Definition of the Lebesgue number of a open cover












0












$begingroup$


Let $mathcal{U}$ be an oper cover of a topological space $A subseteq mathbb{R}^n$. The Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ is defined as the least upper bound for all numbers $delta geq 0$ such that any subset $B subseteq A$ of diameter less than $delta$ is contained in some element of the cover.



Is this definition correct? How is the existence of the supreme guaranteed? . In most texts they define the number of Lebesgue as a number that satisfies the aforementioned condition, but they omit the supreme one to give a unique definition.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    Let $mathcal{U}$ be an oper cover of a topological space $A subseteq mathbb{R}^n$. The Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ is defined as the least upper bound for all numbers $delta geq 0$ such that any subset $B subseteq A$ of diameter less than $delta$ is contained in some element of the cover.



    Is this definition correct? How is the existence of the supreme guaranteed? . In most texts they define the number of Lebesgue as a number that satisfies the aforementioned condition, but they omit the supreme one to give a unique definition.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      Let $mathcal{U}$ be an oper cover of a topological space $A subseteq mathbb{R}^n$. The Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ is defined as the least upper bound for all numbers $delta geq 0$ such that any subset $B subseteq A$ of diameter less than $delta$ is contained in some element of the cover.



      Is this definition correct? How is the existence of the supreme guaranteed? . In most texts they define the number of Lebesgue as a number that satisfies the aforementioned condition, but they omit the supreme one to give a unique definition.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $mathcal{U}$ be an oper cover of a topological space $A subseteq mathbb{R}^n$. The Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ is defined as the least upper bound for all numbers $delta geq 0$ such that any subset $B subseteq A$ of diameter less than $delta$ is contained in some element of the cover.



      Is this definition correct? How is the existence of the supreme guaranteed? . In most texts they define the number of Lebesgue as a number that satisfies the aforementioned condition, but they omit the supreme one to give a unique definition.







      general-topology metric-spaces definition






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 2 '18 at 19:26









      Bernard

      119k639112




      119k639112










      asked Dec 2 '18 at 19:02









      Juan Daniel Valdivia FuentesJuan Daniel Valdivia Fuentes

      104




      104






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          In fact there are two definitions of a Lebesgue number of an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of a metric space $(X,d)$. As José Carlos Santos pointed out, the first one is the most common version:



          (1) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any open ball $B(x;delta)$ with radius $delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



          (2) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any subset $M subset X$ having diameter $< delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



          These concepts are equivalent.



          If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1), then it is also a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2): Let $M subset X$ have diameter $< delta$. Then for any $x in M$ we have $M subset B(x;delta)$.



          If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2), then any $delta' < delta/2$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1): The diameter of $B(x;delta')$ is $le 2 delta' < delta$.



          The definition of the Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ as the supremum $lambda$ of all Lebesgue numbers for $mathcal{U}$ is not really common. Note that $lambda = infty$ is possible.



          Let us show that based on definition (2) $lambda$ is the biggest Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. So let $M subset X$ have diameter $< lambda$. Hence there exists a Lebesgue number $delta$ such that $M$ has diameter $< delta$. We conclude that $M$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



          Based on definition (1) it is not guaranteed that $lambda$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Certainly each $B(x;lambda)$ is the union of all $B(x;delta)$ such that $delta$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Each of these sets is contained in some $U_{x,delta} in mathcal{U}$, but it is not guaranteed that all these $U_{x,delta}$ are contained in a single $U in mathcal{U}$.



          The existence of Lebesgue numbers depends on $mathcal{U}$. If $X$ is compact, then each $mathcal{U}$ admits a Lebesgue number.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            1












            $begingroup$

            For a compact metric space $X$ and an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of it, there is at least one number $delta$ that obeys the property $$l(delta, mathcal{U}): forall B subseteq X: (operatorname{diam}(B) < delta) implies (exists U in mathcal{U}: B subseteq U)$$



            This is a well-known fact, as you mention. The set of all numbers $delta$ that can obey $l(delta,mathcal{U})$ is downward closed (a smaller number than one that works also works) and there are numbers like any $delta > operatorname{diam}(X)$ that cannot work, unless the cover is ${X}$. So it makes sense to define the $lambda(mathcal{U}):=sup {delta: l(delta, mathcal{U})}$ to define a number only dependent on the cover.



