1
$\begingroup$

Problem: Suppose $A \subset M$ is connected where $M$ is a metric space. Show that $A, \emptyset $ are the only subsets of $A$ that are clopen relative to $A$.

My thoughts:

The empty set is always open and closed. Since $M$ is closed and open, and $A=A \cap M$, then $A$ is open relative to $A$ (and similarly closed).

Now supposing there was another clopen set $U \neq \emptyset, A$, Then I am imagining I need to use $U$ and $U^c$ to show that there is a separation of $A$. My definition of a separation is that $A = U \cup U^C$ where $U \cap closure(U^c) = \emptyset$ and $closure(U) \cap U^c = \emptyset$ which would contradict that $A$ is connected.

If $U$ is clopen relative to $A$, then there exists $V$ open in $M$ with $U=V \cap A$, and $W$ closed with $U=W\cap A$, how can I show $U \cap closure(U^c) = \emptyset$ and $closure(U) \cap U^c = \emptyset$ ?

Edit: Worth noting this problem has been asked many times but not with relative topology :)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You are on the right track. You have a non-empty $U\subset A$ and by assumption, $U$ is clopen. That means $U^c$ is also clopen. Therefore, $A=U\cup U^c$. Since both $U$ and $U^c$ are open , $U$ is non-empty and $A$ is connected, $U^c$ must be empty which means $U=A$. $\endgroup$ – John Douma May 27 '18 at 18:43
  • $\begingroup$ $U$ and $U^c$ are open in $M$ or the relative topology? It seems to me they are not necessarily open in $M$. $\endgroup$ – IntegrateThis May 27 '18 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ $M$ doesn't have to be connected. We are only interested in sets that are clopen relative to $A$. $\endgroup$ – John Douma May 27 '18 at 18:47
  • $\begingroup$ Yes but what I am saying is that $U, U^c$ are only clopen relative to A, not shown to be open in $M$, which means your use of $A$'s connectedness won't work I believe. A is connected in $M$ after all. Perhaps I am confused. $\endgroup$ – IntegrateThis May 27 '18 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ In reading the entry on relative topology mathworld.wolfram.com/RelativeTopology.html I see that a set can be open in the relative topology and not the overall topology. $\endgroup$ – IntegrateThis May 27 '18 at 18:55
1
$\begingroup$

Note: I'm going to use a bar over a set to represent closure. (Thus the closure of $U$ is $\overline U$.) Also, complements will always be relative to $A$, but open/closedness relative to $M$ (matching the usage in your question).

$U^c = V^c \cap A$, so $U^c \subset V^c$, thus $\overline {U^c} \subset \overline {V^c} =V^c$ (since $V^c$ is closed). Thus $\overline {U^c} \cap V = \varnothing$, so $\overline {U^c} \cap U = \overline {U^c} \cap V \cap A = \varnothing$.

Similarly, since $U \subset W$, $\overline {U} \subset \overline {W} =W$, so $\overline U \cap W^c = \varnothing$. $U^c = W^c \cap A$, thus $\overline {U} \cap U^c = \overline {U} \cap W^c \cap A = \varnothing$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Great ! thanks so much. $\endgroup$ – IntegrateThis May 28 '18 at 4:45
1
$\begingroup$

You don't need to use closure, and as you are working relative to $A$, you can forget about $M$ and work in $A$.

Suppose you have a clopen $U\subset A$. Then $U^c$ (relative to $A$) is also clopen. We now have $A=U\cup U^c$, with $U\cap U^c=\varnothing$. As both $U$ and $U^c$ are open and $A$ is connected, this means $U=\varnothing$ or $U^c=\varnothing$. Thus $U=\varnothing$ or $U=A$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $U$ and $U^c$ are only open relative to $A$, not necessarily open in $M$, the definition of connected in $M$ is that there are not two open sets that separate $A$ in $M$ I believe. $\endgroup$ – IntegrateThis May 27 '18 at 18:47
  • $\begingroup$ On Wikipedia you can find that "A subset of a topological space $X$ is a connected set if it is a connected space when viewed as a subspace of $X$." I'm pretty sure that means $U$ and $U^c$ have to be open relative to $A$. (I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but this definition is the same as in my lecture notes, which aren't in english.) $\endgroup$ – TitiMcMath May 27 '18 at 20:26
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting ok. So it seems I need to show some of my definitions are equivalent to other definitions. If no one else answers this today I will accept later on. Thx. $\endgroup$ – IntegrateThis May 27 '18 at 20:27

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.