Challenge Aren't you tired of counterexamples already?

micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
22,169
Reaction score
3,327
And we continue our parade of counterexamples! Most of them are again in the field of real analysis, but I put some other stuff in there as well.

This time the format is a bit different. We present 10 statements that are all of the nature ##P## if and only if ##Q##. As it turns out, only one of those implications is really true, the other is not. The objective is to both prove the true implication and provide a counterexample to the false one. There are two catches however:
  1. There is one statement where both implications are completely true. In this case, you must prove both statements.
  2. There is one statement where both implications are completely false. In this case, you must provide a counterexample to both statements.
Rules:
  • For an answer to count, the answer must not only be correct, but a detailed argumentation must also be given as to why it is correct.
  • Any use of outside sources is allowed, but do not look up the question directly. For example, it is ok to go check analysis books, but it is not allowed to google the exact question.
  • If you previously encountered this statement and remember the solution, then you cannot participate in this particular statement.
  • All mathematical methods are allowed.
  • The first person to provide a complete answer will be credited. Other people may be credited for the answer as well, depending on the contribution they have given.
Here you go:
  1. SOLVED BY mfb Given a series ##\sum a_n##. Then the ratio test can be used to establish convergence of the series if and only if the root test can be used to establish convergence of the series.
  2. SOLVED BY andrewkirk In any Banach space ##X## and given any series ##\sum a_n## in ##X##, then the series converges absolutely (that is: ##\sum \|a_n\|## converges) if and only if the series converges unconditionally (that is: for any bijection ##\pi:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}## holds that ##\sum_n a_{\pi(n)}## converges to the same number).
  3. SOLVED BY Samy_A A set ##A\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2## is closed if and only if it is the topological boundary of some set. That is: there is some ##B\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2## such that ##\partial B = A##. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_(topology)
  4. SOLVED BY fresh_42 For a number ##n\in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{0,1\}## holds that there exists (up to isomorphism) only one group of order ##n## if and only if ##n## is prime.
  5. SOLVED BY mfb A function ##f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}## is continuous if and only if it is almost everywhere equal to a continuous function.
  6. SOLVED BY Samy_A A function ##f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}## is constant if and only if it is differentiable almost everywhere and ##f^\prime = 0## almost everywhere.
  7. SOLVED BY Samy_A A function ##f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}## is Borel measurable if and only if it is the pointwise limit of continuous functions.
  8. SOLVED BY Samy_A A compact topological space ##X## is separable if and only if each collection of pairswise disjoint open sets is countable.
  9. SOLVED BY mfb A function ##f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}## is measurable if and only if it is somewhere differentiable of order ##2##.
  10. SOLVED BY fresh_42 A field ##F## is infinite if and only if it has zero characteristic.
Thank you all for participating! I hope some of these statements were surprising to some of you and I hope some of you have fun with this! Don't hesitate to post any feedback in the thread!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
micromass said:
A function ##f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}## is constant if and only if it is differentiable almost everywhere and ##f^\prime = 0## almost everywhere.
A constant function on ##\mathbb{R}## is differentiable everywhere and has derivative 0 everywhere. The "only if" is trivially true.
Conversely, the function ##f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}## that maps strictly positive numbers to 1 and negative numbers and 0 to 0 is differentiable almost everywhere (not in 0), and the derivative is 0 almost everywhere (again not in 0). But it is not constant. The "if" is therefore false.
 
  • Like
Likes micromass
Samy_A said:
A constant function on ##\mathbb{R}## is differentiable everywhere and has derivative 0 everywhere.
Conversely, the function ##f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}## that maps strictly positive numbers to 1 and negative numbers and 0 to 0 is differentiable almost everywhere (not in 0), and the derivative is 0 almost everywhere (again not in 0). But it is not constant. The "if" is therefore false.

Hmm, I forgot to add that the function should be continuous :sorry: But ok, I'll accept your answer. For the people interested in what I had in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_function
 
micromass said:
Hmm, I forgot to add that the function should be continuous :sorry: But ok, I'll accept your answer. For the people interested in what I had in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_function
I did wonder: damn that's an easy one. :oldsmile:
 
  • Like
Likes micromass
Deleted :oldsmile:
 
Last edited:
micromass said:
10. A field ##F## is infinite if and only if it has zero characteristic.
A field of characteristic zero contains his prime field ℚ and is therefore infinite.
On the other hand is the quotient ring ##\mathbb{Z_p}(x)## of the polynomial ring ##\mathbb{Z_p}[x]## infinite of characteristic ##p## an example of an infinite field of nonzero characteristic.
 
