# TOPOLOGY: THE JOURNEY INTO SEPARATION AXIOMS

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

## Transcription

1 TOPOLOGY: THE JOURNEY INTO SEPARATION AXIOMS VIPUL NAIK Abstract. In this journey, we are going to explore the so called separation axioms in greater detail. We shall try to understand how these axioms are affected on going to subspaces, taking products, and looking at small open neighbourhoods. 1. What this journey entails 1.1. Prerequisites. Familiarity with definitions of these basic terms is expected: Topological space Open sets, closed sets, and limit points Basis and subbasis Continuous function and homeomorphism Product topology Subspace topology The target audience for this article are students doing a first course in topology The explicit promise. At the end of this journey, the learner should be able to: Define the following: T 0, T 1, T 2 (Hausdorff), T 3 (regular), T 4 (normal) Understand how these properties are affected on taking subspaces, products and other similar constructions 2. What are separation axioms? 2.1. The idea behind separation. The defining attributes of a topological space (in terms of a family of open subsets) does little to guarantee that the points in the topological space are somehow distinct or far apart. The topological spaces that we would like to study, on the other hand, usually have these two features: Any two points can be separated, that is, they are, to an extent, far apart. Every point can be approached very closely from other points, and if we take a sequence of points, they will usually get to cluster around a point. On the face of it, the above two statements do not seem to reconcile each other. In fact, topological spaces become interesting precisely because they are nice in both the above ways. The first of these is related to the concern of separation axioms, and this is what we will look at here The concept of quasiorder. Definition. A quasiorder(defined) or preorder(defined) is a reflexive and transitive relation on a set. Under a quasiorder, two elements a and b are said to be equivalent(defined) if a b and b a. The above notion of equivalence partitions the set into equivalence classes, and the quasiorder boils down to a partial order (that is, a reflexive antisymmetric transitive relation) on the equivalence classes. Here are some examples of quasiorders. Suppose we have a collection of people. We say that a person a is not older than a person b if the age of a is less than or equal to the age of b (the age is simply counted in years, with no fractions). Clearly, this relation is reflexive: each person is not older than himself or herself. Moreover, it is also transitive: if a is not older than b, and b is not older than c, then the age of a is less than or equal to the age of c. Under this quasiorder, if a b and b a, we cannot conclude that a and b are the same person. What we can conclude is that they have the same age. In fact, having the same age is precisely the equivalence relation for the quasiorder, and each equivalence class is represented by a value of age. c Vipul Naik, B.Sc. (Hons) Math, 2nd Year, Chennai Mathematical Institute. 1

2 Among these equivalence classes, there is a total ordering. That is, if two people have different ages, then either one is not older than the other, or the other is not older than the first. Here s another example. Suppose we associate to every family a collection of wealth indices. These give vectors in R n, which we ll call the wealth vector of the family. We say that a family a is not better off in any respect than a family b if every coordinate of the wealth vector of a is less than or equal to the corresponding coordinate in b. Clearly, the relation is reflexive and transitive. However, it may not be antisymmetric if two families a and b have the same wealth vector, we have a b and b a. In this case, then, every wealth vector gives rise to an equivalence class of families. Among these equivalence classes, the relation is a partial order, in fact, it is the partial order of coordinate wise dominance. (1) Prove that a quasiorder on a set defines a partial order on its equivalence classes (where an equivalence class is a set of elements such that for any a and b in it, a b and b a). (2) A discrete partial order is a partial order where no two distinct elements are comparable. Prove that if a quasiorder is such that a b b a, then the associated partial order is the discrete partial order. (3) Prove that if, for a given quasiorder, every a and b satisfy either a b or b a, then the associated partial order is the total order Quasiorder by closure. We ll begin by proving the following result: Claim. Given a topological space S, consider the relation a b a b. (That is, every open set about a contains b). Then this relation is a quasiorder, that is, it is reflexive and transitive. Proof. Clearly, a a, so the relation is reflexive. For transitivity, observe that suppose a b and b c. Then every open set about a contains b, and and every open set about b contains c. But this clearly means that every open set about a contains c, and hence a c, thus a c. In some sense, a sticks to b whatever open set about a we take, that open set must also contain b. So, a is in some ways dependent or inferior to b. Now, if a and b are equivalent under this quasiorder, that is, we have both a b and b a, then that means that every open set contains either both a and b or neither a nor b. This means that any local behaviour around a is also around b and vice versa. In this sense, we call the two points indistinguishable. Definition. If a b and b a the points a and b are said to be indistinguishable(defined). It is clear that indistinguishability is an equivalence relation (see above) We are now motivated to a definition: Definition. A topological space is said to be T 0 (defined) or Kolmogorov(defined) if no two distinct points are indistinguishable. In other words, a topological space S is called T 0 if given any two points a and b, there is either an open set containing a but not b, or an open set containing b but not a. (1) Consider a space with two or more points, with the discrete topology(recalled), that is, with the topology under which all subsets are open. What is the quasiorder in this topology? Is it T 0? (2) Consider a space with two or more points with the trivial topology(recalled), that is, the only open subsets are the whole space and the empty space. What is the quasiorder in this case? (That is, when is it true that a b?) Is it T 0? (3) Prove that the quasiorder by closure for a T 0 topological space is a partial order. Given an arbitrary topological space, consider a new topological space whose points are equivalence classes under the quasiorder by closure. What topology should be given to this topological space, so that the quotient map (taking each element of the original topological space to its equivalence class) is continuous, and the new topological space is T 0? A natural way of giving such a topology is the so called Kolmogorov quotient construction. Given a partially ordered set, can we find a T 0 topological space such that the quasiorder by closure is the given partially ordered set? Is this topological space unique for the purpose? 2

