0
$\begingroup$

A space $X$ is said to be weakly locally connected at $x$ if for every neighborhood of $x$, there is a connected subspace of $X$ contained in $U$ that contains a neighborhood of $x$. Show that if $X$ is weakly locally connected at each of its points, then $X$ is locally connected.(hint: Show that components of open sets are open.)

Proving the hint:

Let, $C$ be a component of a open set of $X$. Let $x\in C$. Now, let $U$ be any neighborhood of $x$, then being weakly locally connected, you can find another nbh. of $x$ which contains inside a connected subspace, hence that nbh is also connected open in $X$. This is true for each $x$. Hence $C$ must be open set.

But, how this proves the main result? Thanks.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Wikipedia says that this is not true, see here. Specifically, it gives the counterexample of the infinite broom. $\endgroup$ – user477805 Sep 21 '17 at 23:26
  • $\begingroup$ @user477805 "infinite broom" is weakly locally connected at a single point, not at all point in its space. So "infinite broom" can not be a counterexample. $\endgroup$ – topology_001 Sep 22 '17 at 2:22
  • $\begingroup$ @user477805 This is a problem from Munkres. I can not verify something true or false since I just started reading Topology. Unfortunately, you are the only person wrote a comment! $\endgroup$ – topology_001 Sep 22 '17 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand why nobody has wrote anything. Am I asking a wrong question? $\endgroup$ – topology_001 Sep 22 '17 at 2:27
  • $\begingroup$ The proof of the hint is not complete. You have to use the definition of a component etc. See the proof of the hint I gave. That the hint is sufficient follows from 25.3 $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Sep 23 '17 at 6:27
3
$\begingroup$

The fact that $X$ is locally connected iff for all open subsets $O$ of $X$, all components of $O$ (as a subspace) are open in $O$ (and $X$ too), should be known to you. It's Munkres theorem 25.3

So we will show $X$ to be locally connected using the right to left direction of this theorem.: let $O$ be open in $X$ and let $C$ be a component of $O$ (in the subspace topology).

Let $x \in C$. Then $x \in O$ and $O$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ so by assumption of weak locally connectedness there is a connected set $C_x \subseteq O$ such that $x \in \operatorname{int}(C_x)$ (as $C_x$ is a a neighbourhood of $x$).

Then $C$ and $C_x$ are both connected subsets of $O$ that intersect (in $x$) so $C \cup C_x$ is also a connected subset of $O$. As $C$ is a component of $O$ and as such is a maximally connected subset of $O$,

$$C \cup C_x = C \text{ so } x \in \operatorname{int}(C_x) \subseteq C$$

showing finally that $x$ is an interior point of $C$. As this holds for all $x \in C$, $C$ is open, as required.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ +1 i enjoyed ur answer @henno sir $\endgroup$ – Lily Apr 12 '18 at 8:37
  • $\begingroup$ @HennoBrandsma As the definition of local connectedness in Munkres is 'A space $X$ is said to be locally connected at $x$ if for every neighborhood $U$ of $x$, there is a connected neighborhood $V$ of $x$ contained in $U$, may I ask that what's the difference between the definition of local connectedness and weak local connectedness? $\endgroup$ – Wembley Inter Nov 19 '18 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ @HennoBrandsma In fact, I notice the definiton of local connectedness on Wikipedia is different from Munkres's. Moreover, the next excercise in Munkres, I believe to be wrong if using the definition of local connectedness in Munkres and hold only when using the definition of Wikipedia. I wonder which is actually the correct definition of local connectedness? $\endgroup$ – Wembley Inter Nov 20 '18 at 0:30
1
$\begingroup$

From the fact that the connected components of opens are open then given a point $x \in X$ and an open neighbourhood $ X \supset U \ni x $ then given the connected components of $x$ inside $U$, it is an open connected subset containing $x$, so a connected open neighbourhood, and then $X$ is locally connected in $x$.

Note that the key property used to showing the hint lies in the fact that weakly locally connected in $x$ means that you can find, for every open neighbourhood of $x$, a subset of that neighbourhood such that it is connected and such that $x$ is an interior point of that subset.

As said in wikipedia's article, there are spaces which are weakly locally connected in a point but not locally connected in that point, e.g. the infinite broom (here is why ). But I want to make a clarification about this space: why it is not weakly locally connected?

One can argue as this: "It cannot be, because it is not locally connected and we have the just-prooved theorem which would return a contradiction".

This is ok, but then we can try to find which are the points of this infinite broom, in which the space is not weakly locally connected.

So, which is a point in this space such that it is not weakly locally connected there?

Let's take a point $a_n , n>1$, then there exists $r \in \mathbb{R}^+$ such that $a_{n-1}-a_n > r$ and $a_n - a_{n+1}>r$. Now we can take a ball centered in $a_n$ and of radius $0<\epsilon < r$, $B_\epsilon$ , then we want to show that there cannot be a connected subset of this open ball such that $a_n$ is an interior point of this subset. This can be done by noting that if $a_n$ is an interior point of this hypothetic connected subset, say $N$, then it means that there is an open set contained in $N$ which contains $a_n$. But which are the opens of the infinite broom? They are obviously intersection of the infinite broom with open balls of $\mathbb{R}^2$, and so if we do this intersections with balls contained in $B_\epsilon$ then we have that $N$, if it exists, contains at least one of this intersections, which, by construction (note that $0<\epsilon<r$) are made of parts of the broom from $a_n$ but also some stalks of the broom of $a_{n-1}$, but not the complete $n-1$th-broom. In particular there cannot be such $N$, because if it exists, it needs to contain the connected component of the $n-1$th-broom, which is an absurd by the choice of $\epsilon$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.