1
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to prove the following statement. Consider the topological space (X,$\tau$) with $E_1,E_2 \subseteq X$. Both $E_1$ and $E_2$ are connected, moreover $E_1 \cap Closure(E_2) \neq \emptyset$. Then it follows that $E_1 \cup E_2$ is connected as well.

I'm struggling to find a proof, here there's my approach.

I pick a point $p \in E_1 \cap Closure(E_2)$. Then we have that for all neighborhood U of p: $U \subseteq E_1$, and also for all neighborhood V of p we have $V \cap E_2 \neq \emptyset$. I know that somehow I have to use the fact that they are connected, but I do not know how. Any tips?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Here are two hints that should get you through. You should prove both of them.

Let $E\subseteq X$ be connected, and $A\subseteq X$ be any set such that $E\subseteq A\subseteq \operatorname{cl}(E)$. Then $A$ is connected.

and

Let $E_1,E_2\subseteq X$ be connected such that $E_1\cap E_2 \neq \emptyset$. Then $E_1\cup E_2$ is connected.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Suppose $E:= E_1 \cup E_2 = C \cup D$ where both $C$ and $D$ are closed and open in $E$ and disjoint. $E_2$ is connected and we can write $E_2 = (C \cap E_2) \cup (D \cap E_2)$ so as $E_2$ is connected, this must be the trivial decomposition, and $C \cap E_2 = E_2$, (or equivalently $E_2 \subseteq C$) and $D \cap E_2 = \emptyset$ (or the other way around, but then rename $C$ and $D$). From $E_2 \subseteq C$ we conclude that $\overline{E_2} \subseteq C$ as well.

Now let $p \in E_1 \cap \overline{E_2}$. So $p \in C$ by the above. We have as above $E_1 = (C \cap E_1) \cup (D \cap E_1)$ as a decomposition and we just showed $E_1 \cap C \neq \emptyset$, so $C \cap E_1 = E_1$ by connectedness of $E_1$ and so $E_1 \subseteq C$ and so $C=E$ and the original decomposition for $E$ is trivial as well, QED.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $E=E_1\cup E_2$ is not connected, there exist open subsets $U_1,U_2$ of $X$ such that $U_1\cap E$ and $U_2\cap E$ are not empty and $U_1\cap U_2\cap E$ is empty.

We have $E_i=E_i\cap (E\cap U_1)\cup E_i\cap (E\cap U_2), i=1,2$ since $E_1$ is connected we deduce that either $E_1\cap (E\cap U_1)$ is not empty and $E_1\cap (E\cap U_2)$ is empty or $E_1\cap (E\cap U_2)$ is not empty and $E_1\cap (E\cap U_1)$.

Without restricting the generality, suppose that $E_1\cap (E\cap U_1)$ is not empty and $E_1\cap (E\cap U_2)$ is empty,

if $E_2\cap (E\cap U_1)$ is not empty we deduce that $E_2\cap (E\cap U_2)$ is empty since $E_2$ is connected and $E\subset U_1$ contradiction since $E\cap U_2$ is not empty and $E\cap U_1\cap U_2$ is empty.

Suppose that $E_2\cap (E\cap U_1)$ is empty, then $E_2\subset U_2\cap E$, this implies that $E_1\cap E_2\subset E\cap U_1\cap U_2$. Remark that the complementary of $E\cap U_2$ in $E$ is $E\cap U_1$ we deduce that $E_2\cap U_2$ is closed in $E$, $cl(E_2)\cap E$ is the adherence of the closed subset $E_2$ in $E$ which is contained in the closed subset $U_2\cap E$ of $E_2$, we deduce that $cl(E_2)\cap E\subset U_2\cap E_2$ and we have $cl(E_2)\cap E_1\subset E\cap U_1\cap U_2$, contradiction since $cl(E_2)\cap E_1$ is not empty and $E\cap U_1\cap U_2$ is empty.

$\endgroup$

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.