3 2.4. The T 1 assumption. A T 0 space is a space where no two points can be indistinguishable. We shall see later that given any topological space, we can pass to an associated T 0 space by a quotient construction (called the Kolmogorov quotient(first used)). Thus, we can always get started by working with a T 0 topological space. Nice though they are, T 0 topological spaces can still have some points sticking to others. So, it is quite possible that a b, in other words, it is possible that every open set containing a contains b as well. All we know is that we cannot have a sticking to b as well as b sticking to a. An even better separability assumption is that no point sticks to any other point. In other words, a b never happens unless a = b. Another way of saying this is that the closure quasiorder is trivial. Definition. A topological space is said to be T 1 (defined) if the following equivalent conditions hold: Given any two points a b in it, there is an open set containing a but not b, and there is an open set containing b but not a. No point lies in the closure of any other point. In the quasiorder by closure, no two elements are comparable. In other words, the quasiorder is the discrete partial order. Every point is its own closure. In other words, all one point subsets are closed. The last way of characterizing T 1 topological spaces is that every point is a closed set. Let s try to understand this visually. When one point sticks to the other, then that other point is actually open to this point it has a boundary that interfaces with this point. We now want to avoid this altogether. (1) A topological space is said to be symmetric(defined) if whenever a and b are two points, a lies in the closure of b if and only if b lies in the closure of a. Prove that a symmetric topological space can also be defined as follows: given any two points a and b in the space, there is an open set containing a and not b, if and only if there is an open set containing b but not a. (2) Prove that T 1 spaces are precisely the symmetric T 0 spaces. (3) Prove that a topological space is symmetric if and only if the quasiorder by closure gives rise to a discrete partial order on the equivalence classes. (4) A topological space is said to be homogeneous(defined) if given any two points in the topological space, there is a homeomorphism of the topological space taking one to the other. In other words, any two points look the same to the topological space. Prove that every homogeneous topological space is symmetric. (5) Prove that given a topological space X and a subspace Y, the quasiorder by closure on Y is simply the same as the quasiorder by closure on X. In other words, if x, y Y and x y in X, then x y in Y and vice versa. Hence show that every subspace of a T 0 space is T 0, every subspace of a symmetric space is symmetric, and every subspace of a T 1 space is T 1. (6) Prove that every finite T 1 space is discrete. Hence, show that every finite subspace of a T 1 space is discrete. (7) Prove that if we add more open sets to the topology, that is, we pass from a coarser to a finer topology, T 0 spaces remain T 0, and T 1 spaces remain T 1. In fact, for most separation axioms, addition of more open sets only increases the extent of separation, rather than decreasing it. Pause and Recollect (1) Rewrite the definitions of T 0, symmetric and T 1 each in these three ways: using open set separation, using closures, and using the properties of the quasiorder by closure. Try to write the definitions such that for each way of writing, it is clear that T 1 spaces are precisely the symmetric T 0 spaces. Suppose X is a topological space, and a group G acts on X in such a way that for every g G, the induced map X X is continuous. Prove that X is a homogeneous space. Hence, show that X is symmetric. Given a group G, consider the space X whose points are the normal subgroups of G. Define the following subsets as closed: the set of all normal subgroups of G containing a given normal subgroup N. Is an arbitrary intersection of these closed sets closed? Is a finite union of these closed sets closed? 3

4 What happens if instead of taking X as the space of normal subgroups, we take X as the space of normal subgroups N such that whenever H 1 H 2 N then either H 1 N or H 2 N? Do we then get a topology? Is it T 0? Is it symmetric? Is it true that every subspace of a homogeneous space is homogeneous? Is it true that if a topological space is symmetric, then passing to a finer topology will retain the property of being symmetric? 3. Separation of points and subsets 3.1. The separation setup. We ll see a whole lot of definitions now, some of which may seem ill motivated to begin with. So I ll try to describe the general setup. This general setup may not seem to make much sense right now, but after things unfold a little bit, we shall get back to it with a better understanding. Suppose we have a separation property. There are two players a spoiler who is trying to prove that the topological space does not satisfy the property, and a prover who wants to show that it does. The spoiler starts with a pair of subsets that are separate, or far apart. The prover now tries to find bigger subsets that expand the original pair, but are still far apart in some sense. If the prover, can always win regardless of what the spoiler chooses, then the topological space is said to have the property. Here are some criteria to say that two subsets are separate: They are disjoint(defined) that is, their intersection is empty. They are separated(defined) that is, the intersection of each of them with the closure of the other is empty. They are closure disjoint(defined) that is, their closures are disjoint. They are function separated(defined) that is, there is a continuous function taking 0 on one subset and 1 on the other. (1) Recall that for a continuous function between topological spaces, the inverse image of a closed set is closed. Using this fact, prove that the inverse images of 0 and 1 under any continuous function from a topological space to [0, 1] are closed. Hence, prove that if two subsets are function separated, then they are closure disjoint. (2) Prove that function separated = closure disjoint = separated = disjoint. Is moving to a finer topology advantageous for the spoiler or for the prover? That is, if there are more open sets, who stands to gain? Is moving to a subspace advantageous for the spoiler or for the prover? That is, who stands to gain by passing from the topological space to a subspace? 3.2. The T 0 and T 1 conditions. What sense can we make of the T 0 and T 1 conditions in the spoilerprover setup? For the T 0 condition: The spoiler simply picks two points. The prover then picks one of the points of his own choice, and an open set about that point that does not contain the other point. The T 1 condition, on the other hand, translates to the following: The spoiler picks two points and marks one of them. The prover then gives an open set containing the marked point but not the other point. Another way of putting the T 1 condition is: The spoiler picks two points. The prover finds, for each of the points, an open set containing that point and not the other one. It is clear from this definition that T 1 is stronger than T 0, because in the T 1 case, the work of proving is a little harder. Pause and Recollect (1) How is the subspace topology defined? How did we show that every subspace of a T 1 space is T 1 in the subspace topology? 4

