How do separation axioms carry over to subspaces?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Some are clear -- it's easy to see that if any two points of a space X are separated by neighborhoods, then the same must be true of any subset S of X.

But what about the nicer ones? Is it true that if S is a subset of a normal space, that S is itself normal?

This one is less obvious... one example that worries me is this:

Consider the union S of two open discs in R^2. (that aren't disjoint) Consider the two closed sets formed by restricting the boundaries of the two discs to S. We can't directly appeal to the normality of R^2, because the closure of these setsaren'tdisjoint in R^2.

It is still easy to see S is normal, because it's homeomorphic to R^2, but that doesn't help me in the general case of a subset of an aribtrary normal space.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Separation axioms vs subspaces

Loading...

Similar Threads - Separation axioms subspaces | Date |
---|---|

I Fredholm integral equation with separable kernel | Jul 9, 2017 |

Separation of variables technique | Dec 5, 2014 |

Trouble with a separable differential equation | Aug 2, 2014 |

Separation of heat equation | Mar 31, 2012 |

Completeness Axiom Disproved | Oct 2, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**