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

It is claimed on the wikipedia page that a space $X$ is locally connected if and only if every component of every open set of $X$ is open without any proof.

What is the proof behind this fact? Am I correct in assuming this in turn implies that a space is locally connect if and only if the open connected subsets are actually a base for topology?

share|cite|improve this question

If $X$ is locally connected and $C$ is a connected component of an open subset $U \subseteq C$, then every point $c \in C$ contains a connected neighborhood which lies in $U$ (because $X$ is locally connected and $U$ is open). But then it has to lie completely in the connected component of $c$, i.e. in $C$. This shows that $C$ is open.

The proof of the converse is very, very similar. Can you write it down for yourself?

share|cite|improve this answer

Suppose $X$ is locally connected, and take an open set $A$ and a component $C$ of $A$. We want to show that $A \backslash C$ is closed in $A$. Take a point $x$ in the closure of $A \backslash C$, by local connectedness we can find a connected neighborhood $N$ of $x$. If $x \in C$ then $N \subseteq C$, but $N$ intersects $A \backslash C$, which is absurd. So $C$ is open in $A$, hence in $X$.

The converse follows from the obvious fact that every open set is the union of its components.

As for your second question, the statement is true, but it follows directly from the definition.

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.