$(X,mathscr T)$ is normal and each closed subsets of $X$ is a $G_{delta}$ set.Then, $(X,mathscr T)$ perfectly...
Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?
How does strength of boric acid solution increase in presence of salicylic acid?
Risk of getting Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the United States?
What do the dots in this tr command do: tr .............A-Z A-ZA-Z <<< "JVPQBOV" (with 13 dots)
The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server
strToHex ( string to its hex representation as string)
How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?
Has the BBC provided arguments for saying Brexit being cancelled is unlikely?
What is the word for reserving something for yourself before others do?
Can a Warlock become Neutral Good?
Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing
Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine
What does "Puller Prush Person" mean?
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
Minkowski space
How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?
Font hinting is lost in Chrome-like browsers (for some languages )
If I cast Expeditious Retreat, can I Dash as a bonus action on the same turn?
How do I create uniquely male characters?
Is it important to consider tone, melody, and musical form while writing a song?
Today is the Center
How to say job offer in Mandarin/Cantonese?
$(X,mathscr T)$ is normal and each closed subsets of $X$ is a $G_{delta}$ set.Then, $(X,mathscr T)$ perfectly normal.
$(X,mathscr T)$ is perfectly normal iff it is normal and each closed subsets of $X$ is a $G_{delta}$ set.(Without using Urysohn lemma)Does perfectly normal $implies$ normal?Is a metric space perfectly normal?A space is normal iff every pair of disjoint closed subsets have disjoint closed neighbourhoods.show that a perfectly normal space is completely normalEquivalence for Perfectly NormalConfusion about difference between Normal and Perfectly NormalPerfectly Normal is hereditaryShow $A subseteq X$, $X$ normal, is separated by a continuous function iff $A$ is closed $G_delta$some simple cases in Urysohn's lemma$(X,mathscr T)$ is perfectly normal iff it is normal and each closed subsets of $X$ is a $G_{delta}$ set.(Without using Urysohn lemma)
$begingroup$
Prove the following result without using Urysohn's lemma.
$(X,mathscr T)$ is normal and every closed subset of $X$ is a $G_{delta}$ set.Then, $(X,mathscr T)$ perfectly normal.
My effort: I have proved using Urysohn's lemma. How do I prove without the use of Urysohn's lemma?
Let $A$ and $B$ be disjoint closed sets of $X$. My aim is to construct a continuous function from $Xto [0,1]:f^{-1}{(0)}=A$ and $f^{-1}{(1)}=B.$ Using Urysoh's lemma resultfollows trivially.
general-topology separation-axioms
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Prove the following result without using Urysohn's lemma.
$(X,mathscr T)$ is normal and every closed subset of $X$ is a $G_{delta}$ set.Then, $(X,mathscr T)$ perfectly normal.
My effort: I have proved using Urysohn's lemma. How do I prove without the use of Urysohn's lemma?
Let $A$ and $B$ be disjoint closed sets of $X$. My aim is to construct a continuous function from $Xto [0,1]:f^{-1}{(0)}=A$ and $f^{-1}{(1)}=B.$ Using Urysoh's lemma resultfollows trivially.
general-topology separation-axioms
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
The definition of perfect normality is $f^{-1}(0)=A$ and $f^{-1}(1)=B$, which is stronger than $f|_A≡0$ and $f|_B≡1$
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 2:07
$begingroup$
sorry!I will correct it
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 20 at 3:11
$begingroup$
The proof of Urysohn's Lemma can be easily modified to obtain your theorem.
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 4:19
$begingroup$
Can I have shorter proof independent of Urysohn's lemma?
$endgroup$
– Unknown x
Mar 20 at 11:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Prove the following result without using Urysohn's lemma.
$(X,mathscr T)$ is normal and every closed subset of $X$ is a $G_{delta}$ set.Then, $(X,mathscr T)$ perfectly normal.
My effort: I have proved using Urysohn's lemma. How do I prove without the use of Urysohn's lemma?
Let $A$ and $B$ be disjoint closed sets of $X$. My aim is to construct a continuous function from $Xto [0,1]:f^{-1}{(0)}=A$ and $f^{-1}{(1)}=B.$ Using Urysoh's lemma resultfollows trivially.
general-topology separation-axioms
$endgroup$
Prove the following result without using Urysohn's lemma.
