0
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space. If $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is continuous, closed, and surjective, prove that $Y$ is Hausdorff.

I'm wondering if/where the compactness of $X$ is needed. I have the following 'proof', but I'm rather skeptical as it doesn't depend on the compactness of $X$. Where is the mistake in my proof?

Proof: Let $y_1,y_2\in Y$ be distinct. Then there are $x_1,x_2\in X$ such that $f(x_i)=y_i$. Since $X$ is Hausdorff, there exist disjoint open neighborhoods $U_1, U_2$ of $x_1$ and $x_2$, respectively. As $f$ is closed, $f(X\backslash U_i)\subseteq Y$ are also closed. Thus, if $V_i:=Y\backslash f(X\backslash U_i)$, then $V_1$ and $V_2$ are disjoint open neighborhoods of $y_1$ and $y_2$, respectively, where disjointness follows from \begin{align*} Y\backslash( V_1\cap V_2)&=Y\backslash V_1\cup Y\backslash V_2 \\ &=f(X\backslash U_1)\cup f(X\backslash U_2)\\ &=f(X\backslash U_1\cup X\backslash U_2)\\ &=f(X\backslash (U_1\cap U_2))\\ &=f(X)\\ &=Y. \end{align*}

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The mistake is in claiming that $y_1 \in V_1$ and $y_2 \in V_2$. You cannot say this unless $f$ is injective.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, of course. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Arbutus Jan 13 at 0:55
1
$\begingroup$

The non-injectivity failure in your current proof has already been pointed out. Now instead of disjoint neighbourhoods $U_1,U_2$ of $x_1$ and $x_2$, use disjoint neighbourhoods of the closed sets $F_i = f^{-1}[\{y_i\}]$ ($i=1,2$) of $X$ and the same construction of open sets. This does use compactness (why?) and we do get neighbourhoods of $y_i$ ( this needs a small argument).

A more general theorem:

Suppose that $f: X \to Y$ is surjective, continuous, closed and has compact fibres (all $f^{-1}[\{y\}], y \in Y$ are compact (such a map is called perfect)) then if $X$ is Hausdorff, then so is $Y$.

This captures the essence of the proof and does not require $X$ to be compact (we need the compactness of the fibres, really).

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

$f$ is not injective, so you can have $y_1\in f(X/U_1)$.

$\endgroup$

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.