Given: $X$ Hausdorff, $K \subset X$ compact.

Show: If $p \in X \setminus K $, then there are disjoint $O_1, O_2$ such that, $p \in O_1$ and $K \subset O_2$ open.

My answer to this problem doesn't use the property of $K$ being compact, which makes me uncertain, whether my proof is correct.

Thus I would be happy, if someone could quickly proofread it.

My answer: Using $X$ Haussdorf: $\forall k \in K, \exists O_p , O_k \subset X$ open, such that $p \in O_p$ and $k \in O_k$ (1)

Thus $K \subset \bigcup\limits_{k \in K}^{} O_k = O_2$ union of open sets. Since $O_p$ and $O_k$ disjoint for any k, $O_p \cap O_2 = \emptyset \quad \square $

I guess my proof goes awry in (1), as I create a set $O_p$ for every $O_k$. Let's get four specific sets: $O_p$ for a $O_k$ and $O_{p'}$ for $O_{k'}$.

While $p \in O_p, O_{p'} $ and $O_p \cap O_k = \emptyset$, $O_{p'} \cap O_{k'}= \emptyset$, this does not imply $O_p \cap \cap O_{k'} = \emptyset = O_{k} \cap O_{p'} $ and I guess my proof breaks. However, what would be an example to further illustrate, that $K$ being compact is actually needed?

For sure there is a flaw in your proof. The issue is that $O_p$ depends on $k \in K$ in (1).

$\mathbb R^2$ equipped with the Euclidean norm is Haussdorf. Take for $K$ the open disk $D$ centered on $(1,0)$ of radius $1$ and for $p$ the origin. It is impossible to find $O_1, O_2$ as described in your question.

It's a bit easy to see why this breaks for open sets as per a previous answer. The harder part is finding how it breaks for closed, but not compact, sets. The guiding principle should be that you want a point that on the surface seems like an accumulation point but isn't and you want to search for a topology that fits that bill.

Take $\Bbb R$ with the topology generated by the usual open sets without countably many points. This means that the set $\left\{\frac{1}{n}: n\in \Bbb N\right\} $ is closed. Are there disjoint open sets separating this from $0$?

  • 1
    I'm very confused as to what topology you want to put on $\mathbb{R}$. – MartianInvader Jun 19 at 23:30
  • Take the usual open sets generated by open intervals, then take out countably many points from those. It's the cocountable topology. I didn't want to use that term in case OP wasn't familiar. – Cameron Williams Jun 20 at 1:00
  • 1
    @MartianInvader A very nice topology! – mathcounterexamples.net Jun 20 at 19:58
  • Although formally nothing is wrong with this, may I suggest you replace the "open" in your first sentence with "non-closed"? They way it is written now, it could reenforce the common "closed = opposite of open" misconception to beginners. – Torsten Schoeneberg Jun 23 at 21:32

The main flaw is that the neighbourhood of $p$ also depends on $k \in K$:

For each $k \in K$, we have that $p \neq k$ (as $p \notin K$) and so Hausdorffness of $X$ gives us open sets $U_k$ and $O_k$ such that

$$p \in U_k, k \in O_k ,U_k \cap O_k = \emptyset$$

Now, of course $K \subseteq \bigcup_{k \in K} O_k$ so we have an open cover of $K$ that, by compactness of $K$, we can reduce to finitely many $O_{k_1},\ldots, O_{k_n}$ such that $$K \subseteq O:=\bigcup_{i=1}^n O_{k_i}$$

Now define $$O_p = \bigcap_{i=1}^n U_{k_i}$$

which is an open neighbourhood of $p$ as a finite intersection of neighbourhoods of $p$. And if $x \in O$ it means that $x \in O_{k_i}$ for some $i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ but then $x \notin U_{k_i} \supseteq O_p$, so $x \notin O_p$ and so $O_p \cap O = \emptyset$.

It's clear that we cannot have this separation for any $K$ and $p \notin K$: any time $p \in \overline{K}\setminus K$ we will have that we cannot separate $p$ from $K$, almost by definition of closure.

Thanks to Hausdorffness $K$ is closed in $X$, as we saw above, and we can even extend Hausdorffness to points and disjojnt compact sets; even to compact sets and compact sets (when disjoint), beyond a point and a point.

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.