5 4. On Hausdorff spaces 4.1. Hausdorff spaces. The condition which we call Hausdorffness now was assumed by Felix Hausdorff as one of the fundamental axioms of topological spaces. For many topologists, topological spaces that are not Hausdorff are not worth studying at all. Definition. A topological space is said to be Hausdorff(defined) if given any two distinct points x and y in the space, there are open set U 1 and U 2 such that U 1 contains x, U 2 contains y, and U 1 U 2 =.. In other words, any two distinct points can be separated by disjoint open sets. Hausdorffness corresponds to the situation where the spoiler can pick on any pair of distinct points, and the prover must expand them to disjoint open subsets. The intuitive importance is as follows: an open set about a point represents the notion of being close to the point. When two points are separated by disjoint open sets, that means that there is nothing that can come quite close to both of them. We now prove a basic result: Claim. Every subspace of a Hausdorff space is Hausdorff. Proof. Suppose X is a Hausdorff space, and A is a subspace of X. The spoiler now picks two distinct points x and y in A, and the prover must demonstrate that there are disjoint sets containing x and y respectively that are open in the subspace topology for A. Since x and y are distinct points of X, the prover has at his disposal disjoint open sets of X, namely U and V, such that U contains x and V contains y. He them picks U A and V A as subsets of A. Clearly: x A and x U, so x U A. Similarly, y V A. U and V themselves are disjoint, so U A and V A are disjoint. U A is open relative to A, because it is the intersection with A of an open set in X. Similarly V A is also open relative to A. Hence, the prover has managed to pick disjoint open sets containing x and y, relative to the subspace topology of A. (1) Prove that every Hausdorff space is T 1. Use the open set definition of T 1. (2) Prove that passing to a finer topology retains the property of being Hausdorff. (Recall that a finer topology is one with more open sets, but with the earlier open sets retained). (3) A topological space is said to be conditionally Hausdorff(defined) if given any two points, such that there is an open set containing one but not the other, there are disjoint open sets separating them. Prove that a conditionally Hausdorff T 1 space is precisely the same as a Hausdorff (or T 2 ) space Sequences and limits. We are already familiar with the notion of limits of sequences from calculus. The notion is now defined for an arbitrary topological space: Definition. A sequence of points(defined) in a space X is a function N X. The function may not be injective. The image of n N is typically denoted as x n, or a n. Given a sequence of points {x n } n N in a space X, a point x X is said to be a limit(defined) of x n (or, x n x) if given any open set U containing x, all but finitely many n satisfy x n U. This is equivalent to the usual statement that there exists an n 0 such that x n U for n n 0. Intuitively, we can think of it as follows: however small an open cage we construct about x, the sequence of points x n eventually enters (or gets trapped in) that open cage. The notion of limit of a sequence is somewhat stronger than the notion of limit point of a set. Note that for the limit of a sequence, we insist that for any neighbourhood, all but finitely many points lie inside. Whereas, in the case of limit points, all we insist is that for any neighbourhood there is some element of the set in that neighbourhood. Claim. The limit of a sequence is a limit point of the associated set, if it is not itself a member of that set. In general, any limit of a sequence is a limit point unless the sequence eventually becomes constant at that point. 5

6 Proof. Let x n be a sequence in X and x be a limit of the sequence. We want to show that every open set U containing x must contain some x n x. Clearly, every open set about x contains all the x n for all but finitely many n. Because the sequence does not become eventually constant, it cannot happen that all x n = x. Thus, there is at least one n for which x n x. This completes the proof. Basically, the notion of limit point means that the sequence comes arbitrarily close to the point infinitely often. Whereas the notion of limit means that the sequence keeps coming closer and closer to the point, and gets eventually trapped in any cage about the point, however small. Thus, a sequence that keeps oscillating between 0 and 1, or even a superposition of sequences that converge to 0 and 1, has both 0 and 1 as limit points but neither as a limit. (1) Prove that if f : X Y is a continuous map and x n is a sequence in X converging to x, then f(x n ) converges to f(x). Find an example of f : X Y and a sequence in X that has no limit, but whose image under f has a limit Sequences in Hausdorff spaces. We prove a very important result for Hausdorffness: Claim. In a Hausdorff space, every sequence has at most one limit. Proof. Let X be a Hausdorff space and x n be a sequence. Let y and z be two limits of x n. By Hausdorffness of X, there are disjoint open sets U and V containing y and z respectively. Now, there are only finitely many n for which x n / U, and only finitely many n for which x n / V. Thus, there are only finitely many n for which x n / U V. But this means there is some x n U V, contradicting the fact that U and V are disjoint. The essential idea behind the proof is this: make small open cages about x and y, Eventually, all points in the sequence will enter the open cage about x, but they ll also eventually enter the open cage about y. However, these open cages are disjoint! So basically, the sequence cannot enter both of them forever and it must make up its mind. A topological space where every sequence has at most one limit is called a US topological space(defined). This is not a very standard term, and we are just using it for a bit of convenience. (1) Prove that every US topological space is T 1. We know that Hausdorff = US = T 1. Prove that each of these implications is strict Morphic characterization of T 1 and Hausdorff. Given a set map f : X Y, the fibers of the map are the inverse images of singleton sets. We now show that: Claim. A topological space Y is T 1, if and only if for every continuous map f : X Y, the fibers are closed. Proof. Suppose f : X Y is continuous, and Y is T 1. We claim that the fibers are closed: the fibers are the inverse images of one point sets in Y. Y being T 1, each of these one point sets is closed. And the inverse image of a closed set under a continuous function is closed. Hence, the fibers are closed. To prove the converse, observe that if the fibers are closed for every continuous function, we can simply take the function to be the identity map f : Y Y. Here, the fibers are just the points of Y, and if these are closed, then clearly Y is T 1. Hence, the corollary: Claim. If X is T 1, and a continuous function takes a subset A of X to a point x, it also takes the closure of A to the point x. However, with Hausdorffness, we can do a little better, namely that: Claim. If A is a dense subset of X and Y is a Hausdorff space, then every continuous function from A to Y extends in at most one way to a continuous function from X to Y. 6