            It's unusual, but why not? In the compact case we can also check that $ delta=lambda(mathcal{U})$ also obeys the defining property $l(delta, mathcal{U})$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$





















              1












              $begingroup$

              First of all, the concept of Lebesgue number is defined only for metric spaces, not for topological spaces in geberal.



              I believe that the most common notion of Lebesgue number of an open cover is this: it is a number $deltain(0,infty)$ such that any open ball with radius $delta$ is a subset of some element of the cover. In general, not every open cover has a Lebesgue number. On the other hand, the existence of the supremum of such numbers is not guaranteed. Of course, if the metric is unbounded and if one of the elements of the open cover is the whose space, the supremum doesn't exist, but there are other cases in which that happens. For instance, take a metric space with an unbounded metric and let $mathcal U$ be the set of all open balls.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Why if an open cover has a Lebesgue number, then the set of all Lebesgue numbers of that cover is bounded ?
                $endgroup$
                – Juan Daniel Valdivia Fuentes
                Dec 5 '18 at 3:02










              • $begingroup$
                For no reason. I was wrong and I've edited my answer. Sorry about that.
                $endgroup$
                – José Carlos Santos
                Dec 5 '18 at 6:57











              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              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%2f3023051%2fdefinition-of-the-lebesgue-number-of-a-open-cover%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









              0












              $begingroup$

              In fact there are two definitions of a Lebesgue number of an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of a metric space $(X,d)$. As José Carlos Santos pointed out, the first one is the most common version:



              (1) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any open ball $B(x;delta)$ with radius $delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



              (2) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any subset $M subset X$ having diameter $< delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



              These concepts are equivalent.



              If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1), then it is also a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2): Let $M subset X$ have diameter $< delta$. Then for any $x in M$ we have $M subset B(x;delta)$.



              If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2), then any $delta' < delta/2$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1): The diameter of $B(x;delta')$ is $le 2 delta' < delta$.



              The definition of the Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ as the supremum $lambda$ of all Lebesgue numbers for $mathcal{U}$ is not really common. Note that $lambda = infty$ is possible.



              Let us show that based on definition (2) $lambda$ is the biggest Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. So let $M subset X$ have diameter $< lambda$. Hence there exists a Lebesgue number $delta$ such that $M$ has diameter $< delta$. We conclude that $M$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



              Based on definition (1) it is not guaranteed that $lambda$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Certainly each $B(x;lambda)$ is the union of all $B(x;delta)$ such that $delta$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Each of these sets is contained in some $U_{x,delta} in mathcal{U}$, but it is not guaranteed that all these $U_{x,delta}$ are contained in a single $U in mathcal{U}$.



              The existence of Lebesgue numbers depends on $mathcal{U}$. If $X$ is compact, then each $mathcal{U}$ admits a Lebesgue number.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                In fact there are two definitions of a Lebesgue number of an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of a metric space $(X,d)$. As José Carlos Santos pointed out, the first one is the most common version:



                (1) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any open ball $B(x;delta)$ with radius $delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                (2) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any subset $M subset X$ having diameter $< delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                These concepts are equivalent.



                If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1), then it is also a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2): Let $M subset X$ have diameter $< delta$. Then for any $x in M$ we have $M subset B(x;delta)$.



                If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2), then any $delta' < delta/2$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1): The diameter of $B(x;delta')$ is $le 2 delta' < delta$.



                The definition of the Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ as the supremum $lambda$ of all Lebesgue numbers for $mathcal{U}$ is not really common. Note that $lambda = infty$ is possible.



                Let us show that based on definition (2) $lambda$ is the biggest Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. So let $M subset X$ have diameter $< lambda$. Hence there exists a Lebesgue number $delta$ such that $M$ has diameter $< delta$. We conclude that $M$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                Based on definition (1) it is not guaranteed that $lambda$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Certainly each $B(x;lambda)$ is the union of all $B(x;delta)$ such that $delta$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Each of these sets is contained in some $U_{x,delta} in mathcal{U}$, but it is not guaranteed that all these $U_{x,delta}$ are contained in a single $U in mathcal{U}$.



