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

Using Urysohn's Lemma, it can be shown that a connected normal space $X$ (with more than one point) is uncountable. But then how can it be that a connected normal space might just be a single point? Is this immediate from Urysohn's Lemma?

share|cite|improve this question
Trivially?${}{}$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 11 '12 at 22:31
@AsafKaragila: Come again? – Libertron Nov 11 '12 at 22:32
There is no way of decomposing a singleton into two non-empty disjoint sets... everything much hold vacuously. – Asaf Karagila Nov 11 '12 at 22:33
Urysohn makes no (nonvacuous) statement about one-point spaces. But the very definition of normal is trivially verified for one-point space. – Hagen von Eitzen Nov 11 '12 at 22:33
up vote 4 down vote accepted

No, it’s immediate from the definitions of connectedness and normality. A one-point space is clearly not the union of two disjoint non-empty sets, open or otherwise, so it’s connected. A one-point space doesn’t contain two disjoint closed sets, so the defining condition of normality is vacuously satisfied.

share|cite|improve this answer
OK, now I got it. – Libertron Nov 11 '12 at 22:33
@Sachin: Good. (By the way, what I wrote is basically just a longer version of what Asaf meant when he asked ‘Trivially?’.) – Brian M. Scott Nov 11 '12 at 22:34

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.