2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to prove that:

Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}$ be an open set, $K$ a bounded connected component of $\mathbb{C} \setminus \Omega$. If $\,\{p_n(z)\}$ is a sequence of polynomials that converges uniformly on every compact subset of $\Omega$, then it converges uniformly on $K$.

By the maximum modulus principle, it suffices to prove that there exists a compact set $C \subset \mathbb{C} \,$s.t.$\, K\subset C\,$and$\,\partial C\subset \Omega$.

I reduced this problem to the assertion below:

Suppose $X \subset \mathbb{C}$ is a closed set, not connected. Let $K,L\,$ be two distinct connected components of $X$. (One may assume that $K$ is bounded.) Assume that $K$ is bounded.

Then there exist two disjoint closed sets $Y, Z \subset X$ satisfying $$K \subset Y,\, L \subset Z, \,\text{and} \,\,X = Y \sqcup Z .$$

How can I show this? Thank you.

Edited: My final answer.

Lemma 1.

Let $X$ be a Hausdorff space and $K\subset X$ have a compact neighbourhood $T$. Then $K$ is a connected component of $X$ if and only if $K$ is a connected component of $T$.

Proof: See here. $\square$

Put $X = \mathbb{C} \setminus \Omega \cup \{\infty\} \subset S^2$. Then $X$ is compact and Hausdorff.

Take $R>0$ so large that $K\subset B(0,R)$. Applying the Lemma 1 to $T = X \cap \overline{B(0,R)}$ one can verify that $K$ is a connected component of $X$.

Let $L$ be the connected component of $X$ that contains $\infty$. Then clearly $K, L$ are distinct connected components of $X$. Regarding $K$ and $L$ as quasi-components of $X$, one can choose two disjoint closed sets $Y, Z \subset X$ satisfying $$K \subset Y,\, L \subset Z, \,\text{and} \,\,X = Y \sqcup Z .$$ Then both $Y$ and $Z$ are closed in $S^2$, and thus by normality there exists an open set $U$ s.t. $$Y\subset U \subset \overline{U} \subset S^2 \setminus Z.$$ Since $\infty \notin \overline{U}$, $\overline{U}$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{C}$. Moreover $\partial U \cap X = \emptyset$, i.e., $\partial U \subset \Omega$.

Then by maximum modulus theorem, we can show that $\{ p_n (z)\}$ is uniformly Cauchy on $K$!!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1537607/… $\endgroup$ – Robert Z Feb 28 '18 at 7:22
  • $\begingroup$ What is $Y?$ $\,\,$ $\endgroup$ – zhw. Feb 28 '18 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ Edited, thanks. $\endgroup$ – Hiro Wat Mar 1 '18 at 5:46
  • $\begingroup$ What you are trying to prove contradicts the fact that K is connected. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Mar 1 '18 at 5:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnBrevik The existence of such Y and Z was the problem. $\endgroup$ – Hiro Wat Mar 2 '18 at 9:49
1
$\begingroup$

The claim you are trying to prove is false. Below is an example in the case when both $K$ and $L$ are unbounded. [What I wrote initially was an attempt to simplify my example and I simplified it so much that $X$ became connected.]

The idea is that if $X$ is a metrizable topological space then the space $Q$ of connected components of $X$ equipped with the quotient topology, need not be Hausdorff. In particular, two elements $q_1, q_2\in Q$ may fail to be separated by a partition of $Q$ into two clopen subsets.

Now, the example. Let $K$ and $L$ be, respectively, the vertical lines $x=1, x=+1$ in the xy-plane. Let $G_n$ be a sequence of pairwise disjoint "U-shaped curves" in the strip $-1<x<1$, such that each $G_n$ is homeomorphic to ${\mathbb R}$ and equals the union of the two vertical rays $x=\pm(1 -\frac{1}{n}), y\ge -n$ and the horizontal interval $$ -1+\frac{1}{n}\le x\le 1 -\frac{1}{n}, y=-n. $$ (I might draw a picture if and when I have time.)

Let $$ X:= K\cup L \cup \bigcup_{n\in {\mathbb N}} G_n. $$ This space is clearly disconnected. Furthermore, $K, L, G_n (n\in {\mathbb N})$ are its connected components. On the other hand, suppose that $X=Y\sqcup Z$ is a partition of $X$ in two closed subsets containing $K$ and $L$ respectively. If $Y$ contains infinitely many of the curves $G_n$ then its closure contains both $K$ and $L$, which is impossible. Similarly, $Z$ cannot contain infinitely many of the curves $G_n$. Hence, $Y\cup Z$ cannot equal the entire $X$.