                The existence of Lebesgue numbers depends on $mathcal{U}$. If $X$ is compact, then each $mathcal{U}$ admits a Lebesgue number.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  In fact there are two definitions of a Lebesgue number of an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of a metric space $(X,d)$. As José Carlos Santos pointed out, the first one is the most common version:



                  (1) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any open ball $B(x;delta)$ with radius $delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                  (2) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any subset $M subset X$ having diameter $< delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                  These concepts are equivalent.



                  If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1), then it is also a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2): Let $M subset X$ have diameter $< delta$. Then for any $x in M$ we have $M subset B(x;delta)$.



                  If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2), then any $delta' < delta/2$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1): The diameter of $B(x;delta')$ is $le 2 delta' < delta$.



                  The definition of the Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ as the supremum $lambda$ of all Lebesgue numbers for $mathcal{U}$ is not really common. Note that $lambda = infty$ is possible.



                  Let us show that based on definition (2) $lambda$ is the biggest Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. So let $M subset X$ have diameter $< lambda$. Hence there exists a Lebesgue number $delta$ such that $M$ has diameter $< delta$. We conclude that $M$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                  Based on definition (1) it is not guaranteed that $lambda$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Certainly each $B(x;lambda)$ is the union of all $B(x;delta)$ such that $delta$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Each of these sets is contained in some $U_{x,delta} in mathcal{U}$, but it is not guaranteed that all these $U_{x,delta}$ are contained in a single $U in mathcal{U}$.



                  The existence of Lebesgue numbers depends on $mathcal{U}$. If $X$ is compact, then each $mathcal{U}$ admits a Lebesgue number.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  In fact there are two definitions of a Lebesgue number of an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of a metric space $(X,d)$. As José Carlos Santos pointed out, the first one is the most common version:



                  (1) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any open ball $B(x;delta)$ with radius $delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                  (2) A Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$ is a number $delta > 0$ such that any subset $M subset X$ having diameter $< delta$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                  These concepts are equivalent.



                  If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1), then it is also a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2): Let $M subset X$ have diameter $< delta$. Then for any $x in M$ we have $M subset B(x;delta)$.



                  If $delta$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (2), then any $delta' < delta/2$ is a Lebesgue number in the sense of (1): The diameter of $B(x;delta')$ is $le 2 delta' < delta$.



                  The definition of the Lebesgue number of $mathcal{U}$ as the supremum $lambda$ of all Lebesgue numbers for $mathcal{U}$ is not really common. Note that $lambda = infty$ is possible.



                  Let us show that based on definition (2) $lambda$ is the biggest Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. So let $M subset X$ have diameter $< lambda$. Hence there exists a Lebesgue number $delta$ such that $M$ has diameter $< delta$. We conclude that $M$ is contained in some $U in mathcal{U}$.



                  Based on definition (1) it is not guaranteed that $lambda$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Certainly each $B(x;lambda)$ is the union of all $B(x;delta)$ such that $delta$ is a Lebesgue number for $mathcal{U}$. Each of these sets is contained in some $U_{x,delta} in mathcal{U}$, but it is not guaranteed that all these $U_{x,delta}$ are contained in a single $U in mathcal{U}$.



                  The existence of Lebesgue numbers depends on $mathcal{U}$. If $X$ is compact, then each $mathcal{U}$ admits a Lebesgue number.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 2 '18 at 21:38









                  Paul FrostPaul Frost

                  9,9153932




                  9,9153932























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      For a compact metric space $X$ and an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of it, there is at least one number $delta$ that obeys the property $$l(delta, mathcal{U}): forall B subseteq X: (operatorname{diam}(B) < delta) implies (exists U in mathcal{U}: B subseteq U)$$



                      This is a well-known fact, as you mention. The set of all numbers $delta$ that can obey $l(delta,mathcal{U})$ is downward closed (a smaller number than one that works also works) and there are numbers like any $delta > operatorname{diam}(X)$ that cannot work, unless the cover is ${X}$. So it makes sense to define the $lambda(mathcal{U}):=sup {delta: l(delta, mathcal{U})}$ to define a number only dependent on the cover.