7 Notice that this is somewhat better than the previous result, which had to assume the function was constant. This improvement is possible because of the status upgrade of Y from T 1 to T 2. Proof. Suppose there are two different extensions of f to X. That is, there are two distinct functions f 1 : X Y and f 2 : X Y such that f 1 A = f 2 A = f. Then, suppose x X with f 1 (x) f 2 (x). Since Y is Hausdorff there are open subsets about y 1 = f 1 (x) and y 2 = f 2 (x). Call these V 1 and V 2. Then look at U 1 = f 1 1 (V 1) and U 2 = f 1 2 (V 2). Now U 1 and U 2 are open sets, so U 1 U 2 is an open set, and it contains x. Hence, it intersects A (because A is dense in X). Let a A be a point in U 1 U 2. Now, f 1 (a) V 1 and f 2 (a) V 2. But as a A, f 1 (a) = f 2 (a) = f(a). Thus, f(a) V 1 V 2. However, by our original assumption V 1 and V 2 were disjoint. This gives the contradiction. The basic idea behind the proof is that if a point in the space has two different possible images, then making open cages about those images, we can get a point in the dense subset whose image lies simultaneously in both the open cages. This gives the argument. Notice that what we are really using these open cages for is to separate the images nicely. And to construct these open cages, we require the image space to be Hausdorff. (1) Use the above result to prove the following variant: if A and B are subsets of X with B contained in the closure of A, and Y is Hausdorff, then any continuous function from A to Y can be extended to a continuous function from B to Y in at most one way. (2) A fixed point(defined) if a function from a set to itself is a point that equals its own image. That is, for f : S S, x is a fixed point if f(x) = x. Prove that the set of fixed points of a continuous map from a Hausdorff topological space to itself is a closed set. Let G be an Abelian group and S a set. Define the period group of a function f : G S as the set of all h G such that f(x + h) = f(x) for every x G. f is periodic(defined) if the period group is nontrivial, and fundamentally periodic(defined) if the period group is infinite cyclic. The generator of the infinite cyclic group is a fundamental period. Prove that every continuous periodic function from R to a Hausdorff space is fundamentally periodic Sober spaces and irreducible subsets. Definition. A topological space is said to be irreducible(defined) if it cannot be expressed as the union of two proper closed subsets. Equivalently, a topological space is irreducible if it does not contain a pair of disjoint nonempty open sets. Clearly, irreducible spaces are far from Hausdorff. However, irreducible spaces are not as uncommon as they may seem. In fact, it is readily check that: Claim. The closure of every one point set is irreducible. Proof. Let A X be the closure of a point x. Suppose A = A 1 A 2 with both A 1 and A 2 proper closed subsets of A. A closed subset of a closed subset is closed. Hence, both A 1 and A 2 are closed subsets of X strictly contained in A. But one of these must contain x, contradicting the fact that A is the smallest closed set containing x. The one point can be thought of as a kind of witness for irreducibility. And now here is a definition: Definition. A topological space is said to be sober(defined) if the only irreducible closed subspaces are the closures of one point sets. In other words, whenever we encounter an irreducible closed subset, there is a single point that provides a witness for the irreducibility. Of particular interest are sober T 1 spaces, that is, spaces where the only irreducible closed subsets are the one point sets. (1) Prove that there are only two possibilities for an irreducible Hausdorff space: the one point space, and the empty space. 7

8 (2) Prove that a Hausdorff space is always a sober T 1 space. In fact, in a Hausdorff space, the only irreducible subspaces are one point sets. (in contrast to sober T 1 spaces where we can only guarantee that all irreducible closed sets are one point sets). Are there sober T 1 spaces that are not Hausdorff? What about sober T 0 spaces that are not T 1? Can we reformulate the definition of sober in the framework of the quasiorder by closure? 4.6. Locally Hausdorff spaces. The term locally is typically used to indicate that every point has an open neighbourhood with the property. Definition. A topological space is said to be locally Hausdorff(defined) if every point has an open neighbourhood that is a Hausdorff space. Clearly every Hausdorff space is locally Hausdorff, because for the open neighbourhood, we can take the whole space itself. We can also take any other open neighbourhood, which will be Hausdorff by the hereditary nature of the property of being Hausdorff. What about locally T 1 and locally T 0? Well, they are the same as T 1 and T 0 respectively. Claim. If every point in a topological space has an open neighbourhood that is T 1, then the whole space is T 1. Proof. The spoiler picks two points x and y, and asks the prover to convince him that there is an open set containing x but not y. The prover first picks an open neighbourhood U of x that is T 1. There are two cases: If y / U, then U itself does the prover s job. Otherwise, y U. Then, there is a set V containing x but not y, open in U. Because an open set of an open set is open, V is an open set in X containing x and not y, and hence V does the job. (1) Prove that every locally T 0 space is T 0. (2) Prove that every locally Hausdorff space is T 1 (or equivalently, locally T 1 ). (3) Prove that Hausdorffness is equivalent to the following property: given any two points, there is an open set containing both of them that is Hausdorff in the subspace topology. A topological space property π is called hereditary if every subspace of a space having π, also has π. Given a hereditary property π, a topological space is termed locally π if every point has a neighbourhood with property π. (Actually, we don t need to assume π is hereditary, but it is convenient for our purposes here). A topological space property π is called hereditary and local if it is hereditary and π = locally π. Which of the separation properties studied so far are hereditary? Which are local? (We have seen T 0, T 1, T 2, US, sober, irreducible, symmetric, homogeneous). Prove that if a = b, then locally a = locally b. If a is hereditary, is locally a also hereditary? 4.7. Collectionwise Hausdorffness. Definition. A topological space is said to be collectionwise Hausdorff(defined) if it is T 1 and given a discrete subset of the topological space (that is, a subset on which the induced topology is discrete there are open sets about every point in the discrete subset, that are pairwise disjoint.. As we had proved long ago, every finite subset of a T 1 space is discrete. Thus, in particular, every two point subset is discrete. Thus, a collectionwise Hausdorff topological space must be Hausdorff. Are Hausdorff spaces collectionwise Hausdorff? Not necessarily. However, we can say the following for Hausdorff spaces in general: Claim. Given any finite collection of distinct points x 1, x 2... x n there are open sets U 1, U 2... U n such that U i contains x i and U i U j is empty for i j. Proof. For each pair i j, let V ij and V ji be disjoint open sets containing x i and x j respectively. Then, consider U i to be the intersection of all V ij with j i. Clearly, we have: 8

