For any property p of topological spaces, p implies locally p.

topospaces.subwiki.org. Locally operator

Locally path-connected space … This property is obtained by applying the locally operator to the property: path-connected space

topospaces.subwiki.org. Locally path-connected space

This space is obviously path-connected, but it is not locally path-connected


This seems like a contradiction.

  • $\begingroup$ What is the question? $\endgroup$ – Keenan Kidwell Aug 4 '12 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Keenan Kidwell: Is there a contradiction, or I can't see something? If so, where does the contradiction lie (on what page)? $\endgroup$ – beroal Aug 5 '12 at 14:06

The definition in the first link: property $p$ holds locally if for each $x \in X$ there exists a neighborhood $U \ni x$ such that $p$ holds on $U$. Then it is obvious that if $p$ holds (on the full space) it will also hold locally, just take $U = X$. An example of such a property is compactness.

Now the definition of local (path-)connectedness uses a different (stronger) notion of "locally", as Yuki spelled out. In the first link this is called a "strongly locally operator".


Locally path-connected means that for every $x\in X$ and every neighbourhood $V$ of $x$, you can find an path-connected neighbourhood $U$ of $x$ such that $U\subset V$ (and not only "for each $x\in X$ there exists an path-connected neighbourhood of $x$").

Defining in this form, it's possible to have an path-connected space which isn't locally path-connected.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is called a strong local property in the link the OP gave. Interestingly, I was taught (and I think it is standard terminology) that what you gave is local path-connectedness and strong local path-connectedness means we can find an open path-connected neighbourhood below any neighbourhood. Confusingly, some authors (mostly in the European tradition) use local compactness in the sense of the OP. $\endgroup$ – Miha Habič Aug 4 '12 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ @MihaHabič: Thanks! =p I sincerely never have seen (or never noticed) any author giving both definitions, only the strong one (I've seen too few books... orz... and I used to think: "the weak one seems useless..."). I should pay more attention from now... =p $\endgroup$ – Yuki Aug 4 '12 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ Do I understand it correctly that the page with “This property is obtained by applying the locally operator” is mistaken? $\endgroup$ – beroal Aug 5 '12 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ @beroal: No, it's just convention. "Locally path-connected" is usually used to mean "strong locally path-conneced" (in the terminology of the page); but in that page, they defined both notions. $\endgroup$ – Yuki Aug 6 '12 at 2:09
  • $\begingroup$ “but in that page, they defined both notions” Both? I can't find both. Do you talk about the page with the name “Locally path-connected space”? $\endgroup$ – beroal Aug 7 '12 at 7:59

In this page they explain the difference. For an example of path-connected space which is not strongly locally path-connected, consider the subspace of $[0,1] \times [0,1]$ of points whose $y$ coordinate is rational with the subspace topology. It is path-connected (use a path going to $x$ coordinate $0$ or $1$ to connect two points), but a small enough neighborhood of a point with $x$-coordinate not equal to $0$ or $1$ will not have a path-connected neighborhood because intersecting an open ball (in $[0,1] \times [0,1]$) with this subspace will give you a bunch of small line segments very close to each other, but not path-connected.

Hope that helps,


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.