Another second countable space problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter radou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a second-countable space and an uncountable subset, focusing on the limit points of that subset. The context is rooted in topology, specifically dealing with concepts of closure and density in relation to countability.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate that uncountably many points of an uncountable subset are limit points by leveraging the properties of second-countable spaces and closures. Some participants question the use of different closures in the argument and discuss the implications of separability versus second countability.

Discussion Status

The discussion has seen some validation of the original poster's reasoning, although there are points of confusion regarding the application of closures. Participants are exploring the nuances of the argument without reaching a definitive consensus.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the necessity of second countability in the argument, highlighting that separability alone would not suffice in this context.

radou
Homework Helper
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement



I'm pretty sure I got this one right, but I'd still like to check, as always.

Let X have a countable basis, and let A be an uncountable subset of X. Show that uncountably many points of A are limit points of A.

The Attempt at a Solution



Now, since X is second-countable, A must be second-countable, too. Hence, there exists a countable subset B of A which is dense in A, i.e. Cl(B) = A. Now, Cl(B) = B U B', where B' is the set of all limit points of B. Since B is countable it follows that B' must be uncountable, and B' is exactly the set of all limit points of A, too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, this is correct. But it's a bit fishy since you used two different closures in there, the first time you took the closure in B and the second time you took the closure in X. But the argument is essentially correct.

Also note that we really needed second countabilty. Separability of the space would not have been enough, since separability only transfers to open subspaces...
 
Hm, I don't really see how the "closure in B" affects the whole thing? You mean, since B is a subspace of A, Cl(B) is regarded as a closure in A?

Yes, I see that separability is weaker in general.
 
No, it doesn't affect the only thing. I was only a bit confused when I read your proof, but it works fine!
Forget what I said :smile:
 
OK, thanks (as always)!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K