9 U i, being a finite intersection of open sets, is open. x i V ij for all j, so x i U i. For any i and j, U i V ij and U j V ji with V ij V ji being empty. Thus U i and U j are disjoint. So, this choice of U i works! The basic idea: separate them pairwise, and then take the intersection of all the open sets used to separate. The problem with extending this to arbitrary discrete sets is that we may need to take an infinite intersection of open sets, which does not make sense. A topological space is said to be hereditarily collectionwise Hausdorff(defined) if every subspace of it is collectionwise Hausdorff. We know that Hausdorff is the same as hereditarily Hausdorff. Is collectionwise Hausdorff the same as hereditarily collectionwise Hausdorff? Is the property of being collectionwise Hausdorff the same as the property of being locally collectionwise Hausdorff? 4.8. The diagonal is closed. Here is yet another characterization of the property of being Hausdorff! Claim. A topological space X is Hausdorff if and only the diagonal is closed in X X with the product topology. Proof. Let D denote the diagonal {(x, x) x X} in X X. Suppose D is closed. Then the complement of D is open. We want to show that X is Hausdorff. Suppose the spoiler picks x y. The point (x, y) lies in an open set disjoint from D. In particular, there is a basis open set about (x, y) that does not intersect D. Let U V be such a basis open set. (so U and V are both open in X). Clearly, if y U V, then (y, y) U V. But U V does not intersect D, and hence U and V are disjoint open sets. Thus, the prover can respond by giving U and V as the disjoint open sets containing x and y. Conversely, suppose X is Hausdorff. Then, we want to show that D is closed. We know that given x y, there are disjoint open sets U and V containing x and y respectively. Thus, any (x, y) lies inside an open set U V. Further, as U V is empty, the set U V does not intersect D. Hence, for every point outside D, there is a neighbourhood of the point outside D. Taking the union of all these neighbourhoods, we conclude that the complement of D is open, and hence that D is closed. Though the two directions of proof seem almost identical to one another, there is a subtle difference. In proving that the diagonal is closed from Hausdorffness, all we need to use is that products of open sets are open. Thus, the same proof will go through if we add more open sets. On the other hand, the proof of Hausdorffness from the diagonal being closed critically uses the fact that the so called open rectangles (the products of open sets) form a basis A summary. We have seen three primary separation properties: the properties of being T 0, T 1 and T 2. Each of these can be described in terms of spoiler-prover games as follows: For T 0, the spoiler picks two distinct points. The prover then chooses one of them and exhibits an open set containing that but not the other. For T 1, the spoiler picks two distinct points. For each point, the prover finds an open set containing that point but not the other. Alternatively, the spoiler marks one of the points and the prover is required to find an open set containing that but not the other. For T 2, the spoiler picks two distinct points. The prover finds disjoint open sets containing the two points. We have so far seen the following: Primary property Hereditary version Local version T 0 (Kolmogorov) T 0 T 0 T 1 T 1 T 1 T 2 (Hausdorff) T 2 (Hausdorff) locally Hausdorff Pause and Recollect (1) Convince yourself of the results stated in the table above. 9

### SOLUTIONS TO ASSIGNMENT 1 MATH 576

SOLUTIONS TO ASSIGNMENT 1 MATH 576 SOLUTIONS BY OLIVIER MARTIN 13 #5. Let T be the topology generated by A on X. We want to show T = J B J where B is the set of all topologies J on X with A J. This amounts

### MA651 Topology. Lecture 6. Separation Axioms.

MA651 Topology. Lecture 6. Separation Axioms. This text is based on the following books: Fundamental concepts of topology by Peter O Neil Elements of Mathematics: General Topology by Nicolas Bourbaki Counterexamples

### Basic Concepts of Point Set Topology Notes for OU course Math 4853 Spring 2011

Basic Concepts of Point Set Topology Notes for OU course Math 4853 Spring 2011 A. Miller 1. Introduction. The definitions of metric space and topological space were developed in the early 1900 s, largely

### Sets, Relations and Functions

Sets, Relations and Functions Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland, College Park pacuit.org epacuit@umd.edu ugust 26, 2014 These notes provide a very brief background in discrete

### FIBER PRODUCTS AND ZARISKI SHEAVES

FIBER PRODUCTS AND ZARISKI SHEAVES BRIAN OSSERMAN 1. Fiber products and Zariski sheaves We recall the definition of a fiber product: Definition 1.1. Let C be a category, and X, Y, Z objects of C. Fix also

### Geometry 2: Remedial topology

Geometry 2: Remedial topology Rules: You may choose to solve only hard exercises (marked with!, * and **) or ordinary ones (marked with! or unmarked), or both, if you want to have extra problems. To have

### Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering. Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson

Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson October 1996 Chapter 1 Logic Lecture no. 1. We introduce the concept of a proposition, which is a statement

### WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT?

WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? introduction Many students seem to have trouble with the notion of a mathematical proof. People that come to a course like Math 216, who certainly

### 4. CLASSES OF RINGS 4.1. Classes of Rings class operator A-closed Example 1: product Example 2:

4. CLASSES OF RINGS 4.1. Classes of Rings Normally we associate, with any property, a set of objects that satisfy that property. But problems can arise when we allow sets to be elements of larger sets

### MAT2400 Analysis I. A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions

MAT2400 Analysis I A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions In Analysis I there is a lot of manipulations with sets and functions. It is probably also the first course where you have to take

### Topology and Convergence by: Daniel Glasscock, May 2012

Topology and Convergence by: Daniel Glasscock, May 2012 These notes grew out of a talk I gave at The Ohio State University. The primary reference is [1]. A possible error in the proof of Theorem 1 in [1]

### Metric Spaces. Chapter 1

Chapter 1 Metric Spaces Many of the arguments you have seen in several variable calculus are almost identical to the corresponding arguments in one variable calculus, especially arguments concerning convergence

### Math 225A, Differential Topology: Homework 3

Math 225A, Differential Topology: Homework 3 Ian Coley October 17, 2013 Problem 1.4.7. Suppose that y is a regular value of f : X Y, where X is compact and dim X = dim Y. Show that f 1 (y) is a finite

### Sets and functions. {x R : x > 0}.

Sets and functions 1 Sets The language of sets and functions pervades mathematics, and most of the important operations in mathematics turn out to be functions or to be expressible in terms of functions.

### CHAPTER 1 BASIC TOPOLOGY

CHAPTER 1 BASIC TOPOLOGY Topology, sometimes referred to as the mathematics of continuity, or rubber sheet geometry, or the theory of abstract topological spaces, is all of these, but, above all, it is

### Lecture 17 : Equivalence and Order Relations DRAFT

CS/Math 240: Introduction to Discrete Mathematics 3/31/2011 Lecture 17 : Equivalence and Order Relations Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Dalibor Zelený DRAFT Last lecture we introduced the notion

### 11 Ideals. 11.1 Revisiting Z

11 Ideals The presentation here is somewhat different than the text. In particular, the sections do not match up. We have seen issues with the failure of unique factorization already, e.g., Z[ 5] = O Q(

### S(A) X α for all α Λ. Consequently, S(A) X, by the definition of intersection. Therefore, X is inductive.

MA 274: Exam 2 Study Guide (1) Know the precise definitions of the terms requested for your journal. (2) Review proofs by induction. (3) Be able to prove that something is or isn t an equivalence relation.

