1
$\begingroup$

My definition for $T_3$ space is a topological space such that 'For any point $x$ and a closed subset $A$, there exist nonoverlapping neighborhoods'.

(This is the definition of a regular space in "Topology - Munkres")

(p.215) Urysohn Metrization theorem: Every second countable $T_3$ space $X$ is metrizable.

Is it true? I can prove this with an additional condition, that is, $X$ is $T_0$. However, i cannot prove this without this condition. How do i prove this without this condition?

What are necessary conditions for the Urysohn Metrization theorem?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The indiscrete space $[0,1]$ is second-countable and regular, but clearly not metrizable. So you will need the Hausdorffness :-) $\endgroup$ – Stefan Hamcke Oct 22 '13 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ Check the definition of 'regular' on page 195 of the book. It requires the space to be $T_1$, which implies Hausdorff. $\endgroup$ – Ayman Hourieh Oct 22 '13 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Stefan Thank you! I think $T_0$ is essential, $T_2$(Hausdorff) is too large. $\endgroup$ – Jj- Oct 22 '13 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Jj-: For regular spaces $T_0=T_1=T_2$. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Hamcke Oct 22 '13 at 21:47
2
$\begingroup$

You can’t prove it without that condition. There are, unfortunately, two exactly opposite usages of the terms $T_3$ and regular. In my usage, which I think is the more common, the numerical $T_n$ properties form a genuine hierarchy: a $T_3$ space is automatically $T_2$, $T_1$, and $T_0$. Specifically, it’s a $T_1$ space in which points and closed sets can be separated by disjoint open sets. That’s the sense in which $T_3$ is used in the metrization theorem. What you call $T_3$ is what I would call simply regular, so that for me a $T_3$ space is a regular $T_1$ space. Unfortunately, as I said, some people reverse the terms, a practice that naturally engenders a certain amount of confusion. The discussion in Wikipedia reasonably clear on this point.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! But i prefer 'proofwiki' definitions to 'wikipedia' ones. $\endgroup$ – Jj- Oct 22 '13 at 21:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Jj-: I don’t. Wikipedia is generally quite good on mathematical topics, and I dislike the Pr$\infty$fWiki style (though to be fair, that applies more to the proofs, than to the definitions: in my view the former are written in a very opaque, unhelpful style). And in this case I consider the Pr$\infty$fWiki definition simply wrong: it represents a minority usage and a somewhat illogical one, since it destroys the hierarchical nature of the $T_n$ system. You’re welcome! $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Oct 22 '13 at 21:45

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.