$ be a finite sequence of natural numbers where $f_i>0$ for all $i\le n$.

Let $A$ be a set and $F_i$ be an $f_i-$array operation on $A$ for all $i\le n$.

$B\subseteq A$ is closed if and only if $F_i(a_1,\cdots,a_{f_i})\in B$ for all $i\le n$ and $a_1,\cdots,a_{f_i}\in B$ provided that $F_i(a_1,\cdots,a_{f_i})$ is defined.

The closure of $B$, to be denoted by $\overline B$, is defined by $$\overline B=\bigcap\{C\in\mathcal P(A)\mid B\subseteq C \text{ and }C \text{ is closed}\}$$

If $B$ is countable, then $\overline B$ is countable


Does this proof look fine or contain gaps? Do you have suggestions? Many thanks for your dedicated help!


My attempt:

Lemma 1: $\overline B=\bigcup\limits_{j\in\Bbb N}B_j$ where $(B_j\mid j\in\Bbb N)$ is defined recursively by $$B_0=B \text{ and } B_{j+1}=B_j\bigcup \bigg(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}F_i[B_j^{f_i}]\bigg)$$ (I presented a proof here)

Lemma 2: Countable union of countable sets is countable (I presented a proof here)

Lemma 3: The Cartesian product of a finite number of countable sets is countable (I presented a proof here)

By Lemma 1, $\overline B=\bigcup\limits_{j\in\Bbb N}B_j$ where $(B_j\mid j\in\Bbb N)$ where $$B_0=B \text{ and } B_{j+1}=B_j\bigcup \bigg(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}F_i[B_j^{f_i}]\bigg)$$

First, we prove that $B_j$ is countable for all $j\in\Bbb N$ by induction on $j$. Since $B_0=B$ and $B$ is countable, $B_0$ is countable. Assume $B_k$ is countable. Thus $B_k^{f_i}$ is countable for all $i\le n$ by Lemma 3. Hence $B_k\bigcup \bigg(\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}F_i[B_k^{f_i}]\bigg)$ is countable by Lemma 2. It follows that $B_{k+1}$ is countable. By principle of induction, $B_j$ is countable for all $j\in\Bbb N$. Hence $\overline B=\bigcup\limits_{j\in\Bbb N}B_j$ is countable by Lemma 2.

Akira
  • 17,367
  • Closure under what? The title is misleading. The closure of $\Bbb Q$ is $\Bbb R$, for example. The closure of the eventually $0$ sequences is $\ell^2$ or $\ell^1$ or $\ell^{42}$, depending on your space. Closure is as ubiquitous in mathematics as possible. Be more concrete about it. You have 150 letters in your title, use them. – Asaf Karagila Sep 20 '18 at 16:02
  • @AsafKaragila I have defined closure in my post. I think it's almost possible to insert that definition into the title. – Akira Sep 20 '18 at 16:27
  • 1
    I think that you're underestimating how much you can insert in 150 characters. You want this to be helpful for future readers who might learn something from your proofs, right? Then make it easier for everyone to actually understand what is inside your post even before they open it. – Asaf Karagila Sep 20 '18 at 16:41
  • 1
    @AsafKaragil Please take this discussion to meta math. – William Elliot Sep 20 '18 at 21:57
  • @William: Not every discussion is for meta math. Please exercise judgement with that suggestion. Feel free to open discussions on meta if you think that it's more appropriate to have certain discussions there. (One caveat is that if it is not in fact more appropriate, your question there is likely to be closed and/or deleted.) – Asaf Karagila Sep 20 '18 at 21:59

0 Answers0