Hereditarily normal, mutually separated subsets

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathsss2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Normal Subsets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence of two properties in topological spaces: the existence of open disjoint sets for mutually separated subsets and the concept of hereditarily normal spaces. Participants explore the implications of these properties and provide proofs and hints related to the definitions and relationships between them.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants define mutually separated sets in a topological space and relate this to the properties of normality.
  • One participant notes that hereditarily normal is another term for completely normal, suggesting a connection between these concepts.
  • A hint from a textbook is mentioned, indicating that if a space is hereditarily normal, one can consider the complement of the intersection of closures of the sets in question.
  • Another participant outlines a proof showing that if a space has property (a), it must be completely normal, and discusses the steps needed to demonstrate that hereditarily normal implies the existence of disjoint open sets for mutually separated sets.
  • Further elaboration includes defining closures within a subset and showing that certain sets remain disjoint under the conditions of hereditarily normal spaces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions and implications of the properties discussed, but the proofs and the nuances of the relationships between the properties remain a topic of exploration and refinement.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes complex definitions and relationships that may depend on specific assumptions about the topological space in question. The proofs presented rely on the properties of closures and the definitions of normality, which may not be universally applicable without further context.

mathsss2
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Show that the following statements are equivalent for any topological space [tex](X, \tau)[/tex].

(a) Whenever [tex]A, B[/tex] are mutually separated subsets of [tex]X[/tex], there exist open disjoint [tex]U, V[/tex] such that [tex]A \subseteq U[/tex] and [tex]B \subseteq V[/tex].

(b) [tex](X, \tau)[/tex] is hereditarily normal.

Background:

Definition- Sets [tex]H[/tex] and [tex]K[/tex] are mutually separated in a space [tex]X[/tex] if and only if [tex]H \cap \overline{K}[/tex] [tex]= \overline{H} \cap K = \emptyset[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What have you tried?

For others: hereditarily normal is apparently another name for completely normal.

A hint from my textbook (Munkres): if X is hereditarily normal, consider [tex]X - (\bar A \cap \bar B)[/tex].
 
I am breaking this reply into two parts because I get a "Database Error" when I combine them and do a "Preview Post."

Here is part 1:

If [tex]X[/tex] has property (a), it is said to be completely normal. [tex]X[/tex] is hereditarily normal provided that every subset of [tex]X[/tex] is normal. That (a) implies (b) is relatively straightforward. That (b) implies (a) is trickier--for that we will use the hint from Munkres.

Suppose that [tex]X[/tex] is completely normal. Let [tex]S \subset X[/tex]. We need to show that [tex]S[/tex] is normal. Let [tex]A, B[/tex] be disjoint closed subsets of [tex]S[/tex]. ([tex]A, B[/tex] are not necessarily closed in [tex]X[/tex].) We must show that there are disjoint open subsets [tex]U, V[/tex] of [tex]S[/tex] with [tex]A \subset U[/tex] and [tex]B \subset V[/tex]. ([tex]U, V[/tex] are not necessarily open in [tex]X[/tex].) Certainly [tex]A = A \cap S[/tex], and it is easy to see that [tex]B = S \cap \overline{B}[/tex]. Thus, [tex]A \cap \overline{B} = A \cap S \cap \overline{B} = A \cap B = \emptyset[/tex]. Likewise, we see that [tex]\overline{A} \cap B = \emptyset[/tex]. Hence, [tex]A, B[/tex] are mutually separated sets in [tex]X[/tex]. Since [tex]X[/tex] is completely normal, there are disjoint open sets [tex]O, P[/tex] in [tex]X[/tex] with [tex]A \subset O[/tex] and [tex]B \subset P[/tex]. Define [tex]U = O \cap S[/tex] and [tex]V = P \cap S[/tex]. [tex]U, V[/tex] are clearly disjoint open subsets of [tex]S[/tex] with [tex]A \subset U[/tex] and [tex]B \subset V[/tex].
 
Here is part 2:

Now suppose that [tex]X[/tex] is hereditarily normal. For any set [tex]Y \subset X[/tex] we define [tex]\tilde{Y} = X - Y[/tex]. Let [tex]A, B[/tex] be mutually separated sets in [tex]X[/tex]. We must show that there are disjoint open sets [tex]U, V[/tex] in [tex]X[/tex] with [tex]A \subset U[/tex] and [tex]B \subset V[/tex]. Clearly, [tex]A \subset \tilde{\overline{B}}[/tex] and [tex]B \subset \tilde{\overline{A}}[/tex]. Define [tex]S = \tilde{\overline{A}} \cup \tilde{\overline{B}}[/tex] (Munkres). We see that [tex]A, B \subset S[/tex]. Now define [tex]C[/tex] to be the closure of [tex]A[/tex] in [tex]S[/tex] and [tex]D[/tex] to be the closure of [tex]B[/tex] in [tex]S[/tex]. It is easy to see that [tex]C = \overline{A} \cap S[/tex], whence [tex]C = \overline{A} \cap (\tilde{\overline{A}} \cup \tilde{\overline{B}}) = \overline{A} \cap \tilde{\overline{B}}[/tex]. Likewise, [tex]D = \overline{B} \cap \tilde{\overline{A}}[/tex]. Therefore, [tex]C \cap D = \emptyset[/tex]. Since [tex]X[/tex] is hereditarily normal, [tex]S[/tex] must be normal. Thus, since [tex]C, D[/tex] are disjoint closed subsets of [tex]S[/tex], there are disjoint open subsets [tex]U, V[/tex] of [tex]S[/tex] with [tex]C \subset U[/tex] and [tex]D \subset V[/tex]. But [tex]S[/tex] is open in [tex]X[/tex], so [tex]U, V[/tex] are also open in [tex]X[/tex]. Clearly, [tex]A \subset U[/tex] and [tex]B \subset V[/tex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K