Let $(X,\mathscr T)$ be topological space with dense subset $D$ and a closed,relatively discrete subset $C$ such that $\mathscr{P}(D)\precsim$ $C.$ Then $(X,\mathscr T)$ is not normal.

Notations and definition in the theorem:-

$X\sim Y$- There is a bijection map from $X$ to $Y$.

$X\precsim Y-$ There is a subset $Y'$ of $Y$ such that $X \sim Y$

Relatively discrete. A subset $A$ of a topological space $(X,\mathscr T)$ is relatively discrete provided that for each $a\in A$, there exists $U\in \mathscr T$ such that $U\cap A=\{x\}$.

enter image description here

I am having doubt in understanding the underlined statements. I have edited and made my doubts more precise.

Doubt 1:- How do I prove $C\setminus A$ is closed? My attempt:- It is enough to prove that $A$ is an open set. Let $x\in A\subset C$, then there is an open set $U\in \mathscr T: U\cap C=\{x\}.$ So, we can write $A=\bigcup_{x\in A}\{x\} $ is open in $C$. Hence, $A$ is closed in $C$. Hence Closed in $X$. Am I correct?

Doubt2:-How do I prove that $U(A_1) \cap V(A_2)\neq \emptyset$?

What is the idea of the proof afterwards? Where do we arrive at the contradiction?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You first suppose what you are wanting to prove. $\endgroup$ – William Elliot Feb 11 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ I wanted to prove $(X,\mathscr T)$ is not normal. $\endgroup$ – Unknown x Feb 11 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ I have typed the proof given in the textbook of foundation of topology by C.W Patty $\endgroup$ – Unknown x Feb 11 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ I have doubt in two places 1. How do I prove $C \setminus A$ is closed?also How do I prove $U (A_1)\cap V (A_2) \neq \emptyset$? $\endgroup$ – Unknown x Feb 11 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ $C$ is closed discrete in $X$, so every its subset is closed in $C$ and also in $X$. $\endgroup$ – user87690 Feb 11 at 10:32

If $C$ is relatively discrete, this means that all $\{x\}$ where $x \in C$ are open in $C$ (because there is an $U \in \mathcal{T}$ such that $U \cap c=\{x\}$). This implies, as all subsets are unions of singletons trivially, that all subsets of $C$ are open in $C$. As every subset of $C$ also has an open-in-$C$ complement (by the previous) it is in fact itself closed in $C$ and so closed in $X$.

Now by normality, we can find for every non-empty $A \subseteq C$ disjoint open subsets $U(A)$ and $V(A)$ such that $A \subseteq U(A)$ and $C-A \subseteq V(A)$, as $A$ and $C-A$ are disjoint closed subsets of $C$ and thus of $X$.

The aim is now to show that the function $f(A)=U(A) \cap D \in \mathscr{P}(D)$ from $\mathscr{P}(C)$ is 1-1 (injective)(you can add $f(\emptyset)=\emptyset$ to make it defined on the whole powerset, if you like). I'll rephrase the quoted argument slightly:

Suppose $f(A_1) = f(A_2) $ while $A_1 \neq A_2$.

$A_1 \neq A_2$ means either $A_1 - A_2 \neq \emptyset$ or $A_2 - A_1 \neq \emptyset$.

Say the former holds. Then we have some $p \in A_1, p \notin A_2$. Then $p \in U(A_1) \cap V(A_2)$ by how the sets are chosen, and so we have a non-empty open set, which thus intersects the dense set $D$.

But $V(A_2) \cap f(A_1)= U(A_1) \cap D \cap V(A_2)\neq \emptyset$ while $V(A_2) \cap f(A_2)=V(A_2) \cap U(A_2) \cap D =\emptyset$ as $U(A_2)$ and $V(A_2)$ are disjoint. This contradicts $f(A_1)=f(A_2)$: the same set intersected with the same $V(A_2)$ cannot be both empty and non-empty. Contradiction 1.

We get another contradiction if $A_2 - A_1 \neq \emptyset$, using $V(A_1)$ intersections this time (check this, the text skipped this due to symmetry considerations, but I mention it for completeness).

These contradictions show that $f(A_1)=f(A_2)$ must imply $A_1=A_2$.

The last part is set theory: by Cantor's theorem we have that $\mathscr{P}(C)$ does not inject into $C$, or $\mathscr{P}(C) \not\precsim C$ .

But by the map $f$, $\mathscr{P}(C) \precsim \mathscr{P}(D) \precsim C$ (the last by the theorem's assumption). So combining: $\mathscr{P}(C) \precsim C$: a contradiction with Cantor's theorem. QED


Regarding your first question: the earlier part of the first paragraph showed that if $B \subsetneq C$, then $B$ is closed in $C$. If we have a set $A \subsetneq C$ with $A \neq \varnothing$, then setting $B = A$ shows that $A$ is closed in $C$ (and hence closed in $X$), whereas setting $B = C-A$ shows that $C-A$ is closed in $C$ (and hence closed in $X$).

Regarding your second question: the assumption that $A_1 - A_2 \neq \varnothing$ implies that $A_1 \cap (C-A_2) \neq \varnothing$. Since $A_1 \cap (C-A_2) \subset U(A_1) \cap V(A_2)$, this means that $U(A_1) \cap V(A_2) \neq \varnothing$.

Regarding the final contradiction: the second paragraph shows that there is an injection from $\mathcal{P}(C)$ into $\mathcal{P}(D)$. If $\mathcal{P}(D) \subset C$, then $\mathcal{P}(C)$ would be in bijection with a subset of $C$, which would contradict Cantor’s theorem.

  • $\begingroup$ Why do they have assumption $A_1\setminus A_2\neq \emptyset$? From there what does he want to prove? $\endgroup$ – Unknown x Feb 11 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ He wants to prove that if $\varnothing \neq A \subsetneq C$ and we pick $U(A), V(A) \subset C$ with $A \subset U(A)$ and $C-A \subset V(A)$, then the map $A \mapsto U(A)$ is injective. $\endgroup$ – Jordan Green Feb 11 at 15:04

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.