The closure of a connected set in a topological space is connected












18












$begingroup$


This problem is from Rudin. I am trying to Prove that the closure of a connected set is always connected. Here is my proof.



Let $E$ be a connected set in a space $X$. Suppose to the contrary that the closure of $E$, $overline{E}$ is not connected. Then there exist two sets $A$ and $B$ such that $overline{E}=A cup B$ and $overline{A}cap B= emptyset=Acapoverline{B}$. $E$ being connected, we know that $Acup B neq E$ so there exist $p in overline{E} backslash E$. We also know that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$ (where $E'$ is the set of the limit points of $E$) so $p$ must be a limit point of $E$ (but not in $E$). Taking the set of all such $p$ we obtain the set $E''={p|pin E', pnot in E}$. We find then that $E'' subset A$ or $E'' subset B$. Say $E'' subset A$. Then $E subset B$ and we see that $Acapoverline{B}neq emptyset$ which is a contradiction. So $overline{E}$ must be connected.



Can anyone help me critique this proof? I feel uneasy about it but I don't know exactly what is wrong with it.



Thank-you










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why does $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$?
    $endgroup$
    – David Peterson
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:05










  • $begingroup$
    My reasoning was that since $overline{E}=Acup B$ and also that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$, and since $E'' subset E'$, then $E''$ must be a subset of one of the sets that separate $overline{E}$ (because certainly $E'' cup E = overline{E}$
    $endgroup$
    – illysial
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:12






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The problem (I believe) with your proof is that you never use that $E$ is connected. You say it to imply $E$ does not contain its limit points, but that isn't using the property of connectedness. Take for example $E$ as the disjoint union of two open balls, forgetting your statement of the assumption that $E$ is connected. Then everything you write up until "$E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$" is valid, but breaks at this point.
    $endgroup$
    – David Peterson
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:28










  • $begingroup$
    I also felt awkward about not using that condition more...but I see your point I think.
    $endgroup$
    – illysial
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:44
















18












$begingroup$


This problem is from Rudin. I am trying to Prove that the closure of a connected set is always connected. Here is my proof.



Let $E$ be a connected set in a space $X$. Suppose to the contrary that the closure of $E$, $overline{E}$ is not connected. Then there exist two sets $A$ and $B$ such that $overline{E}=A cup B$ and $overline{A}cap B= emptyset=Acapoverline{B}$. $E$ being connected, we know that $Acup B neq E$ so there exist $p in overline{E} backslash E$. We also know that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$ (where $E'$ is the set of the limit points of $E$) so $p$ must be a limit point of $E$ (but not in $E$). Taking the set of all such $p$ we obtain the set $E''={p|pin E', pnot in E}$. We find then that $E'' subset A$ or $E'' subset B$. Say $E'' subset A$. Then $E subset B$ and we see that $Acapoverline{B}neq emptyset$ which is a contradiction. So $overline{E}$ must be connected.



Can anyone help me critique this proof? I feel uneasy about it but I don't know exactly what is wrong with it.



Thank-you










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why does $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$?
    $endgroup$
    – David Peterson
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:05










  • $begingroup$
    My reasoning was that since $overline{E}=Acup B$ and also that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$, and since $E'' subset E'$, then $E''$ must be a subset of one of the sets that separate $overline{E}$ (because certainly $E'' cup E = overline{E}$
    $endgroup$
    – illysial
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:12






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The problem (I believe) with your proof is that you never use that $E$ is connected. You say it to imply $E$ does not contain its limit points, but that isn't using the property of connectedness. Take for example $E$ as the disjoint union of two open balls, forgetting your statement of the assumption that $E$ is connected. Then everything you write up until "$E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$" is valid, but breaks at this point.
    $endgroup$
    – David Peterson
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:28










  • $begingroup$
    I also felt awkward about not using that condition more...but I see your point I think.
    $endgroup$
    – illysial
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:44














18












18








18


13



$begingroup$


This problem is from Rudin. I am trying to Prove that the closure of a connected set is always connected. Here is my proof.