  • Like
Likes micromass
micromass said:
4. For a number ##n\in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{0,1\}## holds that there exists (up to isomorphism) only one group of order ##n## if and only if ##n## is prime.
If there is only one group of order ##p## (prime) it has to be ##ℤ_p##.
For non primes it is not true:
##Z_4## and Klein's four-group ##V_4 = K_4 = Z_2 \times Z_2##.
All squares in ##V_4 = <a, b | a^2 = b^2 = (ab)^2 = 1>## equal the neutral element ##1## whereas ##3+3 = 2 ≠ 0## in ##Z_4##. Therefore they cannot be isomorphic.

Now let ##G## be a group of prime order ##p## and ##a ≠ 1## an element of ##G##.
Then ##a## generates a subgroup ##S## of ##G## which order divides ##p##. Since ##p## is prime ##S=G≅ℤ_p##.
(The fact that the orders of subgroups ##S## divide the order of the group ##G## can be proven by considering ##G/S##. This partitions ##G## in equivalence classes of the same order (although they in general do not form a group again since ##S## was not assumed to be normal).)
 
fresh_42 said:
If there is only one group of order ##p## (prime) it has to be ##ℤ_p##.
For non primes it is not true:
##Z_4## and Klein's four-group ##V_4 = K_4 = Z_2 \times Z_2##.
All squares in ##V_4 = <a, b | a^2 = b^2 = (ab)^2 = 1>## equal the neutral element ##1## whereas ##3+3 = 2 ≠ 0## in ##Z_4##. Therefore they cannot be isomorphic.

That doesn't answer the question. You answered correctly that if ##p## is prime, then there is only one group of order ##p## up to isomorphism. I asked whether there are nonprimes ##n## such that there is only one group of order ##n## up to isomorphism.
 
micromass said:
A set ##A\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2## is closed if and only if it is the topological boundary of some set. That is: there is some ##B\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2## such that ##\partial B = A##.
Since the boundary of a set is its closure without its inner points it is closed.
On the other hand is the upper half plane (including the "x"-axis) of ##ℝ^2## a closed set which is no boundary of any other set since it contains inner points.
 
  • #10
fresh_42 said:
Since the boundary of a set is its closure without its inner points it is closed.

Right.

On the other hand is the upper half plane (including the "x"-axis) of ##ℝ^2## a closed set which is no boundary of any other set since it contains inner points.

I agree that the boundary of a set ##A## cannot contain inner points of the set ##A##. But why does that necessarily imply that the boundary itself has empty interior?
 
  • #11
The upper half plane is the boundary of A = \{ (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2: y \geq 0 \text{ and } x,y \in \mathbb{Q}\}
 
  • Like
Likes micromass
  • #12
micromass said:
I agree that the boundary of a set ##A## cannot contain inner points of the set ##A##. But why does that necessarily imply that the boundary itself has empty interior?
If ##A=\{(x,y) \in ℝ^2 | y>0\}## were a boundary of some set ##B## then ##\{(x,y)\in ℝ^2 | (x-1)^2 + (y-1)^2 < ¼\}## would be a open neighborhood of ##(1,1)## which is completely in ##\partial B## which contradicts the boundary definition you quoted from Wiki. Therefore ##A## is a closed set which isn't a boundary of any (other or not) set ##B##.
 
  • #13
fresh_42 said:
If ##A=\{(x,y) \in ℝ^2 | y>0\}## were a boundary of some set ##B## then ##\{(x,y)\in ℝ^2 | (x-1)^2 + (y-1)^2 < ¼\}## would be a open neighborhood of ##(1,1)## which is completely in ##\partial B## which contradicts the boundary definition you quoted from Wiki. Therefore ##A## is a closed set which isn't a boundary of any (other or not) set ##B##.