### A CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNIVERSAL COVER AS A FIBER BUNDLE

A CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNIVERSAL COVER AS A FIBER BUNDLE DANIEL A. RAMRAS In these notes we present a construction of the universal cover of a path connected, locally path connected, and semi-locally simply

### Introduction to Topology

Introduction to Topology Tomoo Matsumura November 30, 2010 Contents 1 Topological spaces 3 1.1 Basis of a Topology......................................... 3 1.2 Comparing Topologies.......................................

### This chapter describes set theory, a mathematical theory that underlies all of modern mathematics.

Appendix A Set Theory This chapter describes set theory, a mathematical theory that underlies all of modern mathematics. A.1 Basic Definitions Definition A.1.1. A set is an unordered collection of elements.

### Course 421: Algebraic Topology Section 1: Topological Spaces

Course 421: Algebraic Topology Section 1: Topological Spaces David R. Wilkins Copyright c David R. Wilkins 1988 2008 Contents 1 Topological Spaces 1 1.1 Continuity and Topological Spaces...............

### REAL ANALYSIS I HOMEWORK 2

REAL ANALYSIS I HOMEWORK 2 CİHAN BAHRAN The questions are from Stein and Shakarchi s text, Chapter 1. 1. Prove that the Cantor set C constructed in the text is totally disconnected and perfect. In other

University of Oslo MAT2 Project The Banach-Tarski Paradox Author: Fredrik Meyer Supervisor: Nadia S. Larsen Abstract In its weak form, the Banach-Tarski paradox states that for any ball in R, it is possible

### 6. Metric spaces. In this section we review the basic facts about metric spaces. d : X X [0, )

6. Metric spaces In this section we review the basic facts about metric spaces. Definitions. A metric on a non-empty set X is a map with the following properties: d : X X [0, ) (i) If x, y X are points

### (Refer Slide Time: 1:41)

Discrete Mathematical Structures Dr. Kamala Krithivasan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture # 10 Sets Today we shall learn about sets. You must

### Chapter 7: Products and quotients

Chapter 7: Products and quotients Matthew Macauley Department of Mathematical Sciences Clemson University http://www.math.clemson.edu/~macaule/ Math 42, Spring 24 M. Macauley (Clemson) Chapter 7: Products

### Open and Closed Sets

Open and Closed Sets Definition: A subset S of a metric space (X, d) is open if it contains an open ball about each of its points i.e., if x S : ɛ > 0 : B(x, ɛ) S. (1) Theorem: (O1) and X are open sets.

### No: 10 04. Bilkent University. Monotonic Extension. Farhad Husseinov. Discussion Papers. Department of Economics

No: 10 04 Bilkent University Monotonic Extension Farhad Husseinov Discussion Papers Department of Economics The Discussion Papers of the Department of Economics are intended to make the initial results

### 1 if 1 x 0 1 if 0 x 1

Chapter 3 Continuity In this chapter we begin by defining the fundamental notion of continuity for real valued functions of a single real variable. When trying to decide whether a given function is or

### CARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE

CARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE With the notion of bijection at hand, it is easy to formalize the idea that two finite sets have the same number of elements: we just need to verify

### Polish spaces and standard Borel spaces

APPENDIX A Polish spaces and standard Borel spaces We present here the basic theory of Polish spaces and standard Borel spaces. Standard references for this material are the books [143, 231]. A.1. Polish

### POWER SETS AND RELATIONS

POWER SETS AND RELATIONS L. MARIZZA A. BAILEY 1. The Power Set Now that we have defined sets as best we can, we can consider a sets of sets. If we were to assume nothing, except the existence of the empty

### Course 221: Analysis Academic year , First Semester

Course 221: Analysis Academic year 2007-08, First Semester David R. Wilkins Copyright c David R. Wilkins 1989 2007 Contents 1 Basic Theorems of Real Analysis 1 1.1 The Least Upper Bound Principle................

### 1. (First passage/hitting times/gambler s ruin problem:) Suppose that X has a discrete state space and let i be a fixed state. Let

Copyright c 2009 by Karl Sigman 1 Stopping Times 1.1 Stopping Times: Definition Given a stochastic process X = {X n : n 0}, a random time τ is a discrete random variable on the same probability space as

### Compactness in metric spaces

MATHEMATICS 3103 (Functional Analysis) YEAR 2012 2013, TERM 2 HANDOUT #2: COMPACTNESS OF METRIC SPACES Compactness in metric spaces The closed intervals [a, b] of the real line, and more generally the

### Relations Graphical View

Relations Slides by Christopher M. Bourke Instructor: Berthe Y. Choueiry Introduction Recall that a relation between elements of two sets is a subset of their Cartesian product (of ordered pairs). A binary

### Dedekind s forgotten axiom and why we should teach it (and why we shouldn t teach mathematical induction in our calculus classes)

Dedekind s forgotten axiom and why we should teach it (and why we shouldn t teach mathematical induction in our calculus classes) by Jim Propp (UMass Lowell) March 14, 2010 1 / 29 Completeness Three common

### A single minimal complement for the c.e. degrees

A single minimal complement for the c.e. degrees Andrew Lewis Leeds University, April 2002 Abstract We show that there exists a single minimal (Turing) degree b < 0 s.t. for all c.e. degrees 0 < a < 0,

### INTRODUCTION TO TOPOLOGY

INTRODUCTION TO TOPOLOGY ALEX KÜRONYA In preparation January 24, 2010 Contents 1. Basic concepts 1 2. Constructing topologies 13 2.1. Subspace topology 13 2.2. Local properties 18 2.3. Product topology

### Lecture 2 : Basics of Probability Theory

Lecture 2 : Basics of Probability Theory When an experiment is performed, the realization of the experiment is an outcome in the sample space. If the experiment is performed a number of times, different

### FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES: QUOTIENT SPACES

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES: QUOTIENT SPACES CHRISTOPHER HEIL 1. Cosets and the Quotient Space Any vector space is an abelian group under the operation of vector addition. So, if you are have studied

### Mathematics for Economics (Part I) Note 5: Convex Sets and Concave Functions

Natalia Lazzati Mathematics for Economics (Part I) Note 5: Convex Sets and Concave Functions Note 5 is based on Madden (1986, Ch. 1, 2, 4 and 7) and Simon and Blume (1994, Ch. 13 and 21). Concave functions

### CHAPTER II THE LIMIT OF A SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS DEFINITION OF THE NUMBER e.

CHAPTER II THE LIMIT OF A SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS DEFINITION OF THE NUMBER e. This chapter contains the beginnings of the most important, and probably the most subtle, notion in mathematical analysis, i.e.,

### Assignment 7; Due Friday, November 11

Assignment 7; Due Friday, November 9.8 a The set Q is not connected because we can write it as a union of two nonempty disjoint open sets, for instance U = (, 2) and V = ( 2, ). The connected subsets are

### Math212a1010 Lebesgue measure.

Math212a1010 Lebesgue measure. October 19, 2010 Today s lecture will be devoted to Lebesgue measure, a creation of Henri Lebesgue, in his thesis, one of the most famous theses in the history of mathematics.

