What about Union of connected sets?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Please is this prof is correct ?
Let $Omega_i_iin I$ a famille of connected sets such that $$forall i,jin I, Omega_icapOmega_jneqemptyset$$
I want to prove that $bigcup_iin I Omega_i$ is connected.



If I suppose that $bigcup Omega_i$ is not connected then, there exists two non empty open sets $A,B$ from $bigcup Omega_i$ such that
$$
begincases
bigcup Omega_i= Acup B\
Acap B=emptyset
endcases
$$
we have $forall iin I, Omega_isubset bigcup_iin IOmega_i=Acup B$ then by the connectedness of $Omega_i$
$$forall iin I, [Omega_isubset A ~textor~ Omega_isubset B]$$



As $forall i,jin I, A_icap A_jneq emptyset$ we deduce that $$forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$$
it follows that $B=emptyset$ or $D=emptyset$, which is a contradiction.



Please if I change the condition
$$forall i,jin I, Omega_icapOmega_jneqemptyset$$
by
$$
exists i_0in I, Omega_i_0cap Omega_jneq emptyset,forall jin I
$$
How to do ?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Let $Omega_i_iin I$ a famille of connected sets such that $$exists i_0in I, Omega_i_0cap Omega_jneq emptyset,forall jin I$$
I want to prove that $bigcup_iin I Omega_i$ is connected.



If I suppose that $bigcup Omega_i$ is not connected then, there exists two non empty open sets $A,B$ from $bigcup Omega_i$ such that
$$
begincases
bigcup Omega_i= Acup B\
Acap B=emptyset
endcases
$$
we have $forall iin I, Omega_isubset bigcup_iin IOmega_i=Acup B$ then $Omega_i_0subset Acup B$ as it is connected we have $$Omega_i_0subset A~textor ~ Omega_i_0subset B$$ if we suppose that $Omega_i_0subset A$ then $$forall jin I, Omega_jcap Aneq emptyset $$ by the connectedness of $Omega_i$ we deduce that $$forall jin I, Omega_jcap B=emptyset$$ then $$forall jin I, Omega_jsubset A$$ thus $$bigcup_jin IOmega_jsubset A$$ so $B=emptyset$ contradiction in the same way if we suppose that $Omega_i_0subset B$ we find that $A=emptyset$



thank you







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
    – 4-ier
    Aug 23 at 10:45










  • @4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:17










  • @Vrouvrou Yes, your proof does seem correct. However, I would still recommend to use the "magic wand" stated below whenever you wish to prove/disprove connectedness. This is because not always is it feasible to find the two non - empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that all the conditions hold. Moreover, such a definition can be used for (full) spaces but it is really really difficult to use this definition for subspaces. Indeed, we can always use it because all definitions are equivalent.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 25 at 4:58














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Please is this prof is correct ?
Let $Omega_i_iin I$ a famille of connected sets such that $$forall i,jin I, Omega_icapOmega_jneqemptyset$$
I want to prove that $bigcup_iin I Omega_i$ is connected.



If I suppose that $bigcup Omega_i$ is not connected then, there exists two non empty open sets $A,B$ from $bigcup Omega_i$ such that
$$
begincases
bigcup Omega_i= Acup B\
Acap B=emptyset
endcases
$$
we have $forall iin I, Omega_isubset bigcup_iin IOmega_i=Acup B$ then by the connectedness of $Omega_i$
$$forall iin I, [Omega_isubset A ~textor~ Omega_isubset B]$$



As $forall i,jin I, A_icap A_jneq emptyset$ we deduce that $$forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$$
it follows that $B=emptyset$ or $D=emptyset$, which is a contradiction.



Please if I change the condition
$$forall i,jin I, Omega_icapOmega_jneqemptyset$$
by
$$
exists i_0in I, Omega_i_0cap Omega_jneq emptyset,forall jin I
$$
How to do ?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Let $Omega_i_iin I$ a famille of connected sets such that $$exists i_0in I, Omega_i_0cap Omega_jneq emptyset,forall jin I$$
I want to prove that $bigcup_iin I Omega_i$ is connected.