                      It's unusual, but why not? In the compact case we can also check that $ delta=lambda(mathcal{U})$ also obeys the defining property $l(delta, mathcal{U})$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        For a compact metric space $X$ and an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of it, there is at least one number $delta$ that obeys the property $$l(delta, mathcal{U}): forall B subseteq X: (operatorname{diam}(B) < delta) implies (exists U in mathcal{U}: B subseteq U)$$



                        This is a well-known fact, as you mention. The set of all numbers $delta$ that can obey $l(delta,mathcal{U})$ is downward closed (a smaller number than one that works also works) and there are numbers like any $delta > operatorname{diam}(X)$ that cannot work, unless the cover is ${X}$. So it makes sense to define the $lambda(mathcal{U}):=sup {delta: l(delta, mathcal{U})}$ to define a number only dependent on the cover.



                        It's unusual, but why not? In the compact case we can also check that $ delta=lambda(mathcal{U})$ also obeys the defining property $l(delta, mathcal{U})$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          For a compact metric space $X$ and an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of it, there is at least one number $delta$ that obeys the property $$l(delta, mathcal{U}): forall B subseteq X: (operatorname{diam}(B) < delta) implies (exists U in mathcal{U}: B subseteq U)$$



                          This is a well-known fact, as you mention. The set of all numbers $delta$ that can obey $l(delta,mathcal{U})$ is downward closed (a smaller number than one that works also works) and there are numbers like any $delta > operatorname{diam}(X)$ that cannot work, unless the cover is ${X}$. So it makes sense to define the $lambda(mathcal{U}):=sup {delta: l(delta, mathcal{U})}$ to define a number only dependent on the cover.



                          It's unusual, but why not? In the compact case we can also check that $ delta=lambda(mathcal{U})$ also obeys the defining property $l(delta, mathcal{U})$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          For a compact metric space $X$ and an open cover $mathcal{U}$ of it, there is at least one number $delta$ that obeys the property $$l(delta, mathcal{U}): forall B subseteq X: (operatorname{diam}(B) < delta) implies (exists U in mathcal{U}: B subseteq U)$$



                          This is a well-known fact, as you mention. The set of all numbers $delta$ that can obey $l(delta,mathcal{U})$ is downward closed (a smaller number than one that works also works) and there are numbers like any $delta > operatorname{diam}(X)$ that cannot work, unless the cover is ${X}$. So it makes sense to define the $lambda(mathcal{U}):=sup {delta: l(delta, mathcal{U})}$ to define a number only dependent on the cover.



                          It's unusual, but why not? In the compact case we can also check that $ delta=lambda(mathcal{U})$ also obeys the defining property $l(delta, mathcal{U})$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 2 '18 at 19:18









                          Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma

                          106k347114




                          106k347114























                              1












                              $begingroup$

                              First of all, the concept of Lebesgue number is defined only for metric spaces, not for topological spaces in geberal.



                              I believe that the most common notion of Lebesgue number of an open cover is this: it is a number $deltain(0,infty)$ such that any open ball with radius $delta$ is a subset of some element of the cover. In general, not every open cover has a Lebesgue number. On the other hand, the existence of the supremum of such numbers is not guaranteed. Of course, if the metric is unbounded and if one of the elements of the open cover is the whose space, the supremum doesn't exist, but there are other cases in which that happens. For instance, take a metric space with an unbounded metric and let $mathcal U$ be the set of all open balls.






                              share|cite|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$













                              • $begingroup$
                                Why if an open cover has a Lebesgue number, then the set of all Lebesgue numbers of that cover is bounded ?
                                $endgroup$
                                – Juan Daniel Valdivia Fuentes
                                Dec 5 '18 at 3:02










                              • $begingroup$
                                For no reason. I was wrong and I've edited my answer. Sorry about that.
                                $endgroup$
                                – José Carlos Santos
                                Dec 5 '18 at 6:57
















                              1












                              $begingroup$

                              First of all, the concept of Lebesgue number is defined only for metric spaces, not for topological spaces in geberal.