### Induction. Margaret M. Fleck. 10 October These notes cover mathematical induction and recursive definition

Induction Margaret M. Fleck 10 October 011 These notes cover mathematical induction and recursive definition 1 Introduction to induction At the start of the term, we saw the following formula for computing

### On The Existence Of Flips

On The Existence Of Flips Hacon and McKernan s paper, arxiv alg-geom/0507597 Brian Lehmann, February 2007 1 Introduction References: Hacon and McKernan s paper, as above. Kollár and Mori, Birational Geometry

### Structure of Measurable Sets

Structure of Measurable Sets In these notes we discuss the structure of Lebesgue measurable subsets of R from several different points of view. Along the way, we will see several alternative characterizations

### Math 4310 Handout - Quotient Vector Spaces

Math 4310 Handout - Quotient Vector Spaces Dan Collins The textbook defines a subspace of a vector space in Chapter 4, but it avoids ever discussing the notion of a quotient space. This is understandable

### A brief history of type theory (or, more honestly, implementing mathematical objects as sets)

A brief history of type theory (or, more honestly, implementing mathematical objects as sets) Randall Holmes, Boise State University November 8, 2012 [notes revised later; this is the day the talk was

### FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 22

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 22 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Discrete valuation rings: Dimension 1 Noetherian regular local rings 1 Last day, we discussed the Zariski tangent space, and saw that it

### GROUPS ACTING ON A SET

GROUPS ACTING ON A SET MATH 435 SPRING 2012 NOTES FROM FEBRUARY 27TH, 2012 1. Left group actions Definition 1.1. Suppose that G is a group and S is a set. A left (group) action of G on S is a rule for

### Analytic Sets Vadim Kulikov Presentation 11 March 2008

Analytic Sets Vadim Kulikov Presentation 11 March 2008 Abstract. The continuous images of Borel sets are not usually Borel sets. However they are measurable and that is the main purpose of this lecture.

### Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao,David Tse Note 11

CS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao,David Tse Note Conditional Probability A pharmaceutical company is marketing a new test for a certain medical condition. According

### ORDERS OF ELEMENTS IN A GROUP

ORDERS OF ELEMENTS IN A GROUP KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction Let G be a group and g G. We say g has finite order if g n = e for some positive integer n. For example, 1 and i have finite order in C, since

### U.C. Berkeley CS276: Cryptography Handout 0.1 Luca Trevisan January, 2009. Notes on Algebra

U.C. Berkeley CS276: Cryptography Handout 0.1 Luca Trevisan January, 2009 Notes on Algebra These notes contain as little theory as possible, and most results are stated without proof. Any introductory

### 1 Limiting distribution for a Markov chain

Copyright c 2009 by Karl Sigman Limiting distribution for a Markov chain In these Lecture Notes, we shall study the limiting behavior of Markov chains as time n In particular, under suitable easy-to-check

### Finite dimensional topological vector spaces

Chapter 3 Finite dimensional topological vector spaces 3.1 Finite dimensional Hausdorff t.v.s. Let X be a vector space over the field K of real or complex numbers. We know from linear algebra that the

### Weak topologies. David Lecomte. May 23, 2006

Weak topologies David Lecomte May 3, 006 1 Preliminaries from general topology In this section, we are given a set X, a collection of topological spaces (Y i ) i I and a collection of maps (f i ) i I such

### BOREL SETS, WELL-ORDERINGS OF R AND THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS. Proof. We shall define inductively a decreasing sequence of infinite subsets of N

BOREL SETS, WELL-ORDERINGS OF R AND THE CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS SIMON THOMAS 1. The Finite Basis Problem Definition 1.1. Let C be a class of structures. Then a basis for C is a collection B C such that for

### Partitioning edge-coloured complete graphs into monochromatic cycles and paths

arxiv:1205.5492v1 [math.co] 24 May 2012 Partitioning edge-coloured complete graphs into monochromatic cycles and paths Alexey Pokrovskiy Departement of Mathematics, London School of Economics and Political

### 1. Prove that the empty set is a subset of every set.

1. Prove that the empty set is a subset of every set. Basic Topology Written by Men-Gen Tsai email: b89902089@ntu.edu.tw Proof: For any element x of the empty set, x is also an element of every set since

### Metric Spaces Joseph Muscat 2003 (Last revised May 2009)

1 Distance J Muscat 1 Metric Spaces Joseph Muscat 2003 (Last revised May 2009) (A revised and expanded version of these notes are now published by Springer.) 1 Distance A metric space can be thought of

### INCIDENCE-BETWEENNESS GEOMETRY

INCIDENCE-BETWEENNESS GEOMETRY MATH 410, CSUSM. SPRING 2008. PROFESSOR AITKEN This document covers the geometry that can be developed with just the axioms related to incidence and betweenness. The full

### This chapter is all about cardinality of sets. At first this looks like a

CHAPTER Cardinality of Sets This chapter is all about cardinality of sets At first this looks like a very simple concept To find the cardinality of a set, just count its elements If A = { a, b, c, d },

### An Innocent Investigation

An Innocent Investigation D. Joyce, Clark University January 2006 The beginning. Have you ever wondered why every number is either even or odd? I don t mean to ask if you ever wondered whether every number

### Chapter 7. Sealed-bid Auctions

Chapter 7 Sealed-bid Auctions An auction is a procedure used for selling and buying items by offering them up for bid. Auctions are often used to sell objects that have a variable price (for example oil)