Let $E$ be a connected set in a space $X$. Suppose to the contrary that the closure of $E$, $overline{E}$ is not connected. Then there exist two sets $A$ and $B$ such that $overline{E}=A cup B$ and $overline{A}cap B= emptyset=Acapoverline{B}$. $E$ being connected, we know that $Acup B neq E$ so there exist $p in overline{E} backslash E$. We also know that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$ (where $E'$ is the set of the limit points of $E$) so $p$ must be a limit point of $E$ (but not in $E$). Taking the set of all such $p$ we obtain the set $E''={p|pin E', pnot in E}$. We find then that $E'' subset A$ or $E'' subset B$. Say $E'' subset A$. Then $E subset B$ and we see that $Acapoverline{B}neq emptyset$ which is a contradiction. So $overline{E}$ must be connected.



Can anyone help me critique this proof? I feel uneasy about it but I don't know exactly what is wrong with it.



Thank-you










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




This problem is from Rudin. I am trying to Prove that the closure of a connected set is always connected. Here is my proof.



Let $E$ be a connected set in a space $X$. Suppose to the contrary that the closure of $E$, $overline{E}$ is not connected. Then there exist two sets $A$ and $B$ such that $overline{E}=A cup B$ and $overline{A}cap B= emptyset=Acapoverline{B}$. $E$ being connected, we know that $Acup B neq E$ so there exist $p in overline{E} backslash E$. We also know that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$ (where $E'$ is the set of the limit points of $E$) so $p$ must be a limit point of $E$ (but not in $E$). Taking the set of all such $p$ we obtain the set $E''={p|pin E', pnot in E}$. We find then that $E'' subset A$ or $E'' subset B$. Say $E'' subset A$. Then $E subset B$ and we see that $Acapoverline{B}neq emptyset$ which is a contradiction. So $overline{E}$ must be connected.



Can anyone help me critique this proof? I feel uneasy about it but I don't know exactly what is wrong with it.



Thank-you







general-topology connectedness






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 28 '16 at 0:57









Jack

27.6k1782203




27.6k1782203










asked Feb 16 '14 at 2:57









illysialillysial

1,6782817




1,6782817








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why does $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$?
    $endgroup$
    – David Peterson
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:05










  • $begingroup$
    My reasoning was that since $overline{E}=Acup B$ and also that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$, and since $E'' subset E'$, then $E''$ must be a subset of one of the sets that separate $overline{E}$ (because certainly $E'' cup E = overline{E}$
    $endgroup$
    – illysial
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:12






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The problem (I believe) with your proof is that you never use that $E$ is connected. You say it to imply $E$ does not contain its limit points, but that isn't using the property of connectedness. Take for example $E$ as the disjoint union of two open balls, forgetting your statement of the assumption that $E$ is connected. Then everything you write up until "$E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$" is valid, but breaks at this point.
    $endgroup$
    – David Peterson
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:28










  • $begingroup$
    I also felt awkward about not using that condition more...but I see your point I think.
    $endgroup$
    – illysial
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:44














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why does $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$?
    $endgroup$
    – David Peterson
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:05










  • $begingroup$
    My reasoning was that since $overline{E}=Acup B$ and also that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$, and since $E'' subset E'$, then $E''$ must be a subset of one of the sets that separate $overline{E}$ (because certainly $E'' cup E = overline{E}$
    $endgroup$
    – illysial
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:12






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The problem (I believe) with your proof is that you never use that $E$ is connected. You say it to imply $E$ does not contain its limit points, but that isn't using the property of connectedness. Take for example $E$ as the disjoint union of two open balls, forgetting your statement of the assumption that $E$ is connected. Then everything you write up until "$E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$" is valid, but breaks at this point.
    $endgroup$
    – David Peterson
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:28










  • $begingroup$
    I also felt awkward about not using that condition more...but I see your point I think.
    $endgroup$
    – illysial
    Feb 16 '14 at 3:44








1




1




$begingroup$
Why does $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$?
$endgroup$
– David Peterson
Feb 16 '14 at 3:05




$begingroup$
Why does $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$?
$endgroup$
– David Peterson
Feb 16 '14 at 3:05












