User Tools

Site Tools


math104-s22:notes:lecture_16

This is an old revision of the document!


Lecture 16

connectedness

Last time we didn't introduce the notion of a connected space. Let's do it now.

Sometimes, we can tell from a glance, whether a space is connected or not: the interval [0,1][0,1] is connected, the set {1,2,3}\{1,2,3\} (with induced topology from R\R) is not (there are gaps between points). But, we also know that topological space can be weird.

Ex: let X={1,2,3,}X = \{1,2,3,\cdots \} be a set, we declare the following subsets in XX are open:

  • \emptyset and XX,
  • {1,2,,n}\{1,2,\cdots, n\}, for some n1n \geq 1.

One can easily check that this collection of open sets are closed under arbitrary union and finite intersections. Hmm, is it connected? What does it mean when we ask this question?

Here is the general definition:

We say a metric space XX is connected, if XX cannot be written as disjoint union of two non-emtpy open subset. In other word, the only subsets in XX that is both open and closed are XX and \emptyset.

For example, Q\Q is not connected, since (,5)(-\infty, \sqrt{5}) is both open and closed in QQ. (why?)

For example, X={1,2,3}X=\{1,2,3\} (with induced metric from R\R) is not connected, since {1}\{1\} is both open and closed in XX. (Discussion: Equip XX with the induced metric, can you show that {1}\{1\} is both open and closed? Equip XX with the induced topology, can you show that {1}\{1\} is both open and closed? )

For example, in that weird topology example above, XX is connected, since XX cannot be written as disjoint union of two open sets.

Theorem: a subset ERE \In \R is connected, if and only if, for any x,yEx,y \in E, we have [x,y]E[x,y] \In E. Proof: suppose EE is connected, and x,yEx,y \in E, we need to show that [x,y]E[x,y] \In E. If not, say z(x,y)z \in (x,y) is not in EE, then let E1=E(,z)E_1 = E \cap (-\infty,z), E2=E(z,+)E_2 = E \cap (z,+\infty), they are open subsets of EE (since they are open subsets of R\R intersecting EE), they are non-empty (containing xx and yy respectively), and E=E1E2E = E_1 \sqcup E_2, therefore EE is not connected. Contradiction.

Suppose for any x,yEx,y \in E, we have [x,y]E[x,y] \In E, and suppose EE is not connected. Then EE can be written as disjoint union of two non-empty open sets E=ABE = A \sqcup B, where A,BA, B open in EE. Pick xAx \in A and yBy \in B, w.l.o.g, assuming x<yx<y. By hypothesis, [x,y]E[x,y] \In E. Let A=A[x,y]A' = A \cap [x,y] and B=B[x,y]B' = B \cap [x,y]. Then [x,y]=AB[x,y] = A' \cup B', and A,BA', B' are open in [x,y][x,y], and xAx \in A', yBy \in B'. Let z=supAz = \sup A'. We discuss the following cases:

  • if z=xz=x, then A={x}A' = \{x\}, and AA' cannot be an open subset of [x,y][x,y]
  • If x<z<yx< z < y, we split into two case:
    • (a) if zAz \in A', then AA' is not an open subset of [x,y][x,y] at point zz.
    • (b) if zBz \in B', then BB' is not an open subset of [x,y][x,y] at zz.
  • if z=yz = y, then zBz \in B', we claim that BB' is not open in [x,y][x,y].

Thus, we get a contradiction.


Remark: Rudin uses a seeming different definition of connectedness, but it is equivalent. We say two subsets A,BA, B are 'separated', if AˉB=\bar A \cap B = \emptyset and ABˉ=A \cap \bar B = \emptyset. It is possible for two sets to be disjoint, but not separated, like A=(0,1),B=[1,2)A = (0,1), B=[1,2).

Prop: A subset EXE \In X is connected \Leftrightarrow if EE cannot be written as the union of two non-empty separated sets.

Proof: \Rightarrow Suppose EXE \In X is connected, and E=GHE = G \sqcup H with G,HG, H non-empty separated subsets in XX. Then, GˉE=Gˉ(GH)=(GˉG)(GˉH)=G=G \bar G \cap E = \bar G \cap (G \sqcup H) = (\bar G \cap G) \sqcup (\bar G \cap H) = G \sqcup \emptyset = G , hence GG is closed in EE. Similarly, HH is closed in EE. That means the complement of GG in EE, ie. HH is open, similarly, GG is open. Thus, E=GHE = G \sqcup H writes EE as disjoint union of two non-emptyset open subsets of EE, contradicting with EE being connected.

