Confused by proof in Hocking and Young

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter yossell
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on Lemma 2.8 from Hocking and Young, which addresses the properties of closed sets in a compact Hausdorff space. The lemma asserts that if a collection of closed sets contains two distinct points and is not the union of two separated sets, then their intersection retains this property. A participant seeks clarification on why two closed sets remain closed in the larger space, leading to a detailed explanation involving the boundaries of the sets and the Axiom C1, confirming their closed nature in both the intersection and the original space.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of compact Hausdorff spaces
  • Familiarity with closed sets and their properties
  • Knowledge of the Axiom C1 in topology
  • Basic concepts of set boundaries in topological spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of compact Hausdorff spaces in detail
  • Explore the implications of the Axiom C1 in topology
  • Learn about the concept of boundaries in topological spaces
  • Review theorems related to homeomorphisms of compact connected metric spaces
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in topology, mathematicians interested in set theory, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of closed sets in compact Hausdorff spaces.

yossell
Gold Member
Messages
367
Reaction score
16
Am trying to learn topology (again) and failing.

Lemma 2.8, p43 of Hocking and Young states: Let ##a## and ##b## be distinct points of a compact Hausdorff space ##S## and let ##\{H_\alpha \}## be a collection of closed sets simply ordered by inclusion. If each ##H_\alpha## is contains both ##a## and ##b## but is not the union of two separated sets,one containing ##a## and the other containing ##b##,then the intersection ##\cap_\alpha H_\alpha## also has this property.

Proof: Let ##H = \cap_\alpha H_\alpha## and suppose that ##H## is the union of two separated sets ##A## and ##B##, with ##a## in ##A## and ##b## in ##B##. Since H is closed and ##A## and ##B## are closed in ##H##, it follows that ##A## and ##B## are closed in the space ##S## and...'

It's that last 'it follows' that is losing me -- I can't see why it follows that they're closed in ##S##. I'm missing something trivial, but I don't know what. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

MENTOR note: replaced all $ with double # to render properly under mathjax
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is trivial. There are two closed sets ## A ## and ## B ## and they will always be closed, no matter where they are placed, in ## H ## or in ## S ##. The only important thing is that the sets ## A ## and ## B ## are closed because of the Axiom C1.
 
Why are ##A,B## closed in ##H##?

If so, then they are closed in ##S,## too:

The boundary of ##A## in ##S## is contained in ##H## and the boundary of ##H## in ##S##. But ##H\subseteq S## is closed, so its boundary in ##S## is fully contained in ##H##. Therefore, the boundary of ##A## in ##S## is fully contained in ##H## and since ##A\subseteq H## is closed, fully contained in ##A.## This means that ##A## is closed in ##S.## For short: you cannot gain additional boundary points of ##A## from searching in ##S## since all those points are already in ##H## and its boundary in ##S,## and thus in ##A.##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam
I took a quick look at that book and wondered why you were interested in such a tedious approach to topology. Then I noticed some very nice theorems on pages 54-55 with simple characterizations of a circle and an interval. E.g. apparently any compact connected metric space which is disconnected by the removal of any point, except for two of them, is homeomorphic to a closed interval. And such a c.c. metric space that is disconnected by the removal of any two points, is apparently homeomorphic to a circle. nice.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: roam
By " Simply ordered by inclusion", you mean a total order , i.e., for ## O, O'## closed, either ## O \subset O' ## or ##O' \subset O##?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K