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.

I'm reading the following theorem:

http://snag.gy/7x4Ui.jpg

I don't understand what would go wrong if you would leave out the part that I marked green. I would think you could safely leave it out and replace the second to last sentence with this sentence:

"Then $f^{-1}(A)$ and $f^{-1}(B)$ are disjoint sets, whose union is $X$; they are open in $X$ because $f$ is continuous, and nonempty because $A\cup B=Z=f(X)$."

Or am I missing something ?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

In this case, because of the very strong connection between the continuous function $f$ and the subspace $Z$ of $Y$ under consideration, your change would work, with a bit of extra argumentation.

Recall that the definition of disconnectedness of a subset $Z$ of a space $Y$ is:

there are open subsets $U , V$ of $Y$ such that

  • $Z \subseteq U \cup V$; and
  • $U \cap Z \neq \varnothing \neq V \cap Z$
  • $(U \cap V ) \cap Z \neq \varnothing$.

Of course, this is equivalent to saying that $Z$ is disconnected (in the subspace topology).

You would now consider $f^{-1} [ U ]$ and $f^{-1} [ V ]$ and conclude that these are disjoint open subsets of $X$ whose union is $X$. That they are open follows from continuity of $f$. That their union is $X$ follows from the fact that $U \cup V \supseteq f [ X ]$. But to conclude that $\varnothing = f^{-1} [ U ] \cap f^{-1} [ V ] = f^{-1} [ U \cap V ]$ we have to make a bit of extra argumentation to conclude that this is empty (since it is not necessarily true that $U \cap V = \varnothing$. That extra bit is something to the effect of

Clearly $f^{-1} [ U \cap V ] = f^{-1} [ ( U \cap V ) \cap f[X] ]$ and since $Z = f[X]$ and $( U \cap V ) \cap Z = \varnothing$ it follows that $f^{-1} [ U \cap V ] = f^{-1} [ \varnothing ] = \varnothing$.

A slight technicality that adds a bit of unnecessary complexity to the proof, in my opinion.

share|improve this answer

It's just convenience. If you consider the subspace $f(X)$ embedded in $Y$, you can't simply say "Suppose $f(X) = A\cup B$ is a separation of $f(X)$ into two disjoint nonempty open sets", since $f(X)$ generally is not open in $Y$. You need to say "relatively open", and then remark that the preimage of a relatively open subset of $f(X)$ is open in $X$, or take a covering of $f(X)$ by open sets, $f(X) \subset A\cup B$, where $A,B$ are open sets in $Y$ with $A\cap B \cap f(X) = \varnothing$ and $A\cap f(X) \neq \varnothing \neq B\cap f(X)$. There's not much difference to considering the induced surjective map to $Z=f(X)$ either way.

share|improve this answer

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.