Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

The question pretty much says it all. I need a completely regular (the definition not requiring $T_1$) topological space which is $T_0$ but not $T_1$. I've sifted through Counterexamples in Topology but I just can't find one. I've also tried google and searching this site but I'm not coming up with anything.

It seems the counterexample should be simple but everything I try doesn't work (like Sierpinski topology, open extension topology, topology on $\mathbb{R}$ whose open sets are $(a,+\infty)$, etc.).

EDIT: By a completely regular topological space I mean a topological space $(X,\tau)$ so that for every $x\in X$ and closed $\mathscr{C}\subseteq X$ such that $x\not\in\mathscr{C}$ there exists a continuous function $f:X\to[0,1]$ so that $f(x)=0$ and $f(\mathscr{C})=\{1\}$.

By a $T_0$ space I mean a topological space in which any two distinct points are topologically distinguishable.

By a $T_1$ space I mean a space in which for any two distinct points both of them are contained in neighborhoods which do not contain the other.

I was thinking completely regular + $T_0$ did not imply $T_1$ since the definitions of Tychonoff/$T_{3\frac{1}{2}}$ spaces I've seen require completely regular and $T_1$ rather than completely regular and $T_0$.

EDIT EDIT: Turns out no such counterexample exists.

share|improve this question
1  
What exactly do you mean by "completely regular" if it doesn't imply $T_1$? –  MJD May 13 '13 at 16:06

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If $X$ is completely regular (closed set and point can be separated by a continuous real-valued function), then it is also regular. Let $x\in X$ be a point and $A\subset X$ be a closed set not containing $x$, then there is a continuous function $f:X\to\Bbb R$ with $f(x)=0$, $f(A)=1$, so $f^{-1}([0,\frac12))$ and $f^{-1}((\frac12,1])$ are disjoint open neighborhoods of $x$ and $A$, respectively.

To show that a regular $T_0$-space $X$ is $T_2$, let $x,y\in X$. There is a closed set $A$ containing one point, say $y$, but not the other. By regularity, there are disjoint open sets $U\ni x$ and $V\supseteq A\ni y$. So $X$ is Hausdorff.

share|improve this answer
    
So if we take the indiscrete topology, it's completely regular? –  Asaf Karagila May 13 '13 at 16:25
    
@AsafKaragila Yes it is –  Stefan Hamcke May 13 '13 at 16:32
1  
@Asaf: Under some definitions, yes. It is more common to include T$_1$-ness in the definition of regularity, complete-regularity, normality, etc., but this isn't always the case. –  Arthur Fischer May 13 '13 at 16:32
    
Hmm I see. That's really strange to me. So really people could define a $T_{3\frac{1}{2}}$/Tychonoff space as being completely regular and $T_0$, then you get $T_1$ for free. In any case, thanks! –  danzibr May 13 '13 at 16:57
2  
@Arthur: That’s exactly the reverse of my training and experience. For me the $T$ properties are the hierarchy, and the named properties are the ‘naked’ properties. A regular space need not be $T_0$. –  Brian M. Scott May 13 '13 at 17:27

Your Answer

 
discard

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.