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.

That's a problem I proved (quite a while back) in tiny Rudin. However, I don't really get it. The other questions were actually useful results - I don't think I've ever come near using this result. Surely it's going to be close to apparent that you're working in an uncountable set?

For instance, examples where this result could be applied but it is hard otherwise to tell that the space is uncountable?

share|improve this question
I edited the title because the old one sounded to me like you were talking about metric spaces with 2 connected points. –  Alex Becker Jan 5 '12 at 2:24
@JonasMeyer "Are you asking for examples where this result could be applied but it is hard otherwise to tell that the space is uncountable?" This is how I interpret the question. –  Alex Becker Jan 5 '12 at 2:49
Well, for instance this leads to a proof of the uncountability of $\mathbb{R}$ (not necessarily the easiest, but a nice enough one, I think). In general I think I agree that this result is not something you are going to use to prove some other result: neither is Fermat's Last Theorem, by the way. Not all results in mathematics have to be directly useful to be interesting. –  Pete L. Clark Jan 5 '12 at 3:24
The result says that aside from a trivial one-point topology, there is no countable connected metric space. The "application" of this theorem is not to prove that a set is uncountable, but to tell everyone to stop looking for countable connected metric spaces. –  Austin Mohr Jan 5 '12 at 3:35
Just a small addition: there are countable connected spaces (e.g. the integers with the cofinite topology). There are even countable connected Hausdorff spaces (the first example of which is due to Urysohn). See also this MO thread. –  t.b. Jan 5 '12 at 4:09

4 Answers 4

Let your points be $a$ and $b$.

Let $\lambda\in(0,1)$ Suppose there is no point $x$ in your space such that $d(a,x)=\lambda d(a,b)$. Then the sets $\{z:d(a,z)<\lambda d(a,b)\}$ and $\{z:d(a,z)>\lambda d(a,b)\}$ are two non-empty open sets which partition the space.

Since we are assuming connectedness, this is impossible.

Therefore, the image of the function $d(a,\mathord\cdot):X\to\mathbb R$ contains the interval $(0,d(a,b))$, and this can only happen if $X$ is uncountable.

Even if useless, this is a pretty result :)

share|improve this answer
The question wasn't asking to prove the result. –  Dustan Levenstein Jan 5 '12 at 2:32
The OP seems to indicate that he has already proved it, but is now looking for "non-trivial examples." I am not sure what the question is. –  Jonas Meyer Jan 5 '12 at 2:33
I do not wish to +1 as I believe it would be done for the sake of me going against the downvotes, and +'s should only be used when genuinely that user has made a good comment. However, I don't think the post warrants downvotes as it's hardly fair to say you've never posted an answer without entirely reading a question (or maybe you have never, in which case you should give yourself a pat on the back). –  Adam Jan 5 '12 at 3:18
Alos, this isn't a comment at anybody in particular I just think people are very fast at -voting good hearted (?) mistakes. –  Adam Jan 5 '12 at 3:19
@Adam: Downvoting an answer isn't a moral judgement on the answerer. It is a judgement that the answer is not a good answer. –  Chris Eagle Jan 5 '12 at 19:44

Call those two points $x_1$ and $x_2$. So $d(x_1,x_2)>0$.

What is the set $\{d(x_1,x) : x\in A\}$? Does it contain all numbers between $0$ and $d(x_1,x_2)$? If so, then you have at least as many points $x\in A$ as numbers between $0$ and $d(x_1,x_2)$. If not, then some number $c$ between $0$ and $d(x_1,x_2)$ is not the distance between any point $x\in A$ and $x_1$. So consider the two sets $$ \{x\in A : d(x_1,x)<c\}\text{ and }\{x\in A : d(x_1,x)>c\}. $$ Those are disjoint open subsets of $A$ whose union is all of $A$, so $A$ would not be connected.

share|improve this answer
Serial downvoting at work. This had two points; not it's quickly down to 0 along with simultaneous downvotes on five of my postings. I trust my cowardly stalker who's been following me for maybe about a week now will not raise his head above water. Cowards don't do that. –  Michael Hardy Jul 10 '14 at 19:30
The serial downvoting has gotten a little out of hand the last few months. I've been on the receiving end on several occasions the last two or three months. I think the SE team needs to enforce commenting on downvoted answers (and the comment must remain in order for the downvote to stick). –  Cameron Williams Jul 15 '14 at 17:51
@MichaelHardy: I am the only downvote on this answer, and I haven't downvoted anything else in the last two weeks, apart from another answer to this question. (I downvoted this answer because the question was not asking for a proof) –  Ben Millwood Jul 18 '14 at 12:03

Well, I don't have any interesting examples of connected metric spaces which are not immediately obviously uncountable, but here's a stronger theorem:

Every countable regular $T_1$ with at least two points is disconnected.

There are a couple of ways to prove this that I know of; a separation of two arbitrary points can be built successively by taking bigger and bigger disjoint open sets around them with disjoint closures. Alternatively, it can be shown that such a space is necessarily normal, and then Urysohn's lemma can be used to show that any two points are separated.

It is tricky to come up with an example of a countably infinite space which is regular and $T_1$, but not metric (ie, a space which confirms that this theorem really is stronger than the one you gave). I'll withhold my examples for now, in case you decide you want to tackle that problem yourself. As t.b. mentioned in the comments, there are countable Hausdorff connected spaces; that is a more difficult problem to figure out, if you haven't already followed the link.

share|improve this answer

There may be situations I am unaware of, but I don't think the standard setting is to have a metric space $(X,d)$, where you know $X$ is connected under $d$, and that there are at least two distinct points in $X$, but don't already know the space is uncountable (and care!). I think it would be far more likely to know that $X$ is at most countable, and then we would know the space must be disconnected, regardless of the metric we choose to use.

For example, for those that haven't seen Ostrowski's theorem, and have no idea what metrics can be placed on $\mathbb{Q}$, your result immediately shows it is impossible to construct a metric under which $\mathbb{Q}$ is a connected metric space. (That's not to say it's a bad idea to get your hands dirty, try to build a metric $d'$ so that $(\mathbb{Q},d')$ is a connected metric space, and see what goes wrong!)

One could then see this as an argument to construct $\mathbb{R}$ from $\mathbb{Q}$, since no matter what metric we use, there are holes.

I suppose one could also say, if there is a topology $\tau$ on $\mathbb{Q}$ so that $(\mathbb{Q},\tau)$ is a connected topological space, then we also know that this space is not metrizable. I don't know if this is a particularly useful point of view though..

Of course these are only examples using $\mathbb{Q}$ to illustrate the point, and the same holds for far more odd 'looking' at most countable spaces, where it may be far less intuitive that there are no metrics to make the space a connected metric space.

share|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.