You can see that the space $Q$ of connected components of $X$ consists of two points $[K], [L]$ and a sequence $[G_n]$ which converges to both $[K]$ and $[L]$, making $Q$ non-Hausdorff.

Edit. Now, your modified question, has positive answer.

I will need the notion of a quasicomponent of a topological space. Recall that a subset of a topological space is called clopen if it is both closed and open. The quasicomponent $X_x$ of a point $x$ in a topological space $X$ is the intersection of all clopen subsets containing $x$. Equivalently, quasicomponents of $X$ are the equivalence classes of the equivalence relation $\sim$ on $X$, where $x\sim y$ if and only if there is no partition of $X$ in tow clopen subsets, one containing $x$ and the other containing $y$.

The component $C_x$ of $x$ in $X$ is always contained in the quasicomponent $X_x$, but, quasicomponents, are, in general, strictly larger than components. However, if $X$ is compact and Hausdorff, then quasicomponents in $X$ are equal to components, see for instance here.

Proposition. Suppose that $X$ is a compact Hausdorff topological space. Then for any two distinct quasicomponents $A, A'$ of $X$ there exist clopen subsets $U, U'\subset X$ such that $$ A\subset U, A'\subset U', X=U\sqcup U'. $$

Proof. By the definition of a quasicomponent, for any two points $a\in A, a'\in A'$ there exists a pair of disjoint clopen subsets $U, U'\subset X$ such that $a\in U, a'\in U'$ and $X=U\cup U'$. By connectedness of $A, A'$, it follows that $A\subset U, A'\subset U'$. Clearly, both $U, U'$ are clearly also closed. qed

Back to your original question, where $K$ is a compact connected component of a closed subset $X\subset R^n$ and $L$ is another component of $X$. If $X$ is compact, then simply use the above theorem. Suppose that $X$ is noncompact.

Lemma. $K$ is a quasicomponent of $X$.

Proof. Let $B$ be a sufficiently large closed round ball in $R^n$ whose interior contains $K$. Then $K$ is a component of $X_B:=B\cap X$, hence, a quasicomponent of $X_B$. Hence, $K$ is the intersection of all its clopen neighborhoods in $X_B$. By compactness of $K$, one of these clopen neighborhoods $U$ will be contained in the interior of $B$. Hence, $U$ is also clopen in $X$. Therefore, all clopen neighborhoods of $K$ in $X_B$ which are contained in $U$ are also clopen in $X$. Hence, $K$ equals the intersection of its clopen neighborhoods in $X$. qed

Lemma. Let $X$ be a closed subset of $R^n$, let $K, L$ be distinct connected components of $X$, where $K$ is compact. Then there exists a pair of clopen subsets $U, V\subset X$ such that
$$ K\subset U, L\subset V, X= U\sqcup V. $$

Proof. We just proved that $K$ is a quasicomponent of $X$. Since $L$ is connected and distinct from $K$, and $K$ is the intersection of its clopen neighborhoods, one of the clopen neighborhoods (say, $U$) of $K$ in $X$ will be disjoint from $L$. Thus, for $V:= X- U$, we obtain: $$ K\subset U, L\subset V, X= U\sqcup V $$ and $U, V$ are closed. qed

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think the $X$ in this example is connected. Indeed, unless I'm making a big oversight, if $X$ is disconnected we can write $X$ as a disjoint union $Y\cup Z$, $Y$ and $Z$ both open and closed in the relative topology. Since $X$ is assumed to be closed, $Y$ and $Z$ are already closed in the ambient space. Just be sure that $Y$ contains $K$, and $Z$ contains $L$ when you choose them. $\endgroup$ – John Brevik Mar 1 '18 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnBrevik: See the update. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Mar 1 '18 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ A nice counterexample, thank you. I edited. However is there any proof or disproof when K is bounded? My problem is the case in which K is bounded. $\endgroup$ – Hiro Wat Mar 1 '18 at 17:46
  • $\begingroup$ I think such an obstacle arises from the point at infinity; the closure of your example in the Riemann sphere has the only one connected component! I should replace $\mathbb{C}$ by $S^2$, perhaps. $\endgroup$ – Hiro Wat Mar 1 '18 at 18:23
  • $\begingroup$ @HiroWat: OK, I finally worked out a proof of the claim that you needed in the case when $K$ is bounded. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Mar 2 '18 at 1:02

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.