Did you see post 11?
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #14
micromass said:
That doesn't answer the question. You answered correctly that if ##p## is prime, then there is only one group of order ##p## up to isomorphism. I asked whether there are nonprimes ##n## such that there is only one group of order ##n## up to isomorphism.
Part 2: There is only one group of order 15, ##ℤ_{15} ≅ℤ_3 \times ℤ_5##.
Proof: Sylow's theorems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylow_theorems
 
  • #15
fresh_42 said:
Part 2: There is only one group of order 15, ##ℤ_{15} ≅ℤ_3 \times ℤ_5##.
Proof: Sylow's theorems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylow_theorems

Yep. Some interesting results:

From the numbers ##\{1,...,2015\}##, there are ##656## numbers which have only one group of that order. There are ##305## primes smaller than ##2015##.
There are ##393## numbers which have only ##2## groups of that order. There are ##11## numbers which have ##3## groups of that order.

Of the groups from order ##1## to ##2015##, more than ##99\%## of them have order ##1024##. There are ##49,487,365,422## groups of that order. It is unkown how many groups there are of order ##2048##. In comparison, the median groups per order is ##2##.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #16
micromass said:
Yep. Some interesting results:

From the numbers ##\{1,...,2015\}##, there are ##656## numbers which have only one group of that order. There are ##305## primes smaller than ##2015##.
There are ##393## numbers which have only ##2## groups of that order. There are ##11## numbers which have ##3## groups of that order.

Of the groups from order ##1## to ##2015##, more than ##99\%## of them have order ##1024##. There are ##49,487,365,422## groups of that order. It is unkown how many groups there are of order ##2048##. In comparison, the median groups per order is ##2##.
And I thought the monster groups alone were mind blowing. (I'm still totally perplexed of how in the world they found them.) ... back to my pathologic problem with those double dense sets ... (set as well as complement dense)
 
  • #17
micromass said:
A function ##f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}## is measurable if and only if it is the pointwise limit of continuous functions.
Continuous functions are Lebesgue measurable, so the pointwise limit of continuous functions is itself Lebesgue measurable. That proves the "if" part.

However, continuous functions are also Borel measurable, so the pointwise limit of continuous functions is Borel measurable.
Hence a function that is Lebesgue measurable but not Borel measurable is a counterexample for the "only if" part.
 
  • #18
Samy_A said:
Continuous functions are Lebesgue measurable, so the pointwise limit of continuous functions is itself Lebesgue measurable. That proves the "if" part.

However, continuous functions are also Borel measurable, so the pointwise limit of continuous functions is Borel measurable.
Hence a function that is Lebesgue measurable but not Borel measurable is a counterexample for the "only if" part.

Right, but to make it less easy, assume I put Borel measurable instead of measurable in the statement :woot:
 
  • #19
micromass said:
Right, but to make it less easy, assume I put Borel measurable instead of measurable in the statement :woot:
Indeed, but I will leave that to someone else. Just now I have been reading about it.
 
  • #20
JonnyG said:
The upper half plane is the boundary of A = \{ (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2: y \geq 0 \text{ and } x,y \in \mathbb{Q}\}
Doesn't this contain the proof? (You know my weakness with densities, so I apologize if I overlooked something again.)
Let ##A## be any closed set and ##A_ℚ = A ∩ ℚ^2##.
Then ##{A_ℚ}^° = ∅## and ##\partial A_ℚ = \overline{A_ℚ} \backslash {A_ℚ}^° = \overline{A} \backslash ∅ = A##.
 
  • #21
fresh_42 said:
Doesn't this contain the proof? (You know my weakness with densities, so I apologize if I overlooked something again.)
Let ##A## be any closed set and ##A_ℚ = A ∩ ℚ^2##.
Then ##{A_ℚ}^° = ∅## and ##\partial A_ℚ = \overline{A_ℚ} \backslash {A_ℚ}^° = \overline{A} \backslash ∅ = A##.

That was my first attempt too, but take ##A = \{0\}\times (\mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q})##.
 
  • #22
micromass said:
That was my first attempt too, but take ##A = \{0\}\times (\mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q})##.
But ##\mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q}## is not closed here, so isn't ##A##.
 
  • #23
fresh_42 said:
But ##\mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q}## is not closed here, so isn't ##A##.

Sorry, what was I thinking. Silly me

Take ##A = \{\pi\} \times \mathbb{R}##.
 
  • #24
micromass said:
Sorry, what was I thinking. Silly me

Take ##A = \{\pi\} \times \mathbb{R}##.
... which is the boundary of ##\{(x,y) ∈ ℝ^2 | x < π\}##.
 