$(X,mathscr T)$ is normal and every closed subset of $X$ is a $G_{delta}$ set.Then, $(X,mathscr T)$ perfectly normal.
My effort: I have proved using Urysohn's lemma. How do I prove without the use of Urysohn's lemma?
Let $A$ and $B$ be disjoint closed sets of $X$. My aim is to construct a continuous function from $Xto [0,1]:f^{-1}{(0)}=A$ and $f^{-1}{(1)}=B.$ Using Urysoh's lemma resultfollows trivially.
general-topology separation-axioms
general-topology separation-axioms
edited Mar 23 at 14:15
Martin Sleziak
45k10122277
45k10122277
asked Mar 20 at 0:07
Math geekMath geek
69111
69111
2
$begingroup$
The definition of perfect normality is $f^{-1}(0)=A$ and $f^{-1}(1)=B$, which is stronger than $f|_A≡0$ and $f|_B≡1$
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 2:07
$begingroup$
sorry!I will correct it
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 20 at 3:11
$begingroup$
The proof of Urysohn's Lemma can be easily modified to obtain your theorem.
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 4:19
$begingroup$
Can I have shorter proof independent of Urysohn's lemma?
$endgroup$
– Unknown x
Mar 20 at 11:06
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
The definition of perfect normality is $f^{-1}(0)=A$ and $f^{-1}(1)=B$, which is stronger than $f|_A≡0$ and $f|_B≡1$
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 2:07
$begingroup$
sorry!I will correct it
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 20 at 3:11
$begingroup$
The proof of Urysohn's Lemma can be easily modified to obtain your theorem.
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 4:19
$begingroup$
Can I have shorter proof independent of Urysohn's lemma?
$endgroup$
– Unknown x
Mar 20 at 11:06
2
2
$begingroup$
The definition of perfect normality is $f^{-1}(0)=A$ and $f^{-1}(1)=B$, which is stronger than $f|_A≡0$ and $f|_B≡1$
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 2:07
$begingroup$
The definition of perfect normality is $f^{-1}(0)=A$ and $f^{-1}(1)=B$, which is stronger than $f|_A≡0$ and $f|_B≡1$
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 2:07
$begingroup$
sorry!I will correct it
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 20 at 3:11
$begingroup$
sorry!I will correct it
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 20 at 3:11
$begingroup$
The proof of Urysohn's Lemma can be easily modified to obtain your theorem.
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 4:19
$begingroup$
The proof of Urysohn's Lemma can be easily modified to obtain your theorem.
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 4:19
$begingroup$
Can I have shorter proof independent of Urysohn's lemma?
$endgroup$
– Unknown x
Mar 20 at 11:06
$begingroup$
Can I have shorter proof independent of Urysohn's lemma?
$endgroup$
– Unknown x
Mar 20 at 11:06
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This question is very similar, maybe you're using the same text?
As I said there: you really cannot avoid Urysohn's lemma there, or you'd have to reprove it, with extra modifications. What other ways do you have to construct functions on a normal space?
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But my teacher asked to prove independent of Urysohn's lemma.
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 1:12
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek then redo its proof with modifcations..
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 4:58
$begingroup$
you mean there is no alternative!
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 15:02
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek No, I don't see an alternative. Nor has anyone else so far.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:23
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek If this lemma holds, I think you can rather easily reprove Urysohn's lemma from it.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, I think that the task “prove $X$ without using $Y$” can mean two different things:
- You are actually supposed to reprove $Y$ or a special case of $Y$ to obtain $X$. I can remember an exam where we were supposed to prove something that was in fact a special case of the Banach fixed-point theorem. Of course we weren't allowed to use the Banach fixed-point theorem as a black box. The actual task was to reprove it in the special case.
- You really want to find a conceptually different proof of $X$. And here I completely agree with Henno Brandsma that there may be no alternative… especially when you seek for shorter and/or simpler proof. I give some reasons in the comments below.
