2
$\begingroup$

I would like feedback on the following proof I just wrote up:

Let $C$ be a connected subset of the metric space $X, d$ and let $C \subset B \subset \bar C$. Prove that $B$ is connected.

Let $B, C$ be sets in a metric space $X, d$ such that $C \subset B \subset \bar C$ and $C$ is connected. To show $B$ is connected we must show that there exist two sets $B_1, B_2 : B_1 \cup B_2 =\bar B_1 \cap B_2 \neq \emptyset \land \bar B_2 \cap B_1 \neq \emptyset$.

Because $C$ is connected $C$ can be written as the union of two non-empty non-separated sets $C_1, C_2 : \bar C_1 \cap C_2 \neq \emptyset \land \bar C_2 \cap C_1 \neq \emptyset$. But then $B$ contains $\bigcup_{i = 1}^2 C_i$ (call this union $D$).

Suppose there exists a $B_1 \subset B$ such that $\bar D \cap B_1 = \emptyset$. Then by DeMorgan's law $(\bar C_1 \cap B_1) \cup (\bar C_2 \cap B_1) = \emptyset$. This is impossible because $\bar C$ contains $B$, so the intersection is necessarily resultant to $B$. Therefore any other subsets of $B$ are necessarily connected to $D$.

Now assume that there exists a $B_1$ such that $D \cap \bar B_1 = \emptyset$. Then $D \cap B = \emptyset$. But $D \subset B$ and as shown before this is impossible. From the contradiction it must be true that $B$ is connected and is also the union of two non-empty non-separated arbitrary sets. RAA.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @EnjoysMath typo $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Nov 17 '13 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ @EnjoysMath Done. Also what does $|$ mean anyway? $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Nov 17 '13 at 1:42
2
$\begingroup$

I think you have the right idea! In your proof you say, "assume that there exists a $B_1$ such that $D\cap B_1=\varnothing.$ Then $D \cap B = \varnothing$. Is this the same $B_1$ as before? How do you draw this conclusion?

Perhaps, if you want to draw a contradiction, assume that $B_1, B_2 \subset B$ are open, disjoint, and non-empty such that $B_1 \cup B_2 = B$. Now, since $C$ is connected, either $B_1 \cap C = \varnothing$ or $B_2 \cap C = \varnothing$ (why!?). Without losing generality, suppose that $B_1 \cap C = \varnothing$. Then $C \subset B_1^c$. However, $B_1^c$ is a closed set containing $C$ and therefore $\overline{C} \subset B_1^c$ meaning that $B_1 \not\subset \overline{C}$. However, this creates a contradiction (why!?).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $B_1$ is some set that may be a subset of $B$. This is certainly a possibility that may not be ignored. $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Nov 17 '13 at 1:57
  • $\begingroup$ I'm taking its closure $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Nov 23 '13 at 23:29

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.