$begingroup$
My reasoning was that since $overline{E}=Acup B$ and also that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$, and since $E'' subset E'$, then $E''$ must be a subset of one of the sets that separate $overline{E}$ (because certainly $E'' cup E = overline{E}$
$endgroup$
– illysial
Feb 16 '14 at 3:12




$begingroup$
My reasoning was that since $overline{E}=Acup B$ and also that $overline{E}=Ecup E'$, and since $E'' subset E'$, then $E''$ must be a subset of one of the sets that separate $overline{E}$ (because certainly $E'' cup E = overline{E}$
$endgroup$
– illysial
Feb 16 '14 at 3:12




4




4




$begingroup$
The problem (I believe) with your proof is that you never use that $E$ is connected. You say it to imply $E$ does not contain its limit points, but that isn't using the property of connectedness. Take for example $E$ as the disjoint union of two open balls, forgetting your statement of the assumption that $E$ is connected. Then everything you write up until "$E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$" is valid, but breaks at this point.
$endgroup$
– David Peterson
Feb 16 '14 at 3:28




$begingroup$
The problem (I believe) with your proof is that you never use that $E$ is connected. You say it to imply $E$ does not contain its limit points, but that isn't using the property of connectedness. Take for example $E$ as the disjoint union of two open balls, forgetting your statement of the assumption that $E$ is connected. Then everything you write up until "$E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$" is valid, but breaks at this point.
$endgroup$
– David Peterson
Feb 16 '14 at 3:28












$begingroup$
I also felt awkward about not using that condition more...but I see your point I think.
$endgroup$
– illysial
Feb 16 '14 at 3:44




$begingroup$
I also felt awkward about not using that condition more...but I see your point I think.
$endgroup$
– illysial
Feb 16 '14 at 3:44










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















12












$begingroup$

Suppose that $E$ is connected. Let $A,Bsubseteq X$ be separated sets (that is, $overline{A}cap B=Acapoverline{B}=varnothing$) such that $overline{E}=Acup B$, and suppose that $Aneqvarnothing$. Let us prove that $B=varnothing$.



Let $ain A$. Since $Acap overline{B}=varnothing$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $a$ such that $Ucap B=varnothing$. Since $ainoverline{E}$, then there exists some point $xin Ecap U$, so $xnotin B$, hence $xin Ecap A$. Therefore, $Ecap Aneqvarnothing$.



Notice that $E=(Acap E)cup (Bcap E)$, and $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ are obviously separated. As $Acap Eneqvarnothing$, from the previous paragraph, and $E$ is connected, then $Bcap E=varnothing$.



(See PS below for an alternative end to the proof without the argument by contradiction)



Finally, suppose, in order to obtain a contradiction, that $Bneqvarnothing$, and take $bin B$. By the same arguments as those used in the second paragraph above, switching $A$ and $B$ and $a$ by $b$, we would conclude that $Bcap Eneqvarnothing$, contradicting what we have just proved.



Therefore, $B=varnothing$. This proves that $overline{E}$ is connected.





PS: As $Esubseteq Acup B$ and $Ecap B=varnothing$, then $Esubseteq A$, so $overline{E}subseteqoverline{A}$. It follows that
$$B=Bcapoverline{E}subseteq Bcapoverline{A}=varnothing.$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I dont follow $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. Since $ain A$ and $U$ is a neighborhood of $a$, $ain U$. When I say neighborhood, I would mean $Usubset A$ and $U$ is open. Using this definition and $Acup B=bar{E}$, we have $Ucapbar{E}=(Ucap A)cup(Ucap B)=U$, and since $A,U$ are nonempty, we cant have $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. If $U$ is a open set such that $Asubset U$ and $ain A$, $Ucapbar{E} = A$ which again is nonempty since $ain A$.
    $endgroup$
    – dustin
    Mar 17 '15 at 19:21












  • $begingroup$
    Is it the similar proof for "Closure of a connected subset is connected"?
    $endgroup$
    – S786
    Apr 23 '15 at 11:50










  • $begingroup$
    @Luiz Corderio I also don't understand the $Ucapbar{E}=emptyset$. Can you please explain.
    $endgroup$
    – Babai
    Nov 8 '15 at 14:34










  • $begingroup$
    @Babai This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$.
    $endgroup$
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Nov 9 '15 at 16:20










  • $begingroup$
    @dustin This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$. Also, $U$ is a neighbourhood of $a$ in $X$, so it does not need to be true that $Usubset A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Nov 9 '15 at 16:22



















8












$begingroup$

There is only one part which might not have been explained in detail **




$ E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$




**



$A$ and B are separation of $bar{E}$ implies $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ is a separation of $E$(trivial to proof).