\Leftarrow: suppose EE is not connected, thus E=GHE = G \sqcup H with G,HG, H open in EE (hence both G,HG, H are closed in EE, since G=E\HG = E \RM H, H=E\GH = E\RM G). Let GXG' \In X be a closed subset, such that GE=GG' \cap E = G, then GH=G' \cap H = \emptyset. In particular, GˉG\bar G \In G', hence GˉH=\bar G \cap H = \emptyset. Similarly HˉG=\bar H \cap G=\emptyset, thus G,HG,H are separated.

Continuous Maps and Compactness, Connectedness

Prop: If f:XYf: X \to Y is continuous, and KXK \In X is compact, then f(K)f(K) is compact.
Proof: any open cover of f(K)f(K) can be pulled back to be an open cover of KK, then we can pick a finite subcover in the domain, and the corresponding cover in the target forms a cover of f(K)f(K).

We can also prove using sequential compactness. To see any sequence in f(K)f(K) subconverge, we can lift that sequence back to KK, find a convergent subsequence, and push them back to f(K)f(K).

Lemma: if f:XYf: X \to Y is continuous, then for any EXE \In X, fE:EYf|_E: E \to Y is continuous.

Lemma: if f:XYf: X \to Y is continuous, then f:Xf(X)f: X \to f(X) is continuous.

Prop: If f:XYf: X \to Y is continuous, and KXK \In X is connected, then f(K)f(K) is connected.
Pf: first, note that map f:Kf(K)f: K \to f(K) is also continuous. If f(K)f(K) is the disjoint union of two non-empty open subsets, f(K)=UVf(K) = U \cap V, then K=f1(U)f1(V)K = f^{-1}(U) \cap f^{-1}(V) the disjoint union of two non-empty open subsets of KK.

Intermediate value theorem: if [a,b]R[a,b] \In \R, and f:RRf: \R \to \R is continuous, then f([a,b])f([a,b]) is also a closed interval.
Proof: since [a,b][a,b] is compact, hence f([a,b])f([a,b]) is compact, hence closed. Since [a,b][a,b] is connected, hence f([a,b])f([a,b]) is connected, hence an interval, a closed interval.

Discontinuity

Now we will leave the safe world of continuous functions. We consider more subtle cases of maps.

Def: Let f:XYf: X \to Y be any map, and let xXx \in X be a point, we say ff is continuous at xx, if for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, there exists δ>0\delta>0, such that f(Bδ(x))Bϵ(f(x))f(B_\delta(x)) \In B_\epsilon(f(x)).

Def: Let EXE \In X and f:EYf: E \to Y. Suppose xEˉx \in \bar E. We say limpxf(p)=y\lim_{p \to x} f(p) = y if for any convergent sequence pnxp_n \to x with pnEp_n \in E, we have f(pn)yf(p_n) \to y.

note that xx may not be in EE.

Prop: f:XYf: X \to Y is continuous at xXx \in X, if and only if limpxf(p)=f(x)\lim_{p \to x} f(p) = f(x).

If f:(a,b)Rf: (a,b) \to \R is a function, and ff is not continuous at some x(a,b)x \in (a,b), then

  • if limtxf(t)\lim_{t \to x-} f(t) and limtx+f(t)\lim_{t \to x+} f(t) both exists, but does not equal to f(x)f(x), we say this is a simple discontinuity, or first kind discontinuity
  • otherwise, it is called a second kind.

Uniform Continuity

We say a function f:XYf: X \to Y is uniformly continuous, if for any ϵ>0\epsilon >0, there exists δ>0\delta > 0, such that for any pair x1,x2Xx_1, x_2 \in X with d(x1,x2)<δd(x_1, x_2)<\delta, we have d(f(x1),f(x2))<ϵd(f(x_1), f(x_2))< \epsilon.

For example, the function f:(0,1)Rf: (0, 1) \to \R f(x)=1/xf(x) =1 /x is continuous but not uniformly continuous.

math104-s22/notes/lecture_16.1646897859.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/03/09 23:37 by pzhou