2
$\begingroup$

Reference: Hocking and Young -Topology p.54

I need to state some definitions and theorems to describe where I get stuck.

Definition

Let $p,q$ be points of a connected space $S$. We denote $E(p,q)$ the subset of $S$ consisting of the points $p$ and $q$ together with all cut points of $S$ that separates $p$ and $q$. The separation order in $E(p,q)$ is defined as follows. Let $x$ and $y$ be two points in $E(p,q)$. Then $x<y$ if either $x=p$ or $x$ separates $p$ and $y$ in $S$.

${}{}$

Theorem1. The separation order is a total ordering.

Theorem2. Let $S$ be a connected and $p,q$ be two points of $S$ such that $p\cup q$ is a proper subset of $E(p,q)$. Then the order topology is coarser than the subspace topology.

I understand these theorems but I have a trouble with the proof for the following theorem:

Theorem. Let $S$ be a compact connected Hausdorff space with just two non-cut points, $a$ and $b$. If $S=E(a,b)$, then the order topology defined by the order in $E(a,b)$ is the same as the topology in $S$.

Proof in the text:

Since open sets in the order tolology were shown to be open in $S$, we need only show that open sets in $S$ are unions of basis elements of the order topology. If this is not so, there is an open set $U$ in $S$ and a point $x$ in $U$, such that no order-basis element that contains $x$ lies in $U$. For verbal simplicity, suppose that $x$ is neither $a$ nor $b$, so that we need consider only basis elements of the form $(y,z)$. Using maximal principle, we obtain a collection of sets $(y_\alpha,z_\alpha)$, which is totally ordered by inclusion, and which has only $x$ as their intersection. The same is true of the sets $[y_\alpha,z_\alpha]$ and these are closed sets in $S$.

Why does the intesection contain only $x$? I have no idea why..

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

As shown in my answer to your previous question, there need not exist any such collection $(y_\alpha,z_\alpha)$ which is totally ordered by inclusion. However, you don't actually need them to be totally ordered; you only need them to be directed, so that the closed intervals $[y_\alpha,z_\alpha]$ (together with the set $S\setminus U$) have the finite intersection property. This is easy to arrange; in fact, you can just take the collection of all open intervals $(y,z)$ containing $x$.

By the way, there is a quicker way to state this argument. Let $T$ denote $S$ with the order topology; then Theorem 2 says that the identity map $S\to T$ is continuous. Since $S$ is compact and $T$ is Hausdorff, it follows automatically that it is a homeomorphism.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Oh right.. The identity map is definitely a homeomorphism. I don't understand why the author proved (and it is a false proof) it in such way. Thank you so much! $\endgroup$ – Rubertos Oct 25 '15 at 1:29
  • $\begingroup$ Well, (my corrected version of) their argument is just a (slightly convoluted) reformulation of the usual proof that a continuous bijection from a compact space to a Hausdorff space is a homeomorphism. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Oct 25 '15 at 1:30

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.