$implies$ $overline{(Acap E)}cap(Bcap E)=emptyset$ $implies (bar{A}capbar{E})cap B cap E=emptyset (because bar{X}cap bar{Y}subset overline{Xcap Y} )implies bar{A}cap B cap bar{E}=emptyset implies Acap Bcapbar{ E}=emptyset$



(I kept using the fact: $Ccap D=emptyset $ and $C'subset C$ then $C'cap D=emptyset$)



$Acap Bcap bar{E}=emptyset$ says if $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin A$ then $xnotin B$ (Similarly, $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin B$ then $xnotin A$.



Therefore, $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$



It is important to keep using the equivalent definitions of connectedness:



A topological space $X$ is disconnected if



Definition 1: there are two non-empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B$ and $Acap B=emptyset$



Definition 2: there are two subsets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B,$ $bar{A}cap B=emptyset$ and $Acap bar{B}=emptyset$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f678032%2fthe-closure-of-a-connected-set-in-a-topological-space-is-connected%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    12












    $begingroup$

    Suppose that $E$ is connected. Let $A,Bsubseteq X$ be separated sets (that is, $overline{A}cap B=Acapoverline{B}=varnothing$) such that $overline{E}=Acup B$, and suppose that $Aneqvarnothing$. Let us prove that $B=varnothing$.



    Let $ain A$. Since $Acap overline{B}=varnothing$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $a$ such that $Ucap B=varnothing$. Since $ainoverline{E}$, then there exists some point $xin Ecap U$, so $xnotin B$, hence $xin Ecap A$. Therefore, $Ecap Aneqvarnothing$.



    Notice that $E=(Acap E)cup (Bcap E)$, and $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ are obviously separated. As $Acap Eneqvarnothing$, from the previous paragraph, and $E$ is connected, then $Bcap E=varnothing$.



    (See PS below for an alternative end to the proof without the argument by contradiction)



    Finally, suppose, in order to obtain a contradiction, that $Bneqvarnothing$, and take $bin B$. By the same arguments as those used in the second paragraph above, switching $A$ and $B$ and $a$ by $b$, we would conclude that $Bcap Eneqvarnothing$, contradicting what we have just proved.



    Therefore, $B=varnothing$. This proves that $overline{E}$ is connected.





    PS: As $Esubseteq Acup B$ and $Ecap B=varnothing$, then $Esubseteq A$, so $overline{E}subseteqoverline{A}$. It follows that
    $$B=Bcapoverline{E}subseteq Bcapoverline{A}=varnothing.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I dont follow $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. Since $ain A$ and $U$ is a neighborhood of $a$, $ain U$. When I say neighborhood, I would mean $Usubset A$ and $U$ is open. Using this definition and $Acup B=bar{E}$, we have $Ucapbar{E}=(Ucap A)cup(Ucap B)=U$, and since $A,U$ are nonempty, we cant have $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. If $U$ is a open set such that $Asubset U$ and $ain A$, $Ucapbar{E} = A$ which again is nonempty since $ain A$.
      $endgroup$
      – dustin
      Mar 17 '15 at 19:21












    • $begingroup$
      Is it the similar proof for "Closure of a connected subset is connected"?
      $endgroup$
      – S786
      Apr 23 '15 at 11:50










    • $begingroup$
      @Luiz Corderio I also don't understand the $Ucapbar{E}=emptyset$. Can you please explain.
      $endgroup$
      – Babai
      Nov 8 '15 at 14:34










    • $begingroup$
      @Babai This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$.
      $endgroup$
      – Luiz Cordeiro
      Nov 9 '15 at 16:20










    • $begingroup$
      @dustin This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$. Also, $U$ is a neighbourhood of $a$ in $X$, so it does not need to be true that $Usubset A$.
      $endgroup$
      – Luiz Cordeiro
      Nov 9 '15 at 16:22
















    12












    $begingroup$

    Suppose that $E$ is connected. Let $A,Bsubseteq X$ be separated sets (that is, $overline{A}cap B=Acapoverline{B}=varnothing$) such that $overline{E}=Acup B$, and suppose that $Aneqvarnothing$. Let us prove that $B=varnothing$.



