Register to reply

Urysohn's lemma

by ehrenfest
Tags: lemma, urysohn
Share this thread:
ehrenfest
#1
Oct5-07, 12:08 AM
P: 1,996
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Urysohn's lemma

My book says that the "if" part of Urysohn's lemma is obvious with no explanation. Can someone explain why?



2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Experts defend operational earthquake forecasting, counter critiques
EU urged to convert TV frequencies to mobile broadband
Sierra Nevada freshwater runoff could drop 26 percent by 2100
HallsofIvy
#2
Oct5-07, 06:14 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,565
It would have been a good idea to actually state Urysohn's lemma as it is given in your book. Sometimes statements vary from one book to another. In particular you should note that Urysohn's lemma only applies in NORMAL spaces. What is the definition of a "Normal" topological space?
ehrenfest
#3
Oct5-07, 11:53 PM
P: 1,996
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy View Post
It would have been a good idea to actually state Urysohn's lemma as it is given in your book. Sometimes statements vary from one book to another. In particular you should note that Urysohn's lemma only applies in NORMAL spaces. What is the definition of a "Normal" topological space?
Sorry. I meant to put a link to Wikipedia, which has the same statement of Urysohn's Lemma as that in my book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urysohns_lemma

It comes down to whether the sets [0,1/2) and (1/2,1] are open. Apparently this is obvious to other people, but it seems counterintuitive to me because I thought open sets were open intervals.

Hurkyl
#4
Oct5-07, 11:56 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Urysohn's lemma

Quote Quote by ehrenfest View Post
Sorry. I meant to put a link to Wikipedia, which has the same statement of Urysohn's Lemma as that in my book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urysohns_lemma

It comes down to whether the sets [0,1/2) and (1/2,1] are open. Apparently this is obvious to other people, but it seems counterintuitive to me because I thought open sets were open intervals.
[0, 1/2) is not an open subset of R
[0, 1/2) is an open subset of [0, 1].
ehrenfest
#5
Oct6-07, 12:14 AM
P: 1,996
I guess that makes sense, since balls around around 0 can have no negative numbers in them, so they are really just half-balls.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Borel lemma Calculus 2
Midframe Lemma? Special & General Relativity 9
Urysohn lemma? Linear & Abstract Algebra 14
Scharwz lemma Calculus 4
Konig Lemma General Math 2