Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $X$ be a topological space and let $A \subset X$. Is it true that $\overline{\rm{Int}(\overline{A})}=\overline {A}$?

This question arose when I try to show$\overline{X-\overline{\rm{Int}(\overline{A})}}=\overline{X-\overline{A}}$

share|cite|improve this question
Are you sure that this is true? If I take $A = \{0\}$ inside of $X = \mathbf R$ then $\bar A = A$ has empty interior, which seems to contradict the statement. – Dylan Moreland Jun 12 '12 at 1:41
It would be true if $A$ were open. – Jonas Meyer Jul 11 '13 at 6:26
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The statement is false in general. Take $A$ to be a closed, nowhere dense set; then $\operatorname{cl}A=A$, but $\operatorname{cl}\operatorname{int}\operatorname{cl}A=\operatorname{cl}\operatorname{int}A=\operatorname{cl}\varnothing=\varnothing.$ In the space $\Bbb R^n$, for instance, any closed, discrete set provides a counterexample, as does any Cantor set.

Added: To show that


note first that you already know that


Suppose that $x\notin\operatorname{cl}\left(X\setminus\operatorname{cl}A\right)$, and let $V$ be an open nbhd of $x$ disjoint from $X\setminus\operatorname{cl}A$; $V\subseteq\operatorname{cl}A$, so $V\subseteq\operatorname{int}\operatorname{cl}A\subseteq\operatorname{cl}\operatorname{int}\operatorname{cl}A$, and therefore $V\cap (X\setminus\operatorname{cl}\operatorname{int}\operatorname{cl}A)=\varnothing$, i.e., $x\notin\operatorname{cl}(X\setminus\operatorname{cl}\operatorname{int}\operatorname{cl}A)$. It follows that $\operatorname{cl}(X\setminus\operatorname{cl}\operatorname{int}\operatorname{cl}A)\subseteq\operatorname{cl}\left(X\setminus\operatorname{cl}A\right)$, and we’re done.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! But then how to show the original equality? – user31899 Jun 12 '12 at 1:53
As wrote above by @Dylan Moreland, the result is not true, in general. So the answer to your questions is 'no'. – Sigur Jun 12 '12 at 1:56
@user31899: I’ve expanded the answer to include a proof of the missing half of the original equality. – Brian M. Scott Jun 12 '12 at 2:06
I see,that's prove by contrapostion with nbh definition of closure, thanks! – user31899 Jun 12 '12 at 2:17

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.