First, let us fix sume definitions. A topological space $X$ is
normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by disjoint neighborhoods;
functionally normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A ⊆ f^{-1}(0)$ and $B ⊆ f^{-1}(1)$;
perfectly normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be perfectly functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A = f^{-1}(0)$ and $B = f^{-1}(1)$.
ultranormal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by a clopen set, i.e. there is a clopen set $C ⊆ X$ such that $A ⊆ C$ and $C ∩ B = ∅$ – equivalently, $X$ has large inductive dimension zero.
Clearly, perfect normality implies functional normality, and functional normality implies normality. The fact that normality also implies functional normality is the Urysohn lemma.
We want to prove that a normal space such that every closed set is $G_δ$ is perfectly normal. I don't agree with the OP that it follows trivially from Urysohn's lemma. We still need to prove that a closed $G_δ$ set in a functionally normal space is functionally closed, which boils down to the fact that functionally closed sets are stable under countable intersections – easy, but not trivial.
As said before, I don't believe there is a simple proof not using the ideas of the proof of the Urysohn's lemma. We need to construct a continuous function that may attain countiuum many values, so we probably need to use the normality to get a “densely linearly ordered family of separations”, which is already the core of the proof of Urysohn's lemma.
Another reason, as Henno Brandsma suggests, is that the Urysohn's lemma follows from the theorem if stated as “every closed $G_δ$ subset of a normal space is functionally closed”. This is because in a normal space $X$ for every closed set $F ⊆ X$ and open set $U ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ U$ there is a closed $G_δ$ set $G ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ G ⊆ U$.
What we can do is to prove the theorem directly by using the construction in the proof of Urysohn's lemma and taking an densely linearly ordered family of separations such that $A$ is its intersection, so it will be precisely the zero set of the resulting function.
Also note that proving the theorem for an ultranormal space is indeed easier.
Of course an ultranormal space is functionally normal, and so the theorem for ultranormal spaces follows as before without using the Urysohn's lemma. But we may also prove it directly – every countable intersection of clopen sets is functionally closed, and it is easy to explicitly write down the function.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3154827%2fx-mathscr-t-is-normal-and-each-closed-subsets-of-x-is-a-g-delta-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This question is very similar, maybe you're using the same text?
As I said there: you really cannot avoid Urysohn's lemma there, or you'd have to reprove it, with extra modifications. What other ways do you have to construct functions on a normal space?
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But my teacher asked to prove independent of Urysohn's lemma.
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 1:12
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek then redo its proof with modifcations..
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 4:58
$begingroup$
you mean there is no alternative!
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 15:02
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek No, I don't see an alternative. Nor has anyone else so far.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:23
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek If this lemma holds, I think you can rather easily reprove Urysohn's lemma from it.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question is very similar, maybe you're using the same text?
As I said there: you really cannot avoid Urysohn's lemma there, or you'd have to reprove it, with extra modifications. What other ways do you have to construct functions on a normal space?
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But my teacher asked to prove independent of Urysohn's lemma.
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 1:12
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek then redo its proof with modifcations..
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 4:58
$begingroup$
you mean there is no alternative!
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 15:02
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek No, I don't see an alternative. Nor has anyone else so far.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:23
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek If this lemma holds, I think you can rather easily reprove Urysohn's lemma from it.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question is very similar, maybe you're using the same text?
As I said there: you really cannot avoid Urysohn's lemma there, or you'd have to reprove it, with extra modifications. What other ways do you have to construct functions on a normal space?
$endgroup$
This question is very similar, maybe you're using the same text?
As I said there: you really cannot avoid Urysohn's lemma there, or you'd have to reprove it, with extra modifications. What other ways do you have to construct functions on a normal space?
answered Mar 20 at 17:35
Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma
115k349125
115k349125
$begingroup$
But my teacher asked to prove independent of Urysohn's lemma.
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 1:12
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek then redo its proof with modifcations..
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 4:58
$begingroup$
you mean there is no alternative!
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 15:02
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek No, I don't see an alternative. Nor has anyone else so far.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:23
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek If this lemma holds, I think you can rather easily reprove Urysohn's lemma from it.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
But my teacher asked to prove independent of Urysohn's lemma.
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 1:12
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek then redo its proof with modifcations..
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 4:58
$begingroup$
you mean there is no alternative!
