This is an old revision of the document!
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 is connected, the set (with induced topology from ) is not (there are gaps between points). But, we also know that topological space can be weird.
Ex: let be a set, we declare the following subsets in are open:
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 is connected, if cannot be written as disjoint union of two non-emtpy open subset. In other word, the only subsets in that is both open and closed are and .
For example, is not connected, since is both open and closed in . (why?)
For example, (with induced metric from ) is not connected, since is both open and closed in . (Discussion: Equip with the induced metric, can you show that is both open and closed? Equip with the induced topology, can you show that is both open and closed? )
For example, in that weird topology example above, is connected, since cannot be written as disjoint union of two open sets.
Theorem: a subset is connected, if and only if, for any , we have . Proof: suppose is connected, and , we need to show that . If not, say is not in , then let , , they are open subsets of (since they are open subsets of intersecting ), they are non-empty (containing and respectively), and , therefore is not connected. Contradiction.
Suppose for any , we have , and suppose is not connected. Then can be written as disjoint union of two non-empty open sets , where open in . Pick and , w.l.o.g, assuming . By hypothesis, . Let and . Then , and are open in , and , . Let . We discuss the following cases:
Thus, we get a contradiction.
Remark: Rudin uses a seeming different definition of connectedness, but it is equivalent. We say two subsets are 'separated', if and . It is possible for two sets to be disjoint, but not separated, like .
Prop: A subset is connected if cannot be written as the union of two non-empty separated sets.
Proof: Suppose is connected, and with non-empty separated subsets in . Then, , hence is closed in . Similarly, is closed in . That means the complement of in , ie. is open, similarly, is open. Thus, writes as disjoint union of two non-emptyset open subsets of , contradicting with being connected.
: suppose is not connected, thus with open in (hence both are closed in , since , ). Let be a closed subset, such that , then . In particular, , hence . Similarly , thus are separated.
Prop: If is continuous, and is compact, then is compact.
Proof: any open cover of can be pulled back to be an open cover of , then we can pick a finite subcover in the domain, and the corresponding cover in the target forms a cover of .
We can also prove using sequential compactness. To see any sequence in subconverge, we can lift that sequence back to , find a convergent subsequence, and push them back to .
Lemma: if is continuous, then for any , is continuous.
Lemma: if is continuous, then is continuous.
Prop: If is continuous, and is connected, then is connected.
Pf: first, note that map is also continuous. If is the disjoint union of two non-empty open subsets, , then the disjoint union of two non-empty open subsets of .
Intermediate value theorem: if , and is continuous, then is also a closed interval.
Proof: since is compact, hence is compact, hence closed. Since is connected, hence is connected, hence an interval, a closed interval.
Now we will leave the safe world of continuous functions. We consider more subtle cases of maps.
Def: Let be any map, and let be a point, we say is continuous at , if for any , there exists , such that .
Def: Let and . Suppose . We say if for any convergent sequence with , we have .
note that may not be in .
Prop: is continuous at , if and only if .
If is a function, and is not continuous at some , then
We say a function is uniformly continuous, if for any , there exists , such that for any pair with , we have .
For example, the function is continuous but not uniformly continuous.