0
$\begingroup$

I'm studying General Topology by the book of James Munkres and there he defined connectedness this way:

"Let X be a topological space. A separation of X is a pair U, V of disjoint nonempty open subsets of X whose union is X. The space X is said to be connected if there does not exist a separation of X."

and then he says that "if X is connected, so is any space homeomorphic to X" and this implication it's an equivalent definition, but it doesn't clear for me why. I thought prove this implication by contrapositive, but I don't have idea how to prove this. Someone can help me to understand why?

Thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you quote what he actually says? $\endgroup$ – B. Pasternak Apr 17 '16 at 16:35
  • $\begingroup$ I edited my topic $\endgroup$ – George Apr 17 '16 at 16:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I read the thing you are referring to in his book, and he doesn't say anything about "an implication being an equivalent definition". He says that connectedness is a topological property, which it of course is, and a first argument he gives is that it is formulated entirely in terms of open sets. Then he mentions that it is a property preserved by homeomorphisms, which is a different way of saying that something is a topological property. $\endgroup$ – B. Pasternak Apr 17 '16 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ I understood now, I was thinking that is an equivalent definition of connectedness, thanks! $\endgroup$ – George Apr 17 '16 at 16:46
1
$\begingroup$

Let's prove "if $X$ is connected, then so is any space homeomorphic to $X$".

So let $X$ be connected, and let $Y$ be homeomorphic to $X$, which means there is a function $h: X \rightarrow Y$ that is 1-1, onto (so a bijection) such that $h$ and $h^{-1}$ are both continuous.

Suppose (for a contradiction) that $Y$ is not connected, so there exists a separation $U,V$ of $Y$. So $U,V$ are both non-empty and open in $Y$, disjoint and their union is $Y$.

Then by continuity of $h$, $h^{-1}[U]$ and $h^{-1}[V]$ are open, and as (for all functions) $\emptyset = h^{-1}[U \cap V] = h^{-1}[U] \cap h^{-1}[V]$, these sets are also disjoint, and also $X = h^{-1}[U \cup V] = h^{-1}[U] \cup h^{-1}[V]$, their union is $X$. Both are non-empty as $h$ is surjective.

So $h^{-1}[U],h^{-1}[V]$ are a partition of $X$ which cannot be, as $X$ is connected. Contradiction.

Note that we only need $h$ onto and continuous. Being 1-1 and the inverse being continuous are not needed. In fact, we showed that the continuous image of a connected space is connected, which is uusally one of the first things to prove about connectedness.

The remark from Munkres only meant to say, I think, that connectedness is entirely defined in terms of open sets and set theory (disjointness, union) and so will be a so-called topological property, so any space homeomorphic to it also has it. E.g. metric completeness is not such a property. I don;t think it was meant as an alternative definition at all, just a quick remark about the property being clearly a topological one.

$\endgroup$

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.