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 15:02
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek No, I don't see an alternative. Nor has anyone else so far.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:23
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek If this lemma holds, I think you can rather easily reprove Urysohn's lemma from it.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:30
$begingroup$
But my teacher asked to prove independent of Urysohn's lemma.
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 1:12
$begingroup$
But my teacher asked to prove independent of Urysohn's lemma.
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 1:12
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek then redo its proof with modifcations..
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 4:58
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek then redo its proof with modifcations..
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 4:58
$begingroup$
you mean there is no alternative!
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 15:02
$begingroup$
you mean there is no alternative!
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 21 at 15:02
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek No, I don't see an alternative. Nor has anyone else so far.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:23
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek No, I don't see an alternative. Nor has anyone else so far.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:23
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek If this lemma holds, I think you can rather easily reprove Urysohn's lemma from it.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:30
$begingroup$
@Mathgeek If this lemma holds, I think you can rather easily reprove Urysohn's lemma from it.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Mar 21 at 16:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, I think that the task “prove $X$ without using $Y$” can mean two different things:
- You are actually supposed to reprove $Y$ or a special case of $Y$ to obtain $X$. I can remember an exam where we were supposed to prove something that was in fact a special case of the Banach fixed-point theorem. Of course we weren't allowed to use the Banach fixed-point theorem as a black box. The actual task was to reprove it in the special case.
- You really want to find a conceptually different proof of $X$. And here I completely agree with Henno Brandsma that there may be no alternative… especially when you seek for shorter and/or simpler proof. I give some reasons in the comments below.
First, let us fix sume definitions. A topological space $X$ is
normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by disjoint neighborhoods;
functionally normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A ⊆ f^{-1}(0)$ and $B ⊆ f^{-1}(1)$;
perfectly normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be perfectly functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A = f^{-1}(0)$ and $B = f^{-1}(1)$.
ultranormal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by a clopen set, i.e. there is a clopen set $C ⊆ X$ such that $A ⊆ C$ and $C ∩ B = ∅$ – equivalently, $X$ has large inductive dimension zero.
Clearly, perfect normality implies functional normality, and functional normality implies normality. The fact that normality also implies functional normality is the Urysohn lemma.
We want to prove that a normal space such that every closed set is $G_δ$ is perfectly normal. I don't agree with the OP that it follows trivially from Urysohn's lemma. We still need to prove that a closed $G_δ$ set in a functionally normal space is functionally closed, which boils down to the fact that functionally closed sets are stable under countable intersections – easy, but not trivial.
As said before, I don't believe there is a simple proof not using the ideas of the proof of the Urysohn's lemma. We need to construct a continuous function that may attain countiuum many values, so we probably need to use the normality to get a “densely linearly ordered family of separations”, which is already the core of the proof of Urysohn's lemma.
Another reason, as Henno Brandsma suggests, is that the Urysohn's lemma follows from the theorem if stated as “every closed $G_δ$ subset of a normal space is functionally closed”. This is because in a normal space $X$ for every closed set $F ⊆ X$ and open set $U ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ U$ there is a closed $G_δ$ set $G ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ G ⊆ U$.
What we can do is to prove the theorem directly by using the construction in the proof of Urysohn's lemma and taking an densely linearly ordered family of separations such that $A$ is its intersection, so it will be precisely the zero set of the resulting function.
Also note that proving the theorem for an ultranormal space is indeed easier.
Of course an ultranormal space is functionally normal, and so the theorem for ultranormal spaces follows as before without using the Urysohn's lemma. But we may also prove it directly – every countable intersection of clopen sets is functionally closed, and it is easy to explicitly write down the function.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, I think that the task “prove $X$ without using $Y$” can mean two different things:
- You are actually supposed to reprove $Y$ or a special case of $Y$ to obtain $X$. I can remember an exam where we were supposed to prove something that was in fact a special case of the Banach fixed-point theorem. Of course we weren't allowed to use the Banach fixed-point theorem as a black box. The actual task was to reprove it in the special case.
- You really want to find a conceptually different proof of $X$. And here I completely agree with Henno Brandsma that there may be no alternative… especially when you seek for shorter and/or simpler proof. I give some reasons in the comments below.
