Showing a Set is not Connected

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the connectedness of the set ##X = \{z : |z| \le 1 \} \cup \{z : |z-2|<1\}## within the context of metric spaces. Participants are examining the definitions and implications of connectedness in relation to subsets of ##X##.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the definition of connectedness and questioning whether the subsets of ##X## are both open and closed. There is discussion about the nature of the sets involved and their implications for the connectedness of ##X##.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing examination of the definitions and properties related to connectedness. Some participants suggest that the sets need to be disjoint and open for ##X## to be considered disconnected, while others are clarifying the definitions and exploring the boundaries of the sets involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants are noting that the first set in the union is closed, while the second set is open, leading to discussions about the implications of these properties on the connectedness of ##X##. There is also mention of the equivalence of different definitions of connectedness and the relevance of specific properties of the metric space.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


I am trying to show that ##X = \{z : |z| \le 1 \} \cup \{z : |z-2|<1\} \subset \mathbb{C}## is a connected set.

Homework Equations


Definition of connectedness that I am working with: A metric space ##(X,d)## is connected if the only subsets of ##X## that are both open and closed are ##\emptyset## and ##X##. If ##A \subseteq X##, then ##X## is connected if ##(A,d)## is connected

The Attempt at a Solution


I have been staring at this problem for quite some time and I don't really have much:

Let ##C \subseteq X## be nonempty and both closed and open. I want to show that ##X \subseteq C##. Let ##z \in X = C \cup (X-C)##. Then either ##z \in C##, in which case we are done, or ##z \in (X-C)##...I would like to show that the latter case implies a contradiction, but I am having difficulty.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
According to my book, they have to be disjoint open sets in order to conclude that ##X## is disconnected. The first set in the union is not open, if I am not mistaken.
 
Bashyboy said:
According to my book, they have to be disjoint open sets in order to conclude that ##X## is disconnected. The first set in the union is not open, if I am not mistaken.
You are correct -- both sets have to be open. I have deleted my earlier post.
 
Bashyboy said:

Homework Statement


I am trying to show that ##X = \{z : |z| \le 1 \} \cup \{z : |z-2|<1\} \subset \mathbb{C}## is a connected set.

Homework Equations


Definition of connectedness that I am working with: A metric space ##(X,d)## is connected if the only subsets of ##X## are ##\emptyset## and ##X##. If ##A \subseteq X##, then ##X## is connected if ##(A,d)## is connected
Shouldn't this be " A metric space ##(X,d)## is connected if the only subsets of ##X## that are both open and closed are ##\emptyset## and ##X##."?
X clearly has two subsets: {z : |z| ≤ 1} and {z | |z - 2| < 1}, but the first set is closed and the second set is open. Neither set is both open and closed.

I'm sure you already know this -- I'm just trying to clarify your statement above.
Bashyboy said:

The Attempt at a Solution


I have been staring at this problem for quite some time and I don't really have much:

Let ##C \subseteq X## be nonempty and both closed and open. I want to show that ##X \subseteq C##. Let ##z \in X = C \cup (X-C)##. Then either ##z \in C##, in which case we are done, or ##z \in (X-C)##...I would like to show that the latter case implies a contradiction, but I am having difficulty.
 
Mark44 said:
Shouldn't this be " A metric space ##(X,d)## is connected if the only subsets of ##X## that are both open and closed are ##\emptyset## and ##X##."?
X clearly has two subsets: {z : |z| ≤ 1} and {z | |z - 2| < 1}, but the first set is closed and the second set is open. Neither set is both open and closed.

I'm sure you already know this -- I'm just trying to clarify your statement above.

Whoops! I fixed it.
 
Your set C is clopen iff its boundary is empty. Can you use this to show that ##z \in X - C## is a contradiction?
 
Bashyboy said:
Definition of connectedness that I am working with: A metric space ##(X,d)## is connected if the only subsets of ##X## that are both open and closed are ##\emptyset## and ##X##.
The usual definition goes by separation. Two sets ##A\, , \,B\subseteq X## are called separated in ##X## if ##\overline{A} \cap B = \emptyset ## and ##A \cap \overline{B} = \emptyset ##. Now ##X## is connected, if it cannot be written as union of two non-empty, separated sets.

So what you actually want to use is the equivalence of these two definitions: Your ##X## is connected, since the obvious choice of ##A## and ##B## are not separated (the second condition does not hold) and all other choices clearly neither.
If ##A \subseteq X##, then ##X## is connected if ##(A,d)## is connected.
?

If ##A \subseteq X##, then ##A## is connected if ##(A,d)##, i.e. ##A## with the induced topology from ##X## is connected.
However, one doesn't really need to use the detour of the induced topology.

Anyway, back to your proof. I cannot see, how the consideration of a single element ##z## could help, since we are talking about global properties.
Wouldn't it be more natural to consider ##A \cap C## and ##B \cap C## with the assumed clopen set ##C## and ##A=\{z:|z|≤1\}## and ##B=\{z:|z−2|<1\}##? Are they clopen as well? And what does this mean for ##X=A \cup B \;##?
 
Mark44 said:
Your set C is clopen iff its boundary is empty. Can you use this to show that ##z \in X - C## is a contradiction?

I don't see the contradiction. Let ##\partial C := \overline{C} \cap (\overline{X-C})## be the boundary (this is how my book defines it). If ##C## is clopen, then ##\overline{C} = C## and ##int ~C=C##, and therefore ##\partial C = C \cap (\overline{X-C})##. Since ##z \in X-C##, then ##z \in \overline{X-C}##; and since ##z \notin C = \overline{C}##, we can say ##z \notin \partial C##. But can conclude neither that ##\partial C## is empty nor nonempty.
 
Hold on! Wouldn't that say no point ##z## in ##X## is in ##\partial C##, and this would be the contradiction sought after?

What worries me is that the proof doesn't use any specific information about the metric space ##X## and the subsets ##A## and ##B##.
 
  • #10
Bashyboy said:
What worries me is that the proof doesn't use any specific information about the metric space ##X## and the subsets ##A## and ##B##.
Probably because one doesn't need neither a metric nor the induced topology. Both are only used to describe the sets ##A## and ##B## in this example. For the properties in question, they aren't necessary.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K