If we have a topological space $X$, consider the following:

Let $p \in X$. Then $\{p\}$ doesn't have any limit points because it's a single subset of $X$, so $\{p\}$ is closed.

Is this correct? So every single point subset in a given topological space is closed? Where are my mistakes?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In a metric topology every singleton set is closed. There are examples of non-metric topologies where this is not true, but they are ruled by usual regularity assumptions such as assuming a Haussdorf space. $\endgroup$ – kjetil b halvorsen Sep 28 '12 at 2:14
  • $\begingroup$ thank you for the reply, I know that but I can't see where I'm wrong in my reasoning. $\endgroup$ – user42912 Sep 28 '12 at 2:16
  • $\begingroup$ Does a singleton contain any other point in its neighborhood? I don't think so... $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Oct 12 '13 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ how we define a mathematical point? $\endgroup$ – sudhakaran gopalan Dec 25 '14 at 22:29

You might find the following useful:

A topological space $X$ is a $T_1$-space if whenever $x,y\in X$ with $x\ne y$, there is an open set $U$ such that $x\notin U$ and $y\in U$.

Proposition. $X$ is $T_1$ iff $\{x\}$ is closed for each $x\in X$.

Proof. Suppose first that $X$ is $T_1$, and let $x\in X$. Then for each $y\in X$ there is an open $U_y\subseteq X$ such that $y\in U_y$ and $x\notin U_y$. Let $U=\bigcup_{y\in X\setminus\{x\}}U_y$; then $U$ is open, and $U=X\setminus\{x\}$, so $\{x\}$ is closed. Now suppose that $x\in X$ and $\{x\}$ is closed. Then $U=X\setminus\{x\}$ is open, and if $x\ne y\in X$, then $U$ is an open set such that $x\notin U$ and $y\in U$. $\dashv$

There are many spaces that are not $T_1$. For example, let $X=\Bbb N$, for each $n\in\Bbb N$ let $$U_n=\{k\in\Bbb N:k<n\}\;,$$ and let $\tau=\{\Bbb N\}\cup\{U_n:n\in\Bbb N\}$; then $\langle X,\tau\rangle$ is a space that isn’t $T_1$. In fact, if $m,n\in X$ with $m,n$, and $U$ is any open set containing $n$, then $m\in U$ as well. Even simpler is the Sierpiński space, whose underlying set is $\{0,1\}$ and whose open sets are $\varnothing,\{1\}$, and $\{0,1\}$: there is no open set containing $0$ but not $1$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ So basically we can interpret $U_y \subseteq X$ as a set that doesn't exist, correct? $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Oct 12 '13 at 21:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Don: As it stands, that really doesn’t make sense. There are spaces $X$ containing points $x$ and $y$ such that every open nbhd of $y$ contains $x$, if that’s what you mean, but the symbol $U_y$ has no standard meaning, so it makes no sense to say that in some space it does or doesn’t exist. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Oct 13 '13 at 6:32

Let $X=\{1,2,3\}$. Let $\mathcal{T} = \{ \emptyset, \{1,2\}, \{1,2,3\} \} $. Then the set $\{ 2 \}$ is not closed. It is not open either.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ yes, I know we have counter examples, that's why I would like to know which part of my proof I made mistakes. $\endgroup$ – user42912 Sep 28 '12 at 2:30
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ "...$\{p\}$ doesnt have any limit points.." this is where you have a problem. In Scott's example $3$ is a limit point of $\{2\}$. $\endgroup$ – Mustafa Gokhan Benli Sep 28 '12 at 2:43
  • $\begingroup$ yes, of course, thank you all $\endgroup$ – user42912 Sep 28 '12 at 2:56
  • $\begingroup$ @MustafaGokhanBenli I am using the definition of limit points in Rudin Principles of Mathematical Analysis. Theorem 2.20 and related corollary give: Theorem: If p is a limit point of a set E, then every neighborhood of p contains infinitely many points of E. Corollary: A finite point set has no limit points. So how is 3 a limit point of {2}. Could you please clarify? $\endgroup$ – texmex Aug 7 at 8:18

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.