(connected and locally path-connected) => (path-connected)

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In a metric space M, if M is both connected and locally path-connected, then M is path-connected. The proof involves considering the largest path-connected open neighborhood U of a point a in M. If U does not encompass all of M, the boundary of U must be non-empty, leading to a contradiction with the properties of connectedness. The argument holds true in general topological spaces, confirming the robustness of the proof across different contexts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with concepts of connectedness and path-connectedness
  • Knowledge of topological boundaries and neighborhoods
  • Experience with general topological spaces and their characteristics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of connectedness in general topological spaces
  • Explore the concept of local path-connectedness in various contexts
  • Investigate alternative proofs for the connected and locally path-connected theorem
  • Learn about the relationship between open and closed sets in topology
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, topologists, and students studying advanced concepts in topology, particularly those interested in the properties of connected and locally path-connected spaces.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32

Homework Statement


I'm asked to show that for a metric space M, (connected and locally path connected) ==> (path connected).

The reason for my post is 3-fold.

1) Not 100% sure my solution is correct.
2) Want confirmation that my proof holds in a general topological space.
3) I'm interested in hearing about other methods of proof for this result.

The Attempt at a Solution


Let a be in M and let U be the biggest path-connected open nbhd of a. If U is all of M, then there is nothing to show. If U is not all of M, then first observe that bd(U), the boundary of U, is not empty. If it were, then U would be open and closed, which contradicts the fact that M is connected.

So let x be in bd(U). x must not be in U, otherwise, U would not be open. But since M is locally path-connected, there is an open nbhd V of x that is path-connected and that intersects U. This leads to a contradiction, either because it means x is in U or because U u V is a bigger path-connected open nbhd of a than U is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well now I'm 100% sure that it's correct and I am even more convinced that it holds in a general topological space. My only doubt was related to this part:

If U is not all of M, then first observe that bd(U), the boundary of U, is not empty. If it were, then U would be open and closed, which contradicts the fact that M is connected.

that I had proven using 'cl(A)=A u bd(A)'. But I now see clearly that it also holds in a general topological space: If bd(U) is empty, then M\U is closed because U is open and is open also because let y be in M\U. there must be a nbhd W of y that is entirely contained in M\U because the contrary would mean that y is in bd(M\U)=bd(U) ==><==.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K