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

Let $X$ be a topological space and let $\mathscr{F}$ be the smallest collection of subsets of $X$ which contains all open subsets of $X$ and is closed with respect to the formation of finite intersections and complements.

I solved Ex7.20(i), which says that a subset $E$ of $X$ belongs to $\mathscr{F}$ iff $E$ is a finite union of sets of the form $U \cap C$, where $U$ is open and $C$ is closed.

  1. What is the name of $\mathscr{F}$? I found that if $X$ is a notherian topological space, it is called Constructible sets. Is this name used for any $X$, or is there no special name for the case of non-noetherian space $X$?

  2. Is it true that any finite union $\cup_{i=1}^n (U_i \cap C_i)$(where $U_i$ is open and $C_i$ is closed) can be presented as $U \cap C$? One of the solution of the problem states this, but I doubt it is true. I tried to find a counterexample in $\mathbb{R}^2$ by sketching some sets, but I couldn't find a one.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

Regarding (1), my memory is that the terminology and definitions for constructible sets in the non-Noetherian context is a little delicate. This is confirmed by a quick google search, which turned up, for example, this discussion on Akhil Mathew's blog.

Regarding (2), a set of the form $U\cap C$ is called locally closed (because each of its points has a n.h. in the ambient space whose interesection with the set is closed in that n.h.).

Not every constructible set is locally closed. E.g. consider $\mathbb R^2$ minus a line union a point on the missing line. In coordinates (taking the line to be the $x$-axis and the point to be the origin) this is the set of $(x,y) \in \mathbb R^2$ such that either $x \neq 0$ or else $x = y = 0$.

This is constructible, but is not locally closed: its intersection with any n.h. of the origin is not closed in that n.h. If you found a statement to the contrary in some solution set, then I wouldn't trust that solution set.

share|cite|improve this answer

The following is an additional example that shows that $$(U_1 \cap C_1) \cup(U_2 \cap C_2)$$ where the $U_i$ are open, and the $C_i$ are closed, need not be expressible in the form $U \cap C$.

Let $S$ be the set of all real numbers $x$ which are not of the form $1/n$, where $n$ ranges over the positive integers.

Note that $S$ is the union of an open set and the one point set $\{0\}$, so it certainly has the shape $(U_1 \cap C_1) \cup(U_2 \cap C_2)$, with $C_1=U_2=\mathbb{R}$.

We show that $S$ is not of the form $U\cap C$.

Suppose to the contrary that it is. Since $0 \in S$, we have $W \subset U$ for some neighborhood $W$ of $0$. Then for any large enough $n$, $1/n \in W$.

Suppose that $1/k$ and $1/(k+1)$ are in $W$. Since the interval $$\left(\frac{1}{k+1}, \frac{1}{k}\right)$$ is a subset of $S$, it follows that this interval is a subset of $C$. But since $C$ is closed, it follows that $1/k \in C$, contradicting the fact that $1/k\notin S$.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.