First, let us fix sume definitions. A topological space $X$ is
normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by disjoint neighborhoods;
functionally normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A ⊆ f^{-1}(0)$ and $B ⊆ f^{-1}(1)$;
perfectly normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be perfectly functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A = f^{-1}(0)$ and $B = f^{-1}(1)$.
ultranormal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by a clopen set, i.e. there is a clopen set $C ⊆ X$ such that $A ⊆ C$ and $C ∩ B = ∅$ – equivalently, $X$ has large inductive dimension zero.
Clearly, perfect normality implies functional normality, and functional normality implies normality. The fact that normality also implies functional normality is the Urysohn lemma.
We want to prove that a normal space such that every closed set is $G_δ$ is perfectly normal. I don't agree with the OP that it follows trivially from Urysohn's lemma. We still need to prove that a closed $G_δ$ set in a functionally normal space is functionally closed, which boils down to the fact that functionally closed sets are stable under countable intersections – easy, but not trivial.
As said before, I don't believe there is a simple proof not using the ideas of the proof of the Urysohn's lemma. We need to construct a continuous function that may attain countiuum many values, so we probably need to use the normality to get a “densely linearly ordered family of separations”, which is already the core of the proof of Urysohn's lemma.
Another reason, as Henno Brandsma suggests, is that the Urysohn's lemma follows from the theorem if stated as “every closed $G_δ$ subset of a normal space is functionally closed”. This is because in a normal space $X$ for every closed set $F ⊆ X$ and open set $U ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ U$ there is a closed $G_δ$ set $G ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ G ⊆ U$.
What we can do is to prove the theorem directly by using the construction in the proof of Urysohn's lemma and taking an densely linearly ordered family of separations such that $A$ is its intersection, so it will be precisely the zero set of the resulting function.
Also note that proving the theorem for an ultranormal space is indeed easier.
Of course an ultranormal space is functionally normal, and so the theorem for ultranormal spaces follows as before without using the Urysohn's lemma. But we may also prove it directly – every countable intersection of clopen sets is functionally closed, and it is easy to explicitly write down the function.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
First, I think that the task “prove $X$ without using $Y$” can mean two different things:
- You are actually supposed to reprove $Y$ or a special case of $Y$ to obtain $X$. I can remember an exam where we were supposed to prove something that was in fact a special case of the Banach fixed-point theorem. Of course we weren't allowed to use the Banach fixed-point theorem as a black box. The actual task was to reprove it in the special case.
- You really want to find a conceptually different proof of $X$. And here I completely agree with Henno Brandsma that there may be no alternative… especially when you seek for shorter and/or simpler proof. I give some reasons in the comments below.
First, let us fix sume definitions. A topological space $X$ is
normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by disjoint neighborhoods;
functionally normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A ⊆ f^{-1}(0)$ and $B ⊆ f^{-1}(1)$;
perfectly normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be perfectly functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A = f^{-1}(0)$ and $B = f^{-1}(1)$.
ultranormal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by a clopen set, i.e. there is a clopen set $C ⊆ X$ such that $A ⊆ C$ and $C ∩ B = ∅$ – equivalently, $X$ has large inductive dimension zero.
Clearly, perfect normality implies functional normality, and functional normality implies normality. The fact that normality also implies functional normality is the Urysohn lemma.
We want to prove that a normal space such that every closed set is $G_δ$ is perfectly normal. I don't agree with the OP that it follows trivially from Urysohn's lemma. We still need to prove that a closed $G_δ$ set in a functionally normal space is functionally closed, which boils down to the fact that functionally closed sets are stable under countable intersections – easy, but not trivial.
As said before, I don't believe there is a simple proof not using the ideas of the proof of the Urysohn's lemma. We need to construct a continuous function that may attain countiuum many values, so we probably need to use the normality to get a “densely linearly ordered family of separations”, which is already the core of the proof of Urysohn's lemma.
Another reason, as Henno Brandsma suggests, is that the Urysohn's lemma follows from the theorem if stated as “every closed $G_δ$ subset of a normal space is functionally closed”. This is because in a normal space $X$ for every closed set $F ⊆ X$ and open set $U ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ U$ there is a closed $G_δ$ set $G ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ G ⊆ U$.