If I suppose that $bigcup Omega_i$ is not connected then, there exists two non empty open sets $A,B$ from $bigcup Omega_i$ such that
$$
begincases
bigcup Omega_i= Acup B\
Acap B=emptyset
endcases
$$
we have $forall iin I, Omega_isubset bigcup_iin IOmega_i=Acup B$ then $Omega_i_0subset Acup B$ as it is connected we have $$Omega_i_0subset A~textor ~ Omega_i_0subset B$$ if we suppose that $Omega_i_0subset A$ then $$forall jin I, Omega_jcap Aneq emptyset $$ by the connectedness of $Omega_i$ we deduce that $$forall jin I, Omega_jcap B=emptyset$$ then $$forall jin I, Omega_jsubset A$$ thus $$bigcup_jin IOmega_jsubset A$$ so $B=emptyset$ contradiction in the same way if we suppose that $Omega_i_0subset B$ we find that $A=emptyset$



thank you







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
    – 4-ier
    Aug 23 at 10:45










  • @4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:17










  • @Vrouvrou Yes, your proof does seem correct. However, I would still recommend to use the "magic wand" stated below whenever you wish to prove/disprove connectedness. This is because not always is it feasible to find the two non - empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that all the conditions hold. Moreover, such a definition can be used for (full) spaces but it is really really difficult to use this definition for subspaces. Indeed, we can always use it because all definitions are equivalent.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 25 at 4:58












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Please is this prof is correct ?
Let $Omega_i_iin I$ a famille of connected sets such that $$forall i,jin I, Omega_icapOmega_jneqemptyset$$
I want to prove that $bigcup_iin I Omega_i$ is connected.



If I suppose that $bigcup Omega_i$ is not connected then, there exists two non empty open sets $A,B$ from $bigcup Omega_i$ such that
$$
begincases
bigcup Omega_i= Acup B\
Acap B=emptyset
endcases
$$
we have $forall iin I, Omega_isubset bigcup_iin IOmega_i=Acup B$ then by the connectedness of $Omega_i$
$$forall iin I, [Omega_isubset A ~textor~ Omega_isubset B]$$



As $forall i,jin I, A_icap A_jneq emptyset$ we deduce that $$forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$$
it follows that $B=emptyset$ or $D=emptyset$, which is a contradiction.



Please if I change the condition
$$forall i,jin I, Omega_icapOmega_jneqemptyset$$
by
$$
exists i_0in I, Omega_i_0cap Omega_jneq emptyset,forall jin I
$$
How to do ?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Let $Omega_i_iin I$ a famille of connected sets such that $$exists i_0in I, Omega_i_0cap Omega_jneq emptyset,forall jin I$$
I want to prove that $bigcup_iin I Omega_i$ is connected.



If I suppose that $bigcup Omega_i$ is not connected then, there exists two non empty open sets $A,B$ from $bigcup Omega_i$ such that
$$
begincases
bigcup Omega_i= Acup B\
Acap B=emptyset
endcases
$$
we have $forall iin I, Omega_isubset bigcup_iin IOmega_i=Acup B$ then $Omega_i_0subset Acup B$ as it is connected we have $$Omega_i_0subset A~textor ~ Omega_i_0subset B$$ if we suppose that $Omega_i_0subset A$ then $$forall jin I, Omega_jcap Aneq emptyset $$ by the connectedness of $Omega_i$ we deduce that $$forall jin I, Omega_jcap B=emptyset$$ then $$forall jin I, Omega_jsubset A$$ thus $$bigcup_jin IOmega_jsubset A$$ so $B=emptyset$ contradiction in the same way if we suppose that $Omega_i_0subset B$ we find that $A=emptyset$



thank you







share|cite|improve this question














Please is this prof is correct ?
Let $Omega_i_iin I$ a famille of connected sets such that $$forall i,jin I, Omega_icapOmega_jneqemptyset$$
I want to prove that $bigcup_iin I Omega_i$ is connected.



If I suppose that $bigcup Omega_i$ is not connected then, there exists two non empty open sets $A,B$ from $bigcup Omega_i$ such that
$$
begincases
bigcup Omega_i= Acup B\
Acap B=emptyset
endcases
$$
we have $forall iin I, Omega_isubset bigcup_iin IOmega_i=Acup B$ then by the connectedness of $Omega_i$
$$forall iin I, [Omega_isubset A ~textor~ Omega_isubset B]$$



As $forall i,jin I, A_icap A_jneq emptyset$ we deduce that $$forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$$
it follows that $B=emptyset$ or $D=emptyset$, which is a contradiction.



Please if I change the condition
$$forall i,jin I, Omega_icapOmega_jneqemptyset$$
by
$$
exists i_0in I, Omega_i_0cap Omega_jneq emptyset,forall jin I
$$
How to do ?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Let $Omega_i_iin I$ a famille of connected sets such that $$exists i_0in I, Omega_i_0cap Omega_jneq emptyset,forall jin I$$
I want to prove that $bigcup_iin I Omega_i$ is connected.