                              I believe that the most common notion of Lebesgue number of an open cover is this: it is a number $deltain(0,infty)$ such that any open ball with radius $delta$ is a subset of some element of the cover. In general, not every open cover has a Lebesgue number. On the other hand, the existence of the supremum of such numbers is not guaranteed. Of course, if the metric is unbounded and if one of the elements of the open cover is the whose space, the supremum doesn't exist, but there are other cases in which that happens. For instance, take a metric space with an unbounded metric and let $mathcal U$ be the set of all open balls.






                              share|cite|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$













                              • $begingroup$
                                Why if an open cover has a Lebesgue number, then the set of all Lebesgue numbers of that cover is bounded ?
                                $endgroup$
                                – Juan Daniel Valdivia Fuentes
                                Dec 5 '18 at 3:02










                              • $begingroup$
                                For no reason. I was wrong and I've edited my answer. Sorry about that.
                                $endgroup$
                                – José Carlos Santos
                                Dec 5 '18 at 6:57














                              1












                              1








                              1





                              $begingroup$

                              First of all, the concept of Lebesgue number is defined only for metric spaces, not for topological spaces in geberal.



                              I believe that the most common notion of Lebesgue number of an open cover is this: it is a number $deltain(0,infty)$ such that any open ball with radius $delta$ is a subset of some element of the cover. In general, not every open cover has a Lebesgue number. On the other hand, the existence of the supremum of such numbers is not guaranteed. Of course, if the metric is unbounded and if one of the elements of the open cover is the whose space, the supremum doesn't exist, but there are other cases in which that happens. For instance, take a metric space with an unbounded metric and let $mathcal U$ be the set of all open balls.






                              share|cite|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$



                              First of all, the concept of Lebesgue number is defined only for metric spaces, not for topological spaces in geberal.



                              I believe that the most common notion of Lebesgue number of an open cover is this: it is a number $deltain(0,infty)$ such that any open ball with radius $delta$ is a subset of some element of the cover. In general, not every open cover has a Lebesgue number. On the other hand, the existence of the supremum of such numbers is not guaranteed. Of course, if the metric is unbounded and if one of the elements of the open cover is the whose space, the supremum doesn't exist, but there are other cases in which that happens. For instance, take a metric space with an unbounded metric and let $mathcal U$ be the set of all open balls.







                              share|cite|improve this answer














                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited Dec 5 '18 at 6:56

























                              answered Dec 2 '18 at 19:12









                              José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

                              154k22123226




                              154k22123226












                              • $begingroup$
                                Why if an open cover has a Lebesgue number, then the set of all Lebesgue numbers of that cover is bounded ?
                                $endgroup$
                                – Juan Daniel Valdivia Fuentes
                                Dec 5 '18 at 3:02










                              • $begingroup$
                                For no reason. I was wrong and I've edited my answer. Sorry about that.
                                $endgroup$
                                – José Carlos Santos
                                Dec 5 '18 at 6:57


















                              • $begingroup$
                                Why if an open cover has a Lebesgue number, then the set of all Lebesgue numbers of that cover is bounded ?
                                $endgroup$
                                – Juan Daniel Valdivia Fuentes
                                Dec 5 '18 at 3:02










                              • $begingroup$
                                For no reason. I was wrong and I've edited my answer. Sorry about that.
                                $endgroup$
                                – José Carlos Santos
                                Dec 5 '18 at 6:57
















                              $begingroup$
                              Why if an open cover has a Lebesgue number, then the set of all Lebesgue numbers of that cover is bounded ?
                              $endgroup$
                              – Juan Daniel Valdivia Fuentes
                              Dec 5 '18 at 3:02




                              $begingroup$
                              Why if an open cover has a Lebesgue number, then the set of all Lebesgue numbers of that cover is bounded ?
                              $endgroup$
                              – Juan Daniel Valdivia Fuentes
                              Dec 5 '18 at 3:02












                              $begingroup$
                              For no reason. I was wrong and I've edited my answer. Sorry about that.
                              $endgroup$
                              – José Carlos Santos
                              Dec 5 '18 at 6:57




                              $begingroup$
                              For no reason. I was wrong and I've edited my answer. Sorry about that.
                              $endgroup$
                              – José Carlos Santos
                              Dec 5 '18 at 6:57


















                              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%2f3023051%2fdefinition-of-the-lebesgue-number-of-a-open-cover%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

                              Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                              Aardman Animations

                              Are they similar matrix