What we can do is to prove the theorem directly by using the construction in the proof of Urysohn's lemma and taking an densely linearly ordered family of separations such that $A$ is its intersection, so it will be precisely the zero set of the resulting function.
Also note that proving the theorem for an ultranormal space is indeed easier.
Of course an ultranormal space is functionally normal, and so the theorem for ultranormal spaces follows as before without using the Urysohn's lemma. But we may also prove it directly – every countable intersection of clopen sets is functionally closed, and it is easy to explicitly write down the function.
$endgroup$
First, I think that the task “prove $X$ without using $Y$” can mean two different things:
- You are actually supposed to reprove $Y$ or a special case of $Y$ to obtain $X$. I can remember an exam where we were supposed to prove something that was in fact a special case of the Banach fixed-point theorem. Of course we weren't allowed to use the Banach fixed-point theorem as a black box. The actual task was to reprove it in the special case.
- You really want to find a conceptually different proof of $X$. And here I completely agree with Henno Brandsma that there may be no alternative… especially when you seek for shorter and/or simpler proof. I give some reasons in the comments below.
First, let us fix sume definitions. A topological space $X$ is
normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by disjoint neighborhoods;
functionally normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A ⊆ f^{-1}(0)$ and $B ⊆ f^{-1}(1)$;
perfectly normal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be perfectly functionally separated, i.e. there is a continuous function $fcolon X to [0, 1]$ such that $A = f^{-1}(0)$ and $B = f^{-1}(1)$.
ultranormal if every disjoint closed sets $A, B ⊆ X$ can be separated by a clopen set, i.e. there is a clopen set $C ⊆ X$ such that $A ⊆ C$ and $C ∩ B = ∅$ – equivalently, $X$ has large inductive dimension zero.
Clearly, perfect normality implies functional normality, and functional normality implies normality. The fact that normality also implies functional normality is the Urysohn lemma.
We want to prove that a normal space such that every closed set is $G_δ$ is perfectly normal. I don't agree with the OP that it follows trivially from Urysohn's lemma. We still need to prove that a closed $G_δ$ set in a functionally normal space is functionally closed, which boils down to the fact that functionally closed sets are stable under countable intersections – easy, but not trivial.
As said before, I don't believe there is a simple proof not using the ideas of the proof of the Urysohn's lemma. We need to construct a continuous function that may attain countiuum many values, so we probably need to use the normality to get a “densely linearly ordered family of separations”, which is already the core of the proof of Urysohn's lemma.
Another reason, as Henno Brandsma suggests, is that the Urysohn's lemma follows from the theorem if stated as “every closed $G_δ$ subset of a normal space is functionally closed”. This is because in a normal space $X$ for every closed set $F ⊆ X$ and open set $U ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ U$ there is a closed $G_δ$ set $G ⊆ X$ such that $F ⊆ G ⊆ U$.
What we can do is to prove the theorem directly by using the construction in the proof of Urysohn's lemma and taking an densely linearly ordered family of separations such that $A$ is its intersection, so it will be precisely the zero set of the resulting function.
Also note that proving the theorem for an ultranormal space is indeed easier.
Of course an ultranormal space is functionally normal, and so the theorem for ultranormal spaces follows as before without using the Urysohn's lemma. But we may also prove it directly – every countable intersection of clopen sets is functionally closed, and it is easy to explicitly write down the function.
answered Mar 22 at 12:25
user87690user87690
6,6761825
6,6761825
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3154827%2fx-mathscr-t-is-normal-and-each-closed-subsets-of-x-is-a-g-delta-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
The definition of perfect normality is $f^{-1}(0)=A$ and $f^{-1}(1)=B$, which is stronger than $f|_A≡0$ and $f|_B≡1$
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 2:07
$begingroup$
sorry!I will correct it
$endgroup$
– Math geek
Mar 20 at 3:11
$begingroup$
The proof of Urysohn's Lemma can be easily modified to obtain your theorem.
$endgroup$
– YuiTo Cheng
Mar 20 at 4:19
$begingroup$
Can I have shorter proof independent of Urysohn's lemma?
$endgroup$
– Unknown x
Mar 20 at 11:06