If I suppose that $bigcup Omega_i$ is not connected then, there exists two non empty open sets $A,B$ from $bigcup Omega_i$ such that
$$
begincases
bigcup Omega_i= Acup B\
Acap B=emptyset
endcases
$$
we have $forall iin I, Omega_isubset bigcup_iin IOmega_i=Acup B$ then $Omega_i_0subset Acup B$ as it is connected we have $$Omega_i_0subset A~textor ~ Omega_i_0subset B$$ if we suppose that $Omega_i_0subset A$ then $$forall jin I, Omega_jcap Aneq emptyset $$ by the connectedness of $Omega_i$ we deduce that $$forall jin I, Omega_jcap B=emptyset$$ then $$forall jin I, Omega_jsubset A$$ thus $$bigcup_jin IOmega_jsubset A$$ so $B=emptyset$ contradiction in the same way if we suppose that $Omega_i_0subset B$ we find that $A=emptyset$



thank you









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 23 at 16:43

























asked Aug 23 at 10:38









Vrouvrou

1,8981722




1,8981722







  • 1




    Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
    – 4-ier
    Aug 23 at 10:45










  • @4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:17










  • @Vrouvrou Yes, your proof does seem correct. However, I would still recommend to use the "magic wand" stated below whenever you wish to prove/disprove connectedness. This is because not always is it feasible to find the two non - empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that all the conditions hold. Moreover, such a definition can be used for (full) spaces but it is really really difficult to use this definition for subspaces. Indeed, we can always use it because all definitions are equivalent.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 25 at 4:58












  • 1




    Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
    – 4-ier
    Aug 23 at 10:45










  • @4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:17










  • @Vrouvrou Yes, your proof does seem correct. However, I would still recommend to use the "magic wand" stated below whenever you wish to prove/disprove connectedness. This is because not always is it feasible to find the two non - empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that all the conditions hold. Moreover, such a definition can be used for (full) spaces but it is really really difficult to use this definition for subspaces. Indeed, we can always use it because all definitions are equivalent.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 25 at 4:58







1




1




Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
– 4-ier
Aug 23 at 10:45




Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
– 4-ier
Aug 23 at 10:45












@4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
– Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:17




@4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
– Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:17












@Vrouvrou Yes, your proof does seem correct. However, I would still recommend to use the "magic wand" stated below whenever you wish to prove/disprove connectedness. This is because not always is it feasible to find the two non - empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that all the conditions hold. Moreover, such a definition can be used for (full) spaces but it is really really difficult to use this definition for subspaces. Indeed, we can always use it because all definitions are equivalent.
– Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 25 at 4:58




@Vrouvrou Yes, your proof does seem correct. However, I would still recommend to use the "magic wand" stated below whenever you wish to prove/disprove connectedness. This is because not always is it feasible to find the two non - empty open sets $A$ and $B$ such that all the conditions hold. Moreover, such a definition can be used for (full) spaces but it is really really difficult to use this definition for subspaces. Indeed, we can always use it because all definitions are equivalent.
– Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 25 at 4:58










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













Actually, there is a much easier way to prove any given set is connected. Think of it as the "magic wand" for proving connectedness of sets.



Suppose $X$ is a set. Then, it is connected iff every continuous function $f: X rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant.



Your second case can be easily proven by this fact. Notice that each $Omega_i$ is connected and hence every continuous function $f_i: Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant. Now, this is true also for $Omega_i_0$. Now, also observe that $forall i in I$, $Omega_i_0 cap Omega_i neq emptyset$ implies that $exists x_0 in Omega_i$ such that it is also in $Omega_i_0$. Now, since $f_i_0$ is a constant function, its value at $x_0$ is constant and must be same everywhere in $Omega_i_0$ as well as $Omega_i$ for every $i in I$. This is because each $Omega_i$ is connected. Hence, every continuous function $f : bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and hence $bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i$ is connected.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:18










  • Not really. $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$ implies that the overall intersection is non - empty, which means that all sets have at least one point in common. Here, it is mentioned that $exists i_0 in I$ such that $forall i in I$, $A_i cap A_i_0 neq emptyset$. This means that every set has at least one point common with the set $A_i_0$ but that does not mean all the sets have common points with one another.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:32










  • can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:37










  • Go for the same way. If $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$, then $exists x_0 in A_i$ for in fact every $i in I$. Now, since each $A_i$ is individually connected, every continuous function $f: A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and its value must be $f left( x_0 right)$. Now, if we consider any continuous function $f: bigcuplimits_i in I A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$, it must again be constant because of the argument above. Hence, $bigcuplimits_i in I A_i$ is connected.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:42











  • i edited my question can you see it please
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 24 at 9:46










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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2891961%2fwhat-about-union-of-connected-sets%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote













Actually, there is a much easier way to prove any given set is connected. Think of it as the "magic wand" for proving connectedness of sets.



