Cover of Interval By Closed Intervals is not Pairwise Disjoint
You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by adding these links.
To discuss this in more detail, feel free to use the talk page.
Once you have done so, you can remove this instance of {{MissingLinks}} from the code.
Theorem
Let $\left[{a \,.\,.\, b}\right]$ be a closed interval in $\R$.
Title mentions only "interval"; this does not affect truth of statement so may "closed" above line be removed as superfluous?
You can help $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ by explaining it. To discuss this point in more detail, feel free to use the talk page.
If you are able to explain it, then when you have done so you can remove this instance of {{Explain}} from the code.
Let $\mathcal J$ be a set of two or more closed intervals contained in $\left[{a \,.\,.\, b}\right]$ such that $\displaystyle \bigcup \mathcal J = \left[{a \,.\,.\, b}\right]$.
Then the intervals in $\mathcal J$ are not pairwise disjoint.
Proof
Suppose that the intervals of $\mathcal J$ are pairwise disjoint.
Let $I = \left[{p \,.\,.\, q}\right]$ be the unique interval of $\mathcal J$ such that $a \in I$.
Let $J = \left[{r \,.\,.\, s}\right]$ be the unique interval of $\mathcal J$ containing the least real number not in $I$.
These choices are possible since $\mathcal J$ has at least two elements, and they are supposed disjoint.
If $q = r$ then $I \cap J \ne \varnothing$, a contradiction.
If $r < q$ then $I \cap J \ne \varnothing$, a contradiction.
If $r > q$ then there is some real number with $q < \alpha < r$.
Therefore $\alpha \notin I$.
Since $J$ contains the least real number not in $I$ it follows that there is $\beta \in J$ with $\beta < \alpha$.
But we also have that $\alpha < r \le \beta$ for all $\beta \in J$, a contradiction.
This exhausts all the possibilities, and we conclude that the intervals of $\mathcal J$ are not[[Definition:Pairwise Disjoint|pairwise disjoint].
$\blacksquare$
