Proving the Hausdorff Property: The Diagonal in X x X

  • Thread starter Thread starter Symmetryholic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that a topological space X is Hausdorff if and only if the diagonal set Δ = {x × x | x ∈ X} is closed in the product space X × X. The proof is established in both directions: first, if X is Hausdorff, then the complement of Δ is open, confirming Δ's closedness; second, if Δ is closed, then distinct points in X can be separated by disjoint neighborhoods, confirming that X is Hausdorff. The use of product topology is essential in both proofs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of topological spaces and the Hausdorff property (T2).
  • Familiarity with product topology in the context of X × X.
  • Knowledge of open and closed sets in topology.
  • Ability to construct proofs in mathematical analysis.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of product topology in detail.
  • Learn about other separation axioms in topology, such as regular and normal spaces.
  • Explore examples of Hausdorff and non-Hausdorff spaces.
  • Practice constructing proofs involving open and closed sets in various topological contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying topology, as well as educators and anyone interested in understanding the foundational concepts of Hausdorff spaces and their implications in topology.

Symmetryholic
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that X is Hausdorff if and only if the diagonal \Delta = \{x \times x | x \in X \} is closed in X \times X.

Homework Equations



Definition of Hausdorff Space (T2) : A topological space in which distinct points have disjoint neighborhoods.

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Symmetryholic said:

Homework Statement



Show that X is Hausdorff if and only if the diagonal \Delta = \{x \times x | x \in X \} is closed in X \times X.

Homework Equations



Definition of Hausdorff Space (T2) : A topological space in which distinct points have disjoint neighborhoods.

The Attempt at a Solution

With so little work on your part shown to go by it's difficult to know where you're stuck.

If you haven't already, express the closedness of \Delta in X\times X (which I assume has the product topology) in terms of the openness of its complement.

Now have a go at proving each direction (neither is more difficult than the other) if you haven't already, and please show us your efforts.
 
Unco said:
If you haven't already, express the closedness of \Delta in X\times X (which I assume has the product topology) in terms of the openness of its complement.

->
If X is Hausdorff, the diagonal \Delta is closed in X\times X.

Assume X is Hausdorff. Now, we have two distinct points x, y and disjoint open sets U, V containing x, y, respectively. The basis element U \times V containing (x,y) \in X \times X should not intersect \Delta by the assumption given to the Hausdorff property.
For every (x,y) \notin \Delta, we have a basis element in X \times X containing (x,y), which does not intersect \Delta.
Thus, X \times X \setminus \Delta is open and we conclude \Delta is a closed set in X \times X .

<-
If the diagonal \Delta is closed in X\times X, X is Haudorff.

Supppose \Delta is closed in X\times X. Then, X \times X \setminus \Delta is open. Let (x,y) \in X \times X and x \neq y. For (x,y) \notin \Delta, we have a basis element U \times V in X \times X containing (x, y).
We remain to show U and V are disjoint. Suppose on the contrary that U and V are not disjoint. Then, there is an element (z,z) \in X times X which belongs to both U and V. Contradicting the fact that x and y are distinct.
Thus, X is Hausdorff.
 
Symmetryholic said:
->
If X is Hausdorff, the diagonal \Delta is closed in X\times X.

Assume X is Hausdorff. Now, we have two distinct points x, y and disjoint open sets U, V containing x, y, respectively. The basis element U \times V containing (x,y) \in X \times X should not intersect \Delta by the assumption given to the Hausdorff property.
For every (x,y) \notin \Delta, we have a basis element in X \times X containing (x,y), which does not intersect \Delta.
Thus, X \times X \setminus \Delta is open and we conclude \Delta is a closed set in X \times X .

<-
If the diagonal \Delta is closed in X\times X, X is Haudorff.

Supppose \Delta is closed in X\times X. Then, X \times X \setminus \Delta is open. Let (x,y) \in X \times X and x \neq y. For (x,y) \notin \Delta, we have a basis element U \times V in X \times X containing (x, y).
We remain to show U and V are disjoint. Suppose on the contrary that U and V are not disjoint. Then, there is an element (z,z) \in X times X which belongs to both U and V. Contradicting the fact that x and y are distinct.
Thus, X is Hausdorff.
That's quite a leap from your previous post.

Now how 'bout you tackle your https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=287038" without copying down the solution from an external source. It's the only way you'll learn topology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you please give me a link of an external source you mentioned?
It's my self study of topology (I am not even majoring in math) and I don't need to copy the external source to show you something to impress you. Rather, I just did for my self study purpose and asked an advice if someone finds an error in my attempt to the solution.
 
Symmetryholic said:
Can you please give me a link of an external source you mentioned?
It's my self study of topology (I am not even majoring in math) and I don't need to copy the external source to show you something to impress you. Rather, I just did for my self study purpose and asked an advice if someone finds an error in my attempt to the solution.
Well, in that case, your work is quite error-free indeed! I would only suggest rephrasing picking an element (x,y)\not\in \Delta as picking an element (x,y)\in (X\times X)\backslash \Delta. Now, on to your other problem!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K