2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to connect the definition of dense in a total ordered set

Def. 1 Given total order $(X,\le)$, a set $S\subseteq X$ is dense in $X$ if for any $x,x'\in S$ such that $x<x'$, there is $y\in S$ such that $x<y<x'$.

with the definition of dense-in-itself in a order topology (induced by the same total order)

Def. 2 Given the order topology $(X,\tau)$ with total order $\le$, a set $S\subseteq X$ without isolated points is called dense-in-itself.

The comparison is taken from the answer: dense in terms of order and in terms of the order topology, and is formulated as

Lemma 1. Given a totally ordered set $(X,\le)$ then $S\subseteq X$ in the induced order topology is dense-in-itself according to Definition 2 if and only if $S$ is dense according to Definition 1.

Proof. If $S$ is dense-in-itself then it has no isolated points and consists only of limit points. Given any two $x,x'\in S$ such that $x<x'$, then $(x,x')$ is not empty because (*)

On the other side, if $S$ is dense according to the total order definition, suppose that $S$ has an isolated point, that is, there is an open set containing only $x$, which contradicts Lemma ??? (the order topology consists of unions of open intervals and rays).

Is the Lemma true? How do I proceed with the proof at point (*)? Intuitively it is clear: To have a hole with $x$ and $x'$ on its ends and $x,y\in S$ then $S$ cannot be open. Should I add the condition that $S\in\tau$ to make the Lemma valid? From the answer in the cited question it seems to be the case, but I need anyway to understand how to prove it because the argument "Since X is dense in terms of topology, there is an x in (a,b)" is not enough for me to understand.

The starting point of the reasoning was to connect the definition of dense according to a total order and this third definition:

Def. 3 Given a topological space $(X,\tau)$, subset $S\subseteq X$ is said to be dense if $\bar{S}=X$. Generally given a subset $D\subseteq S$, $D$ is said to be dense in $S$ if $S\subseteq \bar{D}$.

If I take literally "dense-in-itself" and apply it to Def. 3 I would get the following lemma

Lemma 2

$S\subseteq X$, $S$ is dense-in-itself if and only if $S\subseteq\bar{S}$.

which is wrong since the r.h.s. is always true. It cannot be that all (let restrict it to) open set are dense in order topology?

How are connected Definitions 2 and 3?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Definition: two points $x < x^+$ in a linearly ordered space $(X,<)$ form a jump when $(x,x^+) =\emptyset$, i.e. there are no $z \in X$ with $x < z < x^+$.

In a linear space $(X,<)$ if $S$ is order-dense (def. 1) then $S$ is topologically dense ($\overline{S} =X$ in the order topology $\mathcal{T}_{<}$), and the reverse holds when $(X,<)$ has no jumps.

Proof: If $S$ is order dense, let $U$ be a basic open set of $(X,\mathcal{T}_{<})$; this means that $U = [a,b)$ where $a = \min(X)$ (if it exists) and $b \in X$, or $U = (a,b)$ where $a < b, a,b \in X$ or $U = (a,b]$ where $b=\max(X)$ (if it exists) and $a \in X$. $S$ being order dense implies that there is some $z \in X$ with $a < z < b$, and in all cases this shows that $U \cap S \neq \emptyset$, so that $S$ is topologically dense in $(X,\mathcal{T}_{<})$.

If $X$ has no jumps and $S$ is topologically dense in $(X, \mathcal{T}_{<})$ and $a < b, a,b \in X$, then we know that $U = (a,b)$ is non-empty and open in $\mathcal{T}_{<}$ so that $S \cap U \neq \emptyset$, which says that $S$ is order dense.

A space like $X = [0,1] \cup [2,3]$ in the inherited order is dense in itself in the order topology but $S:= X \cap \mathbb{Q}$ is dense topologically, but not order dense as no point of $S$ lies between $1$ and $2$.

The same holds for $\mathbb{Q} \times \{0,1\}$ in the Double Arrow space $[0,1]\times \{0,1\}$ (in the lexicographic order, and its induced topology), or the endpoints of the Cantor set $C$ (as the usual subset of $[0,1]$), which is countable dense (topologically) but not in the order sense, $C$ having infinitely many jumps.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In the first sentence you means "form" instead of "for" I think. I cannot edit it. $\endgroup$ – PeptideChain Jul 17 '18 at 8:48
  • $\begingroup$ @PeptideChain so edited. ta. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Jul 17 '18 at 8:49
  • $\begingroup$ You have connected "my" two definitions 1 and 3. One point/argument I miss (and is also given in my first question) is a justification (intermediate step) of the implication $(a,b)\in\tau\land \overline{S}=X\to(a,b)\cap S\neq\varnothing$, corresponding to your paragraph "If $X$ has no jumps....is order dense". $\endgroup$ – PeptideChain Jul 17 '18 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ It can/must be some triviality but I do not get it, yet. $\endgroup$ – PeptideChain Jul 17 '18 at 12:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeptideChain see this question for that fact. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Jul 17 '18 at 12:54
2
$\begingroup$

Without further assumptions, none of these three definitions implies either of the other two, even when considering just subsets of $\mathbb{R}$.

You are entirely correct that "dense-in-itself" when interpreted in the sense of definition $3$ is trivial: every topological space is closed in itself, so every set is dense in its subspace topology. Since there are subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ that do not satisfy definitions $1$ and $2$, $3$ does not imply $1$ or $2$ or vice-versa.

Specific examples can be used to show that neither $1$ or $2$ imply each other as well. We begin by showing that $1$ fails to imply $2$. To see this, consider the singleton set $\{0\}$ as a subspace of $\mathbb{R}$. This set has an isolated point, but is trivially dense-in-itself in the sense of definition $1$. This set also demonstrates that connectivity is not enough to guarantee that $1$ implies $2$.

To see that $2$ does not imply $1$, take $X = [0,1] \cup [2,3]$ as a subspace of $\mathbb{R}$. Here, $X$ is totally ordered by the standard order on $\mathbb{R}$ and has no isolated points, hence satisfies definition $2$. However, $1 < 2$ but there are no points between $1$ and $2$. Thus $X$ does not satisfy definition $1$. Definition $1$ can fail quite dramatically when definition $2$ is satisfied, in fact: the Cantor set offers an example of a subset of $[0,1]$ with no isolated points but with infinitely many points $x, y$ with $x < y$ and no points in between.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The space $X=(0,1)\cup \{5\},$ as a subpace of $\Bbb R,$ is not even a linear space. No linear order on $X$ can generate the subspace topology. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Jul 17 '18 at 6:17
  • $\begingroup$ Good catch. I fixed it by replacing with the singleton example. Are there better examples of this you know of? $\endgroup$ – Alex Nolte Jul 17 '18 at 10:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for the counterexamples. The spirit of my question is more to connect the definitions, as noted in my first sentence: exactly the further assumptions you have mentioned in your first sentence. $\endgroup$ – PeptideChain Jul 17 '18 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ My comment about $X=(0,1)\cup \{5\}$ was not meant as a criticism of your A. It is obvious that its subspace topology is strictly stronger than its order topology, with the usual order, but not obvious that NO linear order on $X$ will induce the subspace topology. In contrast to the subspace $Y=[0,1)\cup \{5\},$ whose order topology is strictly weaker, but as a subspace. $Y$ is homeomorphic to $\{-5\}\cup [0,1),$ whose subspace & order topologies co-incide. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Jul 17 '18 at 16:06

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.