2
$\begingroup$

I know what does connectedness mean theorically but I'm facing some difficulties trying to understand its concept it's too abstract for me

can someone provide a trivial/simple example of a set that is connected and/or explain me the concept of connectedness like I'm five.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know the definition of disconnectedness? $\endgroup$ – Arpit Kansal Mar 18 '17 at 10:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Any interval is connected. Any cartesian product of intervals is connected. Any set defined in $\Bbb R^n$ by the points of a continuous curve (in a connected domain) is connected. $\endgroup$ – Masacroso Mar 18 '17 at 10:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Arpit Kansal No I first read it as 'connectedness' sorry going to google it $\endgroup$ – rapidracim Mar 18 '17 at 10:43
7
$\begingroup$

$[0,1]$ is a good example of a connected space.

$[0,1] \cup [2,3]$ is a good example of a disconnnected space.

Intuitively, $[0,1] \cup [2,3]$ is disconnected because it has a "gap" in the middle. $[0,1]$ has no gap.

Perhaps the most intuitive definition of connectedness is the following: A topological space $X$ is connected iff there are no continuous maps $f : X \to \{ 0, 1 \}$ apart from the two obvious constant maps, $f(x) = 0$ and $f(x) = 1$. Said another way, $X$ is connected iff there are no continuous surjective maps $f : X \to \{ 0, 1 \}$.

You'll notice that, indeed, the only continuous maps $f: [0,1] \to \{ 0, 1\}$ are the maps $f(x) = 0$ and $f(x) = 1$. This follows from the Intermediate Value theorem.

However, there is a continuous map $f : [0,1] \cup [2,3] \to \{ 0, 1 \}$ given by $$ f(x) = \begin{cases} 0 & x \in [0,1]; \\ 1 & x \in [2,3].\end{cases}$$ So $[0,1] \cup [2,3]$ is disconnected, by my definition. Intuitively, the "gap" in the set $[0,1] \cup [2,3]$ is precisely the feature that enables us to define a continuous map to $\{0, 1\}$ in this way!

But how does my definition relate to the usual definition of connectedness? The usual definition is: $X$ is connected iff it is impossible to write $X$ as a disjoint union of two non-empty open subsets.

Well, suppose $X$ is disconnected by my first definition. Then there exists a surjective map $f: X \to \{ 0, 1\}$. But then, $X$ is the disjoint union of the non-empty open sets $f^{-1}(0)$ and $f^{-1}(1)$.

Conversely, suppose $X$ is disconnected by your usual definition, i.e. $X$ can be written as a disjoint union of the non-empty open sets $U$ and $V$. Then the function $X \to \{ 0, 1\}$ sending $U$ to $0$ and $V$ to $1$ is a surjective, continuous function from $X$ to $\{ 0, 1\}$.

In our example of $X = [0,1] \cup [2,3]$, the two non-empty, disjoint open subsets are $U = [0,1]$ and $V = [2,3]$. (Note that $U$ and $V$ are open when considered as subsets of $X$, but are not open when considered as subsets of $\mathbb R$.) Our example of a surjective continuous function $f: X \to \{0, 1\}$ sends $U$ to $0$ and $V$ to $1$.

$\endgroup$

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.