Suppose $X$ is a set. Then, it is connected iff every continuous function $f: X rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant.



Your second case can be easily proven by this fact. Notice that each $Omega_i$ is connected and hence every continuous function $f_i: Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant. Now, this is true also for $Omega_i_0$. Now, also observe that $forall i in I$, $Omega_i_0 cap Omega_i neq emptyset$ implies that $exists x_0 in Omega_i$ such that it is also in $Omega_i_0$. Now, since $f_i_0$ is a constant function, its value at $x_0$ is constant and must be same everywhere in $Omega_i_0$ as well as $Omega_i$ for every $i in I$. This is because each $Omega_i$ is connected. Hence, every continuous function $f : bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and hence $bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i$ is connected.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:18










  • Not really. $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$ implies that the overall intersection is non - empty, which means that all sets have at least one point in common. Here, it is mentioned that $exists i_0 in I$ such that $forall i in I$, $A_i cap A_i_0 neq emptyset$. This means that every set has at least one point common with the set $A_i_0$ but that does not mean all the sets have common points with one another.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:32










  • can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:37










  • Go for the same way. If $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$, then $exists x_0 in A_i$ for in fact every $i in I$. Now, since each $A_i$ is individually connected, every continuous function $f: A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and its value must be $f left( x_0 right)$. Now, if we consider any continuous function $f: bigcuplimits_i in I A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$, it must again be constant because of the argument above. Hence, $bigcuplimits_i in I A_i$ is connected.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:42











  • i edited my question can you see it please
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 24 at 9:46














up vote
3
down vote













Actually, there is a much easier way to prove any given set is connected. Think of it as the "magic wand" for proving connectedness of sets.



Suppose $X$ is a set. Then, it is connected iff every continuous function $f: X rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant.



Your second case can be easily proven by this fact. Notice that each $Omega_i$ is connected and hence every continuous function $f_i: Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant. Now, this is true also for $Omega_i_0$. Now, also observe that $forall i in I$, $Omega_i_0 cap Omega_i neq emptyset$ implies that $exists x_0 in Omega_i$ such that it is also in $Omega_i_0$. Now, since $f_i_0$ is a constant function, its value at $x_0$ is constant and must be same everywhere in $Omega_i_0$ as well as $Omega_i$ for every $i in I$. This is because each $Omega_i$ is connected. Hence, every continuous function $f : bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and hence $bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i$ is connected.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:18










  • Not really. $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$ implies that the overall intersection is non - empty, which means that all sets have at least one point in common. Here, it is mentioned that $exists i_0 in I$ such that $forall i in I$, $A_i cap A_i_0 neq emptyset$. This means that every set has at least one point common with the set $A_i_0$ but that does not mean all the sets have common points with one another.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:32










  • can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:37










  • Go for the same way. If $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$, then $exists x_0 in A_i$ for in fact every $i in I$. Now, since each $A_i$ is individually connected, every continuous function $f: A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and its value must be $f left( x_0 right)$. Now, if we consider any continuous function $f: bigcuplimits_i in I A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$, it must again be constant because of the argument above. Hence, $bigcuplimits_i in I A_i$ is connected.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:42











  • i edited my question can you see it please
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 24 at 9:46












up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









Actually, there is a much easier way to prove any given set is connected. Think of it as the "magic wand" for proving connectedness of sets.



Suppose $X$ is a set. Then, it is connected iff every continuous function $f: X rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant.



Your second case can be easily proven by this fact. Notice that each $Omega_i$ is connected and hence every continuous function $f_i: Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant. Now, this is true also for $Omega_i_0$. Now, also observe that $forall i in I$, $Omega_i_0 cap Omega_i neq emptyset$ implies that $exists x_0 in Omega_i$ such that it is also in $Omega_i_0$. Now, since $f_i_0$ is a constant function, its value at $x_0$ is constant and must be same everywhere in $Omega_i_0$ as well as $Omega_i$ for every $i in I$. This is because each $Omega_i$ is connected. Hence, every continuous function $f : bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and hence $bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i$ is connected.






share|cite|improve this answer












Actually, there is a much easier way to prove any given set is connected. Think of it as the "magic wand" for proving connectedness of sets.