  • #25
fresh_42 said:
... which is the boundary of ##\{(x,y) ∈ ℝ^2 | x < π\}##.

Right... But that means your proof fails.
 
  • #26
Does this work?
##A \subset \mathbb R²## is separable.
That means that there exist a countable ##B \subset A## such that ##\bar B =A##.
##B## being countable means that ##\mathring B = \varnothing##, so that ##\partial B = \bar B \setminus \mathring B = A##.
 
  • #27
Samy_A said:
Does this work?
##A \subset \mathbb R²## is separable.
That means that there exist a countable ##B \subset A## such that ##\bar B =A##.
##B## being countable means that ##\mathring B = \varnothing##, so that ##\partial B = \bar B \setminus \mathring B = A##.

Why is ##A## separable? I'll accept that ##\mathbb{R}^2## is separable.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #28
micromass said:
Why is ##A## separable? I'll accept that ##\mathbb{R}^2## is separable.
The reasoning was: ##\mathbb R²## is second-countable, and I thought that implied that every subspace also is second-countable. And second-countable implies separable.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #29
Samy_A said:
The reasoning was: ##\mathbb R²## is second-countable, and I thought that implied that every subspace also is second-countable. And second-countable implies separable.

OK, that's good enough for me.
 
  • #30
micromass said:
8. A compact topological space ##X## is separable if and only if each collection of pairwise disjoint open sets is countable.
I have a question here: Shall the collection of pairwise disjoint open sets itself be countable or the index set of it?
I think I have a counterexample for the "only if" case in which both are uncountable showing compact and separable isn't strong enough.
However, I'm asking for the reverse direction to clear the valid condition. (And it's really not easy to find a compact non separable space leave alone one with that crude condition on any open sets.)
 
  • #31
fresh_42 said:
I have a question here: Shall the collection of pairwise disjoint open sets itself be countable or the index set of it?

What is the difference?
 
  • #32
micromass said:
What is the difference?
##O_x ∪ O_y## are countably many open sets whereas each single one must not contain countably many elements. I suppose the index set, here ##\{x,y\}## is supposed to be countable.
 
  • #33
fresh_42 said:
##O_x ∪ O_y## are countably many open sets

What you wrote down is one open set. I don't get it.
 
  • #34
micromass said:
What you wrote down is one open set. I don't get it.
##]0,1[## is a union of countably many open sets (1), whereas ##]0,1[## has uncountably many elements so its union isn't countable, too. So does the "countable" in 8. refer to the open sets itself or the cardinality of the set which indexes the union which I assume?
(There are certainly topologies in which open sets can have countably many elements.)
 
  • #35
fresh_42 said:
##]0,1[## is a union of countably many open sets (1), whereas ##]0,1[## has uncountably many elements so its union isn't countable, too. So does the "countable" in 8. refer to the open sets itself or the cardinality of the set which indexes the union which I assume?
(There are certainly topologies in which open sets can have countably many elements.)

It's the cardinality of the index set.
 
  • #36
A little off topic, but doesn't warrant a new thread, I think.
Samy_A said:
Does this work?
##A \subset \mathbb R²## is separable.
That means that there exist a countable ##B \subset A## such that ##\bar B =A##.
##B## being countable means that ##\mathring B = \varnothing##, so that ##\partial B = \bar B \setminus \mathring B = A##.

micromass said:
Why is ##A## separable? I'll accept that ##\mathbb{R}^2## is separable.

Samy_A said:
The reasoning was: ##\mathbb R²## is second-countable, and I thought that implied that every subspace also is second-countable. And second-countable implies separable.

micromass said:
OK, that's good enough for me.
While I think the reasoning is correct, I nevertheless tried to prove directly that A is separable.
What I get are really variations on the proof that second-countable implies separable.
One example, very similar to the proofs I tried to concoct, can be found here:
Proof said:
Given: A second-countable space ##X##, with countable basis ##\{B_n\}##.
To prove: There exists a countable dense subset of ##X##
Proof: We can assume without loss of generality that all the ##\{B_n\}## are nonempty, because the empty ones can be discarded. Now, for each ##B_n##, pick any element ##x_n \in B_n##. Let ##D## be the set of these ##x_n##. ##D## is clearly countable (because the indexing set for its elements is countable). We claim that ##D## is dense in ##X##.