    Let $ain A$. Since $Acap overline{B}=varnothing$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $a$ such that $Ucap B=varnothing$. Since $ainoverline{E}$, then there exists some point $xin Ecap U$, so $xnotin B$, hence $xin Ecap A$. Therefore, $Ecap Aneqvarnothing$.



    Notice that $E=(Acap E)cup (Bcap E)$, and $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ are obviously separated. As $Acap Eneqvarnothing$, from the previous paragraph, and $E$ is connected, then $Bcap E=varnothing$.



    (See PS below for an alternative end to the proof without the argument by contradiction)



    Finally, suppose, in order to obtain a contradiction, that $Bneqvarnothing$, and take $bin B$. By the same arguments as those used in the second paragraph above, switching $A$ and $B$ and $a$ by $b$, we would conclude that $Bcap Eneqvarnothing$, contradicting what we have just proved.



    Therefore, $B=varnothing$. This proves that $overline{E}$ is connected.





    PS: As $Esubseteq Acup B$ and $Ecap B=varnothing$, then $Esubseteq A$, so $overline{E}subseteqoverline{A}$. It follows that
    $$B=Bcapoverline{E}subseteq Bcapoverline{A}=varnothing.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I dont follow $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. Since $ain A$ and $U$ is a neighborhood of $a$, $ain U$. When I say neighborhood, I would mean $Usubset A$ and $U$ is open. Using this definition and $Acup B=bar{E}$, we have $Ucapbar{E}=(Ucap A)cup(Ucap B)=U$, and since $A,U$ are nonempty, we cant have $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. If $U$ is a open set such that $Asubset U$ and $ain A$, $Ucapbar{E} = A$ which again is nonempty since $ain A$.
      $endgroup$
      – dustin
      Mar 17 '15 at 19:21












    • $begingroup$
      Is it the similar proof for "Closure of a connected subset is connected"?
      $endgroup$
      – S786
      Apr 23 '15 at 11:50










    • $begingroup$
      @Luiz Corderio I also don't understand the $Ucapbar{E}=emptyset$. Can you please explain.
      $endgroup$
      – Babai
      Nov 8 '15 at 14:34










    • $begingroup$
      @Babai This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$.
      $endgroup$
      – Luiz Cordeiro
      Nov 9 '15 at 16:20










    • $begingroup$
      @dustin This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$. Also, $U$ is a neighbourhood of $a$ in $X$, so it does not need to be true that $Usubset A$.
      $endgroup$
      – Luiz Cordeiro
      Nov 9 '15 at 16:22














    12












    12








    12





    $begingroup$

    Suppose that $E$ is connected. Let $A,Bsubseteq X$ be separated sets (that is, $overline{A}cap B=Acapoverline{B}=varnothing$) such that $overline{E}=Acup B$, and suppose that $Aneqvarnothing$. Let us prove that $B=varnothing$.



    Let $ain A$. Since $Acap overline{B}=varnothing$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $a$ such that $Ucap B=varnothing$. Since $ainoverline{E}$, then there exists some point $xin Ecap U$, so $xnotin B$, hence $xin Ecap A$. Therefore, $Ecap Aneqvarnothing$.



    Notice that $E=(Acap E)cup (Bcap E)$, and $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ are obviously separated. As $Acap Eneqvarnothing$, from the previous paragraph, and $E$ is connected, then $Bcap E=varnothing$.



    (See PS below for an alternative end to the proof without the argument by contradiction)



    Finally, suppose, in order to obtain a contradiction, that $Bneqvarnothing$, and take $bin B$. By the same arguments as those used in the second paragraph above, switching $A$ and $B$ and $a$ by $b$, we would conclude that $Bcap Eneqvarnothing$, contradicting what we have just proved.



