| New Reply |
How would you show that the intermediate value property implies connectedness? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| May16-12, 08:10 PM | #1 |
|
|
How would you show that the intermediate value property implies connectedness?
Suppose a space X has the intermediate value property (f: X->Y continuous, Y has the order topology), then X is connected.
How would you show this? This is just the converse of the intermediate value property. |
| May16-12, 11:08 PM | #2 |
|
Recognitions:
|
be more precise. give definitions and full statements and we will have a better chance of answering.
|
| May17-12, 12:32 AM | #3 |
|
|
I will define the intermediate value property/theorem exactly as it is expressed in Munkres.
(Intermediate vaue theorem) Let f: X->Y be a continuous map, where X is a connected space and Y is an ordered set in the order topology. If a and b are two points of X and if r is a point of Y lying between f(a) and f(b), then there exists a point c of x such that f(c)=r. Connectedness of X: There does not exist a separation of X (a separation would be a pair of disjoint nonempty subsets whose union is in X). Potential gameplan for proof: Contradiction seems to fit comfortably in proofs involving connectedness. I havn't been able to come up with anything worthwhile. |
| May17-12, 11:25 AM | #4 |
|
|
How would you show that the intermediate value property implies connectedness?
Contradiction is the way to go.
Assume that we don't have the intermediate value property. So a point r is not in the image. Find two disjoint open sets in Y whose preimage is entire X. It might help you to find a disconnected space and see why the intermediate value property fails. |
| May17-12, 10:29 PM | #5 |
|
|
I'm trying to figure out how you prove (IVP => connectedness of X). I've attempted contradiction, but I get nowhere. |
| May17-12, 10:40 PM | #6 |
|
|
Oh, but that is even easier. Take a seperation, map the two open sets to different points.
|
| May17-12, 10:53 PM | #7 |
|
|
|
| May17-12, 11:54 PM | #8 |
|
|
I think I've got some good justification for the strategy you mentioned:
A and B are a separation of X. Since f is continuous, there must exist C and D in Y such that f^-1(C)=A and f^-1(D)=B. Also, C and D cannot interest, for if they do, then their intersection elements are mapped into both A and B, which cannot be. Also, since Y is in the order topology, the open sets in Y are open intervals so there are points "in between" two disjoint open intervals. We can let f(a) be in C and f(b) be in D, then there is an r in between C and D s.t. there does not exist an f(c)=r since r is in neither C or D, which are the only open sets that map into X by f^-1. Thus, the IVP is not satisfied, a contradiction. Does this seem accurate? |
| May26-12, 09:00 AM | #9 |
|
|
i have a counter example. Let X be the union of 1 and 2. let f map both elements to 3. then f satisfies the IVP (i don't know why you say X satisfies IVP). but X is not connected. if you keep this simple counterexample in mind, you should be able to find the error in your proof above, for example, showing C and D do not intersect, that contradicts my counterexample.
i think you have the problem statement written incorrectly |
| May26-12, 10:47 AM | #10 |
|
Recognitions:
|
have you ever checked that a space X is connected iff every continuous map from X to the two point set {0,1} is constant?
|
| May26-12, 11:01 AM | #11 |
|
|
i just did in my head
|
| May27-12, 02:20 PM | #12 |
|
Recognitions:
|
i think he meant, if the implication holds for all ordered Y, then X is connected.
|
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: How would you show that the intermediate value property implies connectedness?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| show that x^3=y^3 implies x=y | Precalculus Mathematics Homework | 4 | ||
| k-connectedness and the homotopy-lifting property | Differential Geometry | 1 | ||
| Show using the intermediate value theorem | General Math | 4 | ||
| show that ((p implies q) and (q implies r)) implies (p implies r) is a tautology | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 2 | ||
| how can I show that G=8pT implies the equivalence principle ? | Special & General Relativity | 18 | ||