To see this, let ##U## be any nonempty open subset of ##X## Then, ##U## contains some ##B_n##, and hence, ##x_n \in U##. But by construction, ##x_n \in D##, so ##D## intersects ##U##, proving that ##D## is dense.
My question: I think the axiom of choice is needed to construct ##D##. Is this correct?
 
  • #37
Samy_A said:
My question: I think the axiom of choice is needed to construct ##D##. Is this correct?

Yes, in the proof you gave, this appears to be the case. But maybe there is a way to modify the proof so that the axiom of choice is not needed.
 
  • #38
micromass said:
Yes, in the proof you gave, this appears to be the case. But maybe there is a way to modify the proof so that the axiom of choice is not needed.
The proof I've found in my textbook also uses The Axiom. I think otherwise you can't achieve something dense and countable under such a general condition.
 
  • #39
micromass said:
Yes, in the proof you gave, this appears to be the case. But maybe there is a way to modify the proof so that the axiom of choice is not needed.

fresh_42 said:
The proof I've found in my textbook also uses The Axiom. I think otherwise you can't get rid of the uncountability.
Well, the proof I posted "only" uses the axiom of countable choice.
I thought I had found a proof without that, but no luck. Somewhere in my proof I used that a countable union of finite sets is countable. And that apparently also needs the axiom of countable choice.
 
  • #40
Samy_A said:
Well, the proof I posted "only" uses the axiom of countable choice.
I thought I had found a proof without that, but no luck. Somewhere in my proof I used that a countable union of finite sets is countable. And that apparently also needs the axiom of countable choice.
Have you tried to convert it into a proof on induction? (Sorry, I may have as well, but I need a short break.)
 
  • #41
fresh_42 said:
Have you tried to convert it into a proof on induction? (Sorry, I may have as well, but I need a short break.)
No, thanks for the idea.
Not that it is a big deal. I was just mildly surprised that such a well known fact of topology, second-countable⇒separable, depends on the axiom of countable choice, and that I never noticed that. Or maybe I forgot: it has been quite a few years since I learned topology.
 
  • #42
5[/color] looks trivial:
=> If a function is continuous, it is equal to a continuous function (itself) almost everywhere.
<= Counterexample: f(0)=1, f(x)=0 elsewhere is equal to g(x)=0 almost everywhere, but not continuous.

1[/color]:
<= Counterexample: Consider the sequence 1, 1/4, 1/4, 1/16, 1/16, 1/64, ... The ratio test will be inconclusive because the ratio between adjacent elements does not converge. The root test, however, will show that ##\sqrt[n]a_n \leq \frac 1 2##.
=> If the ratio test is conclusive, then the root test will be so as well. WLOG assume all a_n are positive because the ratio test gives the stronger absolute convergence, this just saves writing | | everywhere. Let the limit of the ratios be ##Q=1-2\epsilon##. Then there is an N such that ##\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n} < 1-\epsilon\quad \forall n>N##. Restrict the analysis to n>N. Then ##a_n \leq a_N (1-\epsilon)^{n-N}##. Take the nth root: ##\sqrt[n]{a_n} \leq \sqrt[n]{a_N (1-\epsilon)^N} \sqrt[n]{(1-\epsilon)^n} = \sqrt[n]{a_N (1-\epsilon)^N}(1-\epsilon)##. The remaining root converges to 1, therefore the expression will converge to ##1-\epsilon## and the root test works.Edit: and a double counterexample for #9[/color]:

Take an arbitrary non measurable function f:R->R, but set f(x)=0 for 0<x<1. It is then differentiable of arbitrary order somewhere (e. g. at x=0.5).

g(x)=0 for x rational, g(x)=1 for x irrational is measurable, but nowhere differentiable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes micromass
  • #43
I really regret that I haven't worked out my copy of Hewitt, Stromberg ...
 
  • #44
micromass, did you see my edit in the previous post?

And did someone find the "both directions are right" already?
 
  • #45
mfb said:
And did someone find the "both directions are right" already?
That's 3.
Joint effort by @fresh_42 and me.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
  • #46
micromass said:
A compact topological space ##X## is separable if and only if each collection of pairswise disjoint open sets is countable.
The counterexample must be some weird topology.
Assume ##X## is compact, and ##(U_i)_i## is an uncountable family of pairswise disjoint open sets. If ##U=\cup U_i##, then no way a open cover of ##U## can have a finite subcover. So there must "something " weird going on in the complement of ##U##, making ##X## compact.

