Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

This question came from Dugundji's $\textit{Topology}$: Given a compact, connected space $X$, let $A \subset X$ be closed. Prove that there exists a closed, connected set $B \subset X$ such that $A \subset B$ and any proper subset of $B$ is either not connected, not closed, or does not contain $A$. The text has an annoying habit of not stating whether the space is assumed to be Hausdorff.

My attempt at a proof seems to work for Hausdorff spaces, but it doesn't rely fundamentally on a lot of the hypotheses and feels rather inelegant.

If such a $B$ does not exist, then for any $B$ which is connected, closed, and contains $A$, there exists a $B' \subset B$ which also satisfies those conditions. Clearly $X$ is an example of a set which does satisfy the conditions, so at least one such set exists. Order subsets of $X$ which are closed, connected, and contain $A$ by reverse inclusion (i.e. $U > V$ if $U \subset V$ and $U \neq V$). Each chain of subsets has an upper bound: let $B_i$ satisfy the hypotheses and let $B_{n+1} \subset B_n$. Then $B_N = \cap_1^\infty B_i$ is clearly closed and contains $A$. By the result mentioned here: Arbitrary intersection of closed, connected subsets of a compact space connected? , $B_N$ is connected if $X$ is Hausdorff. Thus $B_N$ is an upper bound for the chain $\{B_i\}$. By Zorn's Lemma, this collection has a maximal element, which would have to be the set $B$ needed.

I could not find an counterexample among non-Hausdorff spaces, so I would love to see one or a proof of the general case. In addition, the hypothesis that $A$ is closed isn't used anywhere here.

I'd love to see anyone's attempts at this problem!

share|cite|improve this question
Why don't you take $\bigcap \{ B; \; \text{$B$ is a closed, connected subset of $X$ and $A ⊂ B$}\}$? If $X$ is Hausdorff, I trust you that it's connected. It certainly is closed in $X$ and it contains anything in $A$. By definition, there can't be a smaller set with that property. – k.stm Jan 24 '13 at 9:07
@K.Stm.: that doesn't work. Intersection of connected subsets need not be connected. E.g. take $X = S^1$ and $A$ the union two points in $S^1$. Then two arcs containing these points as boundaries are closed and connected but their intersection is just $A$. – Marek Jan 24 '13 at 10:26
@Marek Oh, yeah. Right. I didn't think about that for too long. By the way, don't you need to consider uncountable chains as well? – k.stm Jan 24 '13 at 10:28
Dugundji defines compactness to include Hausdorffness, so the space $X$ is indeed assumed to be Hausdorff. – Brian M. Scott Jan 25 '13 at 19:01
@K.Stm. I believe the proof works just as well for uncountable chains. Let $B_\alpha: \alpha \in I$ be an uncountable chain (i.e. totally ordered by proper subset inclusion). The intersection is still an upper bound, and I believe the proof that it is connected doesn't use anything countability. – Dorebell Jan 25 '13 at 22:35

I think the Arturo's example from the question you linked to works as a counter-example here as well. Take as $X$ the interval with doubled-origin and as $A$ the two origins. $A$ is obviously closed. Moreover, every connected closed set containing $A$ is just a closed interval. But any such interval contains a smaller closed interval. So the Hausdorff assumption is indeed necessary.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for the clarification! I assumed that space was disconnected since it is the union of two non-identical copies of the real line. I see the mistake now. – Dorebell Jan 25 '13 at 22:43

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.