3
$\begingroup$

Let $p:Y\to X$ be a covering space. If $X$ is Hausdorff, so is $Y$.

Hello,

I have a question to this task. I want to show that $Y$ is a Hausdorff space. Hence for $y_1, y_2\in Y$ with $y_1\neq y_2$ have disjoint neighbourhoods.

I want to prove this:

Let $p:Y\to X$ be a covering space. $y_1, y_2\in Y$, with $y_1\neq y_2$. $x_1:=p(y_1)$ and $x_2:=p(y_2)$. Then exist open sets $x_1\in U_1\subseteq X$ and $x_2\in U_2\subseteq X$, such that $p^{-1}(U_i)$ with $i=1,2$ is the disjoint union of open sets.

Hence there are open sets $y_1\in V_1\subseteq p^{-1}(U_1)$ and $y_2\in V_2\subseteq p^{-1}(U_2)$.

Claim: $V_1\cap V_2=\emptyset$.

I do not think, that this works... Is this approach any good? Do you have tips on how I can do better? Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: You never used the hypothesis that $X$ is Hausdorff. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Jun 13 '16 at 22:11
2
$\begingroup$

You need to break your proof up into two parts.

Suppose $x_1 \neq x_2$. We can choose $U_1$ and $U_2$ to be disjoint, and so $p^{-1}(U_1)$ and $p^{-1}(U_2)$ will be disjoint (if they had a point $z$ in common, $p(z) \in U_1\cap U_2 = \emptyset$ which is impossible). Now you can take $V_1 = p^{-1}(U)$ and $V_2 = p^{-1}(U_2)$.

Suppose $x_1 = x_2$; call this point $x$. Let $U$ be an evenly covered open neighbourhood of $x \in X$, then $p^{-1}(U) \cong \bigsqcup_{\alpha} U_{\alpha}$ where $p|_{U_{\alpha}} : U_{\alpha} \to U$ is a homeomorphism. Suppose $y_1 \in U_{\beta_1}$ and $y_2 \in U_{\beta_2}$, then it follows that $\beta_1 \neq \beta_2$. To see this, suppose $\beta_1 = \beta_2$; call this value $\beta$. As $p|_{U_{\beta}}$ is a homeomorphism and $p|_{U_{\beta}}(y_1) = p|_{U_{\beta}}(y_2)$, we have $y_1 = y_2$; this is a contradiction as $y_1$ and $y_2$ were assumed to be distinct. As $\beta_1 \neq \beta_2$, we can take $V_1 = U_{\beta_1}$ and $V_2 = U_{\beta_2}$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Error404: Right, I overlooked that. I will edit accordingly. $\endgroup$ – Michael Albanese Sep 10 '18 at 13:36
0
$\begingroup$

Hint:

First case $x_1\neq x_2$, since $X$ is separated, there exists $U_1,U_2$ open neighborhoods of respectively $x_1$ and $x_2$ such that $U_1\cap U_2$ is empty. $p^{-1}(U_1)\cap p^{-1}(U_2)$ is empty and $y_1\in p^{-1}(U_1), y_2\in p^{-1}(U_2)$.

Second case $x_1=x_2=x$, since $p$ is a covering, there exists a neighborhoo $U$ of $x$ such that for every $y\in p^{-1}(x)$, there exists a neighborhood $V_y$ such that the restriction of $p$ to $V_y$ is an homeomorphism $p_{\mid V_y}:V_y\rightarrow U$, and $V_{y_1}\cap V_{y_2}$ is empty by definition.

$\endgroup$

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.