Showing that the Closure of a Connected set

  • Thread starter Thread starter trap101
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    closure Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the closure of a connected set is also connected, a topic within topology. The original poster attempts to demonstrate this by assuming the closure of a connected set is disconnected and exploring the implications of that assumption.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the definition of a "disconnection" and its implications for the connectedness of the set. The original poster is exploring a contradiction based on the assumption of disconnection, while others seek clarification on the terms used and the reasoning process.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with some participants providing insights into the implications of the original poster's assumptions. There is a focus on understanding the definitions and relationships between the sets involved, but no consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the need for clarity around the definitions of connectedness and disconnectedness, as well as the role of the closure operator in the context of the problem. The original poster expresses difficulty in following certain hints provided in the solutions.

trap101
Messages
339
Reaction score
0
Showing that the Closure of a Connected set...

Show that the Closure of a Connected set is connected.


Attempt: Assume that the closure of a conncted set S is disconnected.

==> S = U \cup V is a disconnection of S. (bold for closure)

==> (S\capU) \cup (S\capV) is a disconnection of S.

This is where I'm stuck, I know some how I'm suppose to get a contradiction in that the closure of this set is actually connected. But I can't see how to form it.

In the solutions they make use of (S\capU) or (S\capV) being empty, but I still wasn't able to follow that either.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


A little more detail please- what do you mean by a "disconnection of S"?
 


HallsofIvy said:
A little more detail please- what do you mean by a "disconnection of S"?

oh, by the definition of connectedness or disconnectedness I guess since we don't define connectedness per say. So I mean the union of two non-empty subsets in which neither intersects the closure of the other one.
 


Ok, so you have that \overline{S}=U\cup V, which is good. But since S\subset\overline{S} and S is connected, you must have that either S\subset U or S\subset V since otherwise S would be disconnected. Let's assume without loss of generality that S\subset U.

Then in fact, S\cap V=∅ since U and V are disjoint (where your textbook's hint comes in). Moreover, we must have S\subset V^C. Since the closure operator respects subsets and V^C is closed (as V is open), we can say some pretty interesting things about \overline{S}... Remember that by assumption, \overline{S}=U\cup V.

Hope I haven't given too much away :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K