Here is the lemma stated in Lee's book, the second edition.

LEMMA. Let $M$ be a set and $\{U_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in J}$ be a collection of subsets of $M$, along with maps $\varphi_\alpha:U_\alpha\to\mathbf R^n$, such that the following properties are satisfied:

(i) $\forall \alpha\in J$: $\varphi_\alpha$ is a bijection between $U_\alpha$ and an open subset $\varphi_\alpha(U_\alpha) \subset\mathbf R^n$.

(ii) $\forall \alpha,\beta\in J$: the sets $\varphi_\alpha(U_\alpha\cap U_\beta)$ and $\varphi_\beta(U_\alpha\cap U_\beta)$ are open in $\mathbf R^n$.

(iii) $\forall\alpha,\beta\in J$: $U_\alpha\cap U_\beta\neq \emptyset \quad \Rightarrow \quad \varphi_\beta\circ\varphi_\alpha^{-1}:\varphi_\alpha(U_\alpha\cap U_\beta)\to \varphi_\beta(U_\alpha\cap U_\beta)$ is smooth.

(iv) Countably many of the sets $U_\alpha$ cover $M$.

(v) $ \left. \begin{array}{c} p,q\in M\\ p\neq q \end{array} \right\} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \left\{ \begin{array}{c} \exists \alpha\in J\text{ such that } p,q\in U_\alpha,\quad\text{ or}\\ \exists \alpha,\beta\in J\text{ such that } p\in U_\alpha, q\in U_\beta \text{ and } U_\alpha\cap U_\beta=\emptyset \end{array} \right. $

Then $M$ has a unique manifold structure such that each pair $(U_\alpha,\varphi_\alpha)$ is a smooth chart.

We define the topology on $M$ by taking all sets of the form $\varphi_\alpha^{-1}(V)$, with $V$ an open subset of $\mathbf R^n$.

I feel like the condition (v) in the lemma is redundant but I am not sure about that. The condition (v) is used to provide the Hausdorff property of $M$. But it seems like we can show that $M$ is Hausdorff even without the condition (v). Here is my reasoning.

Let $p,q\in M$ and $p\neq q$.

By the condition (iv), there exist some $\alpha,\beta \in J$ s.t. $p\in U_\alpha$ and $q\in U_\beta$. If $\alpha = \beta$, then by the condition (i), we can find two disjoint open subsets of $U_\alpha$ to separate $p$ and $q$ by the Hausdorff property of $\mathbf R^n$. So we may assume that $\alpha \neq \beta$ and $U_\alpha \, \cap U_\beta \neq \emptyset$.

Let $A:= U_\alpha \setminus \overline{U_\beta}$, $B:=U_\beta \setminus \overline{U_\alpha}$, $C:= U_\beta \,\cap U_\alpha$.

Note that $A,B,C$ are all open by the definition of the topology on $M$ and the condition (i).

Case $1$: $p\notin B$ and $q\notin B$.

In this case, $A$ and $C$ separate $p$ and $q$. We are done.

Case $2$: $p\in B$ and $q\in B$.

In this case, it reduces to the situation that $p,q \in U_\alpha$. And we are done again.

Case $3$: One of $\{p,q\}$ is in $B$ and the other one is not.

W.L.O.G, assume that $p\in B$ and $q\notin B$.

In this case, we must have $q\in C$. But $B$ and $C$ are disjoint, which implies that $B$ and $C$ separate $p$ and $q$. So we obtain the Hausdorff property of $M$ again.


I think there may be something wrong in my proof but I can't see it. Thanks for help.


In a manifold like the line with two origins (classic non-Hausdorff example), we can have that for $0$ and $0'$ $\alpha \neq \beta$ and $0 \in U_\alpha$ and $0' \in U_\beta$ with $U_\alpha \cap U_\beta$= $U_\alpha \setminus \{ 0 \} = U_\beta \setminus \{0'\}$. So $U_\alpha \setminus \overline{U_\beta}= \emptyset$ and vice versa. So $A=B= \emptyset$ but $C$ contains neither origin, in your notation.

  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for my late reply. It's a really impressive counterexample! I've checked that this manifold does satisfy the conditions (i) - (iv). But I just want to double check with you again. It does satisfy the conditions (i) - (iv) right? $\endgroup$
    – Sam Wong
    Feb 8 at 5:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SamWong yes it shows we cannot omit (v). $\endgroup$ Feb 8 at 5:52

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.