I tried to do this by contradiction.

So we have that $(X, \tau_2)$ is Hausdorff, and $\tau_2 \subset \tau_1$.

Suppose that $(X, \tau_1)$ was not Hausdorff. Then we have elements $y,z \in X$ where $z\neq y $ and two open sets, call them $U$ and $W$ where $y \in U$, $z \in W$ and $U \cap W \neq \emptyset$.

I'm kinda stuck here, I wanna use that $\tau_1$ is finer than $\tau_2$ somehow, but I can't really figure it out.

Any help would be great!

  • $\begingroup$ What is the definition of finer? $\endgroup$ – graydad Jan 28 '15 at 23:43
  • $\begingroup$ @graydad Actually... that's a great question. I should have looked up that definition before asking the question, which makes my question seem a bit stupid now... I'll edit and provide an answer. $\endgroup$ – Jan Jan 28 '15 at 23:45
  • $\begingroup$ when you see the definition, you should have no trouble getting it :) $\endgroup$ – graydad Jan 28 '15 at 23:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Jan You don't know the definition? Then were did $\tau_2\subset \tau_1$ come from? $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Jan 28 '15 at 23:46
  • $\begingroup$ Contradiction not needed, we need to show that for any $x$, $y$ with $x\ne y$, there are $U$ and $V$ in in $\tau_1$ such that $\dots$. There are such $U$ and $V$ in $\tau_2$, and by "finer" these are in $\tau_1$. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Jan 29 '15 at 0:25

if one topology is finer then for $x,y\in X$ you can take the same open sets that are disjoint neighbourhoods of $x$ and $y$ in both topologies.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, from what I have... this contradictions my assumption that $(X, \tau_2)$ is Hausdorff because if $(X, \tau_1)$ is not Hausdorff, then it's impossible for $(X, \tau_2)$ to be Hausdorff as well. $\endgroup$ – Jan Jan 28 '15 at 23:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.