So, take ##X= \mathbb R##. Define the following topology on ##X##.
Sets that don't include the point 0 are open;
for sets that include the point 0, we take the cofinite topology, meaning that such a set is open if and only if its complement is finite.

That is a legitimate topology. ##X## is open as the complement of ##X## is finite. ##\varnothing## is open as it doesn't contain 0.
A finite intersection of open sets is open, as finite intersections of cofinite sets are cofinite.
Since a set larger than a cofinite set is cofinite, the union of open sets is open.
If the union or finite intersection doesn't include an open set that includes 0, then it is open, as outside 0 we have the discrete topology.

X is compact, since any open cover must include a neighborhood of 0, and the complement of that one is finite, making the existence of a finite subcover trivial.
X is not separable, since no countable set can intersect all the points outside 0.
And of course ##\mathbb R \setminus \{0\}## is an uncountable collection of pairswise disjoint open sets, namely the singletons.

The proof of the other direction is elementary.
If X is separable, it contains a countable dense set. That set cannot intersect every element of an uncountable collection of pairswise disjoint open sets. Hence a collection of pairswise disjoint open sets must be countable.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Samy_A said:
The counterexample must be some weird topology.
Assume ##X## is compact, and ##(U_i)_i## is an uncountable family of pairswise disjoint open sets. If ##U=\cup U_i##, then no way a open cover of ##U## can have a finite subcover. So there must "something " weird going on in the complement of ##U##, making ##X## compact.

So, take ##X= \mathbb R##. Define the following topology on ##X##.
Sets that don't include the point 0 are open;
for sets that include the point 0, we take the cofinite topology, meaning that such a set is open if and only if its complement is finite.

That is a legitimate topology. ##X## is open as the complement of ##X## is finite. ##\varnothing## is open as it doesn't contain 0.
A finite intersection of open sets is open, as finite intersections of cofinite sets are cofinite.
Since a set larger than a cofinite set is cofinite, the union of open sets is open.
If the union or finite intersection doesn't include an open set that includes 0, then it is open, as outside 0 we have the discrete topology.

X is compact, since any open cover must include a neighborhood of 0, and the complement of that one is finite, making the existence of a finite subcover trivial.
X is not separable, since no countable set can intersect all the points outside 0.
And of course ##\mathbb R \setminus \{0\}## is an uncountable collection of pairswise disjoint open sets, namely the singletons.

The proof of the other direction is elementary.
If X is separable, it contains a countable dense set. That set cannot intersect every element of an uncountable collection of pairswise disjoint open sets. Hence a collection of pairswise disjoint open sets must be countable.

Don't you want to find a topology where every disjoint collection of open sets is countable but that is not separable? Your example is called the Fort space, it is the Alexandroff compactification of a discrete space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_space
 
  • Like
Likes Samy_A
  • #48
Damn yes! :oldsmile:
 
  • #49
Amending the previous post, I define the topology as follows:
##X= \mathbb R##
##\mathbb R, \varnothing## are open.
Sets that don't include 0 are open if their complement is countable.
Sets that include 0 are open if their complement is finite.

X is compact, since any open cover must include a neighborhood of 0, and the complement of that one is finite, making the existence of a finite subcover trivial.
X is not separable, since given a countable set ##D##, ##\mathbb R \setminus (D \cup \{0\})## is open and doesn't intersect ##D##.

If ##U,V## are non empty open sets, then their complement is countable. Hence ##U \cap V## also has a countable complement, and cannot be empty. Hence there are no uncountable families of pairswise disjoint open sets.
Not sure that qualifies, but worth a try.

EDIT: I think I could also take the Alexandroff compactification of the cocountable topology on ##\mathbb R##. Essentially the same arguments hold (if they are valid, that is).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes micromass
  • #50
Yes, this one seems right!
 

Similar threads

Replies
62
Views
9K
Replies
102
Views
10K
2
Replies
80
Views
9K
Replies
42
Views
10K
2
Replies
61
Views
11K
2
Replies
93
Views
15K
2
Replies
61
Views
12K
2
Replies
67
Views
11K
3
Replies
102
Views
10K
3
Replies
100
Views
11K
Back
Top