What about Union of connected sets?
Clash 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
general-topology connectedness
add a comment |Â
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
general-topology connectedness
1
Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 10:45
@4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 25 at 4:58
add a comment |Â
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
general-topology connectedness
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
general-topology connectedness
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.
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 10:45
@4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 25 at 4:58
add a comment |Â
1
Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 10:45
@4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 25 at 4:58
1
1
Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 10:45
Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 10:45
@4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
â Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:17
@4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
â 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.
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 25 at 4:58
add a comment |Â
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.
Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:32
can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:42
i edited my question can you see it please
â Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46
add a comment |Â
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.
Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:32
can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:42
i edited my question can you see it please
â Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46
add a comment |Â
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.
Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:32
can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:42
i edited my question can you see it please
â Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
answered Aug 23 at 10:46
Aniruddha Deshmukh
663417
663417
Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:32
can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:42
i edited my question can you see it please
â Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46
add a comment |Â
Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:32
can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:42
i edited my question can you see it please
â Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46
Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
â Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:18
Is it the same thing if we suppose that $bigcap_Iin I A_ineqemptyset$?
â 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.
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:32
can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
â Vrouvrou
Aug 23 at 11:37
can you explain me how to prove with this new condition? and does my proof still correct ?
â 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.
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 23 at 11:42
i edited my question can you see it please
â Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46
i edited my question can you see it please
â Vrouvrou
Aug 24 at 9:46
add a comment |Â
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
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
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
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
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
1
Just try doing the same thing; it is very similar.
â 4-ier
Aug 23 at 10:45
@4-ier how to prove with the new condition that $forall Iin A, Omega_isubset A~textor~ forall iin I,Omega_isubset B$
â 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.
â Aniruddha Deshmukh
Aug 25 at 4:58