    Therefore, $B=varnothing$. This proves that $overline{E}$ is connected.





    PS: As $Esubseteq Acup B$ and $Ecap B=varnothing$, then $Esubseteq A$, so $overline{E}subseteqoverline{A}$. It follows that
    $$B=Bcapoverline{E}subseteq Bcapoverline{A}=varnothing.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Suppose that $E$ is connected. Let $A,Bsubseteq X$ be separated sets (that is, $overline{A}cap B=Acapoverline{B}=varnothing$) such that $overline{E}=Acup B$, and suppose that $Aneqvarnothing$. Let us prove that $B=varnothing$.



    Let $ain A$. Since $Acap overline{B}=varnothing$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $a$ such that $Ucap B=varnothing$. Since $ainoverline{E}$, then there exists some point $xin Ecap U$, so $xnotin B$, hence $xin Ecap A$. Therefore, $Ecap Aneqvarnothing$.



    Notice that $E=(Acap E)cup (Bcap E)$, and $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ are obviously separated. As $Acap Eneqvarnothing$, from the previous paragraph, and $E$ is connected, then $Bcap E=varnothing$.



    (See PS below for an alternative end to the proof without the argument by contradiction)



    Finally, suppose, in order to obtain a contradiction, that $Bneqvarnothing$, and take $bin B$. By the same arguments as those used in the second paragraph above, switching $A$ and $B$ and $a$ by $b$, we would conclude that $Bcap Eneqvarnothing$, contradicting what we have just proved.



    Therefore, $B=varnothing$. This proves that $overline{E}$ is connected.





    PS: As $Esubseteq Acup B$ and $Ecap B=varnothing$, then $Esubseteq A$, so $overline{E}subseteqoverline{A}$. It follows that
    $$B=Bcapoverline{E}subseteq Bcapoverline{A}=varnothing.$$







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Dec 18 '18 at 14:46

























    answered Feb 16 '14 at 6:00









    Luiz CordeiroLuiz Cordeiro

    12.8k1344




    12.8k1344








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I dont follow $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. Since $ain A$ and $U$ is a neighborhood of $a$, $ain U$. When I say neighborhood, I would mean $Usubset A$ and $U$ is open. Using this definition and $Acup B=bar{E}$, we have $Ucapbar{E}=(Ucap A)cup(Ucap B)=U$, and since $A,U$ are nonempty, we cant have $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. If $U$ is a open set such that $Asubset U$ and $ain A$, $Ucapbar{E} = A$ which again is nonempty since $ain A$.
      $endgroup$
      – dustin
      Mar 17 '15 at 19:21












    • $begingroup$
      Is it the similar proof for "Closure of a connected subset is connected"?
      $endgroup$
      – S786
      Apr 23 '15 at 11:50










    • $begingroup$
      @Luiz Corderio I also don't understand the $Ucapbar{E}=emptyset$. Can you please explain.
      $endgroup$
      – Babai
      Nov 8 '15 at 14:34










    • $begingroup$
      @Babai This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$.
      $endgroup$
      – Luiz Cordeiro
      Nov 9 '15 at 16:20










    • $begingroup$
      @dustin This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$. Also, $U$ is a neighbourhood of $a$ in $X$, so it does not need to be true that $Usubset A$.
      $endgroup$
      – Luiz Cordeiro
      Nov 9 '15 at 16:22














    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I dont follow $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. Since $ain A$ and $U$ is a neighborhood of $a$, $ain U$. When I say neighborhood, I would mean $Usubset A$ and $U$ is open. Using this definition and $Acup B=bar{E}$, we have $Ucapbar{E}=(Ucap A)cup(Ucap B)=U$, and since $A,U$ are nonempty, we cant have $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. If $U$ is a open set such that $Asubset U$ and $ain A$, $Ucapbar{E} = A$ which again is nonempty since $ain A$.
      $endgroup$
      – dustin
      Mar 17 '15 at 19:21