Suppose $X$ is a set. Then, it is connected iff every continuous function $f: X rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant.



Your second case can be easily proven by this fact. Notice that each $Omega_i$ is connected and hence every continuous function $f_i: Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant. Now, this is true also for $Omega_i_0$. Now, also observe that $forall i in I$, $Omega_i_0 cap Omega_i neq emptyset$ implies that $exists x_0 in Omega_i$ such that it is also in $Omega_i_0$. Now, since $f_i_0$ is a constant function, its value at $x_0$ is constant and must be same everywhere in $Omega_i_0$ as well as $Omega_i$ for every $i in I$. This is because each $Omega_i$ is connected. Hence, every continuous function $f : bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and hence $bigcuplimits_i in I Omega_i$ is connected.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Aug 23 at 10:46









Aniruddha Deshmukh

663417




663417











  • Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:18










  • Not really. $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$ implies that the overall intersection is non - empty, which means that all sets have at least one point in common. Here, it is mentioned that $exists i_0 in I$ such that $forall i in I$, $A_i cap A_i_0 neq emptyset$. This means that every set has at least one point common with the set $A_i_0$ but that does not mean all the sets have common points with one another.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:32










  • can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:37










  • Go for the same way. If $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$, then $exists x_0 in A_i$ for in fact every $i in I$. Now, since each $A_i$ is individually connected, every continuous function $f: A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and its value must be $f left( x_0 right)$. Now, if we consider any continuous function $f: bigcuplimits_i in I A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$, it must again be constant because of the argument above. Hence, $bigcuplimits_i in I A_i$ is connected.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:42











  • i edited my question can you see it please
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 24 at 9:46
















  • Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:18










  • Not really. $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$ implies that the overall intersection is non - empty, which means that all sets have at least one point in common. Here, it is mentioned that $exists i_0 in I$ such that $forall i in I$, $A_i cap A_i_0 neq emptyset$. This means that every set has at least one point common with the set $A_i_0$ but that does not mean all the sets have common points with one another.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:32










  • can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 23 at 11:37










  • Go for the same way. If $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$, then $exists x_0 in A_i$ for in fact every $i in I$. Now, since each $A_i$ is individually connected, every continuous function $f: A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and its value must be $f left( x_0 right)$. Now, if we consider any continuous function $f: bigcuplimits_i in I A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$, it must again be constant because of the argument above. Hence, $bigcuplimits_i in I A_i$ is connected.
    – Aniruddha Deshmukh
    Aug 23 at 11:42











  • i edited my question can you see it please
    – Vrouvrou
    Aug 24 at 9:46















Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
– Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:18




Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
– Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:18












Not really. $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$ implies that the overall intersection is non - empty, which means that all sets have at least one point in common. Here, it is mentioned that $exists i_0 in I$ such that $forall i in I$, $A_i cap A_i_0 neq emptyset$. This means that every set has at least one point common with the set $A_i_0$ but that does not mean all the sets have common points with one another.
– Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:32




Not really. $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$ implies that the overall intersection is non - empty, which means that all sets have at least one point in common. Here, it is mentioned that $exists i_0 in I$ such that $forall i in I$, $A_i cap A_i_0 neq emptyset$. This means that every set has at least one point common with the set $A_i_0$ but that does not mean all the sets have common points with one another.
– Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:32












can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
– Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:37




can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
– Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:37












Go for the same way. If $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$, then $exists x_0 in A_i$ for in fact every $i in I$. Now, since each $A_i$ is individually connected, every continuous function $f: A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and its value must be $f left( x_0 right)$. Now, if we consider any continuous function $f: bigcuplimits_i in I A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$, it must again be constant because of the argument above. Hence, $bigcuplimits_i in I A_i$ is connected.
– Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:42





Go for the same way. If $bigcaplimits_i in I A_i neq emptyset$, then $exists x_0 in A_i$ for in fact every $i in I$. Now, since each $A_i$ is individually connected, every continuous function $f: A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$ is constant and its value must be $f left( x_0 right)$. Now, if we consider any continuous function $f: bigcuplimits_i in I A_i rightarrow leftlbrace 1, -1 rightrbrace$, it must again be constant because of the argument above. Hence, $bigcuplimits_i in I A_i$ is connected.
– Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:42













i edited my question can you see it please
– Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46




i edited my question can you see it please
– Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2891961%2fwhat-about-union-of-connected-sets%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

Carbon dioxide