    • $begingroup$
      Is it the similar proof for "Closure of a connected subset is connected"?
      $endgroup$
      – S786
      Apr 23 '15 at 11:50










    • $begingroup$
      @Luiz Corderio I also don't understand the $Ucapbar{E}=emptyset$. Can you please explain.
      $endgroup$
      – Babai
      Nov 8 '15 at 14:34










    • $begingroup$
      @Babai This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$.
      $endgroup$
      – Luiz Cordeiro
      Nov 9 '15 at 16:20










    • $begingroup$
      @dustin This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$. Also, $U$ is a neighbourhood of $a$ in $X$, so it does not need to be true that $Usubset A$.
      $endgroup$
      – Luiz Cordeiro
      Nov 9 '15 at 16:22








    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    I dont follow $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. Since $ain A$ and $U$ is a neighborhood of $a$, $ain U$. When I say neighborhood, I would mean $Usubset A$ and $U$ is open. Using this definition and $Acup B=bar{E}$, we have $Ucapbar{E}=(Ucap A)cup(Ucap B)=U$, and since $A,U$ are nonempty, we cant have $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. If $U$ is a open set such that $Asubset U$ and $ain A$, $Ucapbar{E} = A$ which again is nonempty since $ain A$.
    $endgroup$
    – dustin
    Mar 17 '15 at 19:21






    $begingroup$
    I dont follow $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. Since $ain A$ and $U$ is a neighborhood of $a$, $ain U$. When I say neighborhood, I would mean $Usubset A$ and $U$ is open. Using this definition and $Acup B=bar{E}$, we have $Ucapbar{E}=(Ucap A)cup(Ucap B)=U$, and since $A,U$ are nonempty, we cant have $Ucapbar{E}=varnothing$. If $U$ is a open set such that $Asubset U$ and $ain A$, $Ucapbar{E} = A$ which again is nonempty since $ain A$.
    $endgroup$
    – dustin
    Mar 17 '15 at 19:21














    $begingroup$
    Is it the similar proof for "Closure of a connected subset is connected"?
    $endgroup$
    – S786
    Apr 23 '15 at 11:50




    $begingroup$
    Is it the similar proof for "Closure of a connected subset is connected"?
    $endgroup$
    – S786
    Apr 23 '15 at 11:50












    $begingroup$
    @Luiz Corderio I also don't understand the $Ucapbar{E}=emptyset$. Can you please explain.
    $endgroup$
    – Babai
    Nov 8 '15 at 14:34




    $begingroup$
    @Luiz Corderio I also don't understand the $Ucapbar{E}=emptyset$. Can you please explain.
    $endgroup$
    – Babai
    Nov 8 '15 at 14:34












    $begingroup$
    @Babai This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$.
    $endgroup$
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Nov 9 '15 at 16:20




    $begingroup$
    @Babai This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$.
    $endgroup$
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Nov 9 '15 at 16:20












    $begingroup$
    @dustin This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$. Also, $U$ is a neighbourhood of $a$ in $X$, so it does not need to be true that $Usubset A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Nov 9 '15 at 16:22




    $begingroup$
    @dustin This was a typo. I meant $Ucapoverline{B}=varnothing$. Also, $U$ is a neighbourhood of $a$ in $X$, so it does not need to be true that $Usubset A$.
    $endgroup$
    – Luiz Cordeiro
    Nov 9 '15 at 16:22











    8












    $begingroup$

    There is only one part which might not have been explained in detail **




    $ E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$




    **



    $A$ and B are separation of $bar{E}$ implies $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ is a separation of $E$(trivial to proof).



    $implies$ $overline{(Acap E)}cap(Bcap E)=emptyset$ $implies (bar{A}capbar{E})cap B cap E=emptyset (because bar{X}cap bar{Y}subset overline{Xcap Y} )implies bar{A}cap B cap bar{E}=emptyset implies Acap Bcapbar{ E}=emptyset$



    (I kept using the fact: $Ccap D=emptyset $ and $C'subset C$ then $C'cap D=emptyset$)



    $Acap Bcap bar{E}=emptyset$ says if $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin A$ then $xnotin B$ (Similarly, $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin B$ then $xnotin A$.



    Therefore, $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$



    It is important to keep using the equivalent definitions of connectedness:



    A topological space $X$ is disconnected if



    Definition 1: there are two non-empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B$ and $Acap B=emptyset$



    Definition 2: there are two subsets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B,$ $bar{A}cap B=emptyset$ and $Acap bar{B}=emptyset$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      8












      $begingroup$

      There is only one part which might not have been explained in detail **




      $ E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$




      **



      $A$ and B are separation of $bar{E}$ implies $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ is a separation of $E$(trivial to proof).



      $implies$ $overline{(Acap E)}cap(Bcap E)=emptyset$ $implies (bar{A}capbar{E})cap B cap E=emptyset (because bar{X}cap bar{Y}subset overline{Xcap Y} )implies bar{A}cap B cap bar{E}=emptyset implies Acap Bcapbar{ E}=emptyset$



      (I kept using the fact: $Ccap D=emptyset $ and $C'subset C$ then $C'cap D=emptyset$)



      $Acap Bcap bar{E}=emptyset$ says if $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin A$ then $xnotin B$ (Similarly, $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin B$ then $xnotin A$.



      Therefore, $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$



      It is important to keep using the equivalent definitions of connectedness:



      A topological space $X$ is disconnected if



      Definition 1: there are two non-empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B$ and $Acap B=emptyset$



      Definition 2: there are two subsets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B,$ $bar{A}cap B=emptyset$ and $Acap bar{B}=emptyset$






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        8












        8








        8





        $begingroup$

        There is only one part which might not have been explained in detail **




        $ E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$




        **



        $A$ and B are separation of $bar{E}$ implies $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ is a separation of $E$(trivial to proof).



        $implies$ $overline{(Acap E)}cap(Bcap E)=emptyset$ $implies (bar{A}capbar{E})cap B cap E=emptyset (because bar{X}cap bar{Y}subset overline{Xcap Y} )implies bar{A}cap B cap bar{E}=emptyset implies Acap Bcapbar{ E}=emptyset$



        (I kept using the fact: $Ccap D=emptyset $ and $C'subset C$ then $C'cap D=emptyset$)



        $Acap Bcap bar{E}=emptyset$ says if $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin A$ then $xnotin B$ (Similarly, $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin B$ then $xnotin A$.



        Therefore, $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$



        It is important to keep using the equivalent definitions of connectedness:



        A topological space $X$ is disconnected if



        Definition 1: there are two non-empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B$ and $Acap B=emptyset$



        Definition 2: there are two subsets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B,$ $bar{A}cap B=emptyset$ and $Acap bar{B}=emptyset$






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        There is only one part which might not have been explained in detail **




        $ E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$




        **



        $A$ and B are separation of $bar{E}$ implies $Acap E$ and $Bcap E$ is a separation of $E$(trivial to proof).



        $implies$ $overline{(Acap E)}cap(Bcap E)=emptyset$ $implies (bar{A}capbar{E})cap B cap E=emptyset (because bar{X}cap bar{Y}subset overline{Xcap Y} )implies bar{A}cap B cap bar{E}=emptyset implies Acap Bcapbar{ E}=emptyset$



        (I kept using the fact: $Ccap D=emptyset $ and $C'subset C$ then $C'cap D=emptyset$)



        $Acap Bcap bar{E}=emptyset$ says if $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin A$ then $xnotin B$ (Similarly, $xin bar{E}$ and also $xin B$ then $xnotin A$.



        Therefore, $E''subset A$ or $E''subset B$



        It is important to keep using the equivalent definitions of connectedness:



        A topological space $X$ is disconnected if



        Definition 1: there are two non-empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B$ and $Acap B=emptyset$



        Definition 2: there are two subsets $A$ and $B$ such that $X=Acup B,$ $bar{A}cap B=emptyset$ and $Acap bar{B}=emptyset$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 8 '15 at 15:38

























        answered Nov 8 '15 at 15:23









        BabaiBabai

        2,65121640




        2,65121640






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f678032%2fthe-closure-of-a-connected-set-in-a-topological-space-is-connected%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Brian Clough

            Cáceres