### I. GROUPS: BASIC DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES

I GROUPS: BASIC DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES Definition 1: An operation on a set G is a function : G G G Definition 2: A group is a set G which is equipped with an operation and a special element e G, called

### Chapter 6 Finite sets and infinite sets. Copyright 2013, 2005, 2001 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 3.1, Slide 1

Chapter 6 Finite sets and infinite sets Copyright 013, 005, 001 Pearson Education, Inc. Section 3.1, Slide 1 Section 6. PROPERTIES OF THE NATURE NUMBERS 013 Pearson Education, Inc.1 Slide Recall that denotes

### Steps to Proving a Theorem

Steps to Proving a Theorem Step 1: Understand Goal What am I looking for? What should the last sentence in my proof say? What are some equivalent ways to state what I want? Are there any complicated definitions

### SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES FOR. MATHEMATICS 205A Part 3. Spaces with special properties

SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES FOR MATHEMATICS 205A Part 3 Fall 2008 III. Spaces with special properties III.1 : Compact spaces I Problems from Munkres, 26, pp. 170 172 3. Show that a finite union of compact subspaces

### GROUPS SUBGROUPS. Definition 1: An operation on a set G is a function : G G G.

Definition 1: GROUPS An operation on a set G is a function : G G G. Definition 2: A group is a set G which is equipped with an operation and a special element e G, called the identity, such that (i) the

### The Markov-Zariski topology of an infinite group

Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Istanbul January 23, 2014 joint work with Daniele Toller and Dmitri Shakhmatov 1. Markov s problem 1 and 2 2. The three topologies on an infinite group 3. Problem

### Sets and Cardinality Notes for C. F. Miller

Sets and Cardinality Notes for 620-111 C. F. Miller Semester 1, 2000 Abstract These lecture notes were compiled in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics in the University of Melbourne for the use

### Point Set Topology. A. Topological Spaces and Continuous Maps

Point Set Topology A. Topological Spaces and Continuous Maps Definition 1.1 A topology on a set X is a collection T of subsets of X satisfying the following axioms: T 1.,X T. T2. {O α α I} T = α IO α T.

### The determinant of a skew-symmetric matrix is a square. This can be seen in small cases by direct calculation: 0 a. 12 a. a 13 a 24 a 14 a 23 a 14

4 Symplectic groups In this and the next two sections, we begin the study of the groups preserving reflexive sesquilinear forms or quadratic forms. We begin with the symplectic groups, associated with

### CONTENTS 1. Peter Kahn. Spring 2007

CONTENTS 1 MATH 304: CONSTRUCTING THE REAL NUMBERS Peter Kahn Spring 2007 Contents 2 The Integers 1 2.1 The basic construction.......................... 1 2.2 Adding integers..............................

### FIBRATION SEQUENCES AND PULLBACK SQUARES. Contents. 2. Connectivity and fiber sequences. 3

FIRTION SEQUENES ND PULLK SQURES RY MLKIEWIH bstract. We lay out some foundational facts about fibration sequences and pullback squares of topological spaces. We pay careful attention to connectivity ranges

### Chap2: The Real Number System (See Royden pp40)

Chap2: The Real Number System (See Royden pp40) 1 Open and Closed Sets of Real Numbers The simplest sets of real numbers are the intervals. We define the open interval (a, b) to be the set (a, b) = {x

### Surface bundles over S 1, the Thurston norm, and the Whitehead link

Surface bundles over S 1, the Thurston norm, and the Whitehead link Michael Landry August 16, 2014 The Thurston norm is a powerful tool for studying the ways a 3-manifold can fiber over the circle. In

### Descriptive Set Theory

Martin Goldstern Institute of Discrete Mathematics and Geometry Vienna University of Technology Ljubljana, August 2011 Polish spaces Polish space = complete metric separable. Examples N = ω = {0, 1, 2,...}.

### Sequences and Convergence in Metric Spaces

Sequences and Convergence in Metric Spaces Definition: A sequence in a set X (a sequence of elements of X) is a function s : N X. We usually denote s(n) by s n, called the n-th term of s, and write {s

### FIXED POINT SETS OF FIBER-PRESERVING MAPS

FIXED POINT SETS OF FIBER-PRESERVING MAPS Robert F. Brown Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90095 e-mail: rfb@math.ucla.edu Christina L. Soderlund Department of Mathematics

### Comments on Quotient Spaces and Quotient Maps

22M:132 Fall 07 J. Simon Comments on Quotient Spaces and Quotient Maps There are many situations in topology where we build a topological space by starting with some (often simpler) space[s] and doing

### 3. Equivalence Relations. Discussion

3. EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 33 3. Equivalence Relations 3.1. Definition of an Equivalence Relations. Definition 3.1.1. A relation R on a set A is an equivalence relation if and only if R is reflexive, symmetric,

### SUBGROUPS OF CYCLIC GROUPS. 1. Introduction In a group G, we denote the (cyclic) group of powers of some g G by

SUBGROUPS OF CYCLIC GROUPS KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction In a group G, we denote the (cyclic) group of powers of some g G by g = {g k : k Z}. If G = g, then G itself is cyclic, with g as a generator. Examples

### Notes on Factoring. MA 206 Kurt Bryan

The General Approach Notes on Factoring MA 26 Kurt Bryan Suppose I hand you n, a 2 digit integer and tell you that n is composite, with smallest prime factor around 5 digits. Finding a nontrivial factor

### 13 Infinite Sets. 13.1 Injections, Surjections, and Bijections. mcs-ftl 2010/9/8 0:40 page 379 #385

mcs-ftl 2010/9/8 0:40 page 379 #385 13 Infinite Sets So you might be wondering how much is there to say about an infinite set other than, well, it has an infinite number of elements. Of course, an infinite

### In mathematics you don t understand things. You just get used to them. (Attributed to John von Neumann)

Chapter 1 Sets and Functions We understand a set to be any collection M of certain distinct objects of our thought or intuition (called the elements of M) into a whole. (Georg Cantor, 1895) In mathematics

### Mathematics Course 111: Algebra I Part IV: Vector Spaces

Mathematics Course 111: Algebra I Part IV: Vector Spaces D. R. Wilkins Academic Year 1996-7 9 Vector Spaces A vector space over some field K is an algebraic structure consisting of a set V on which are

### Recursion Theory in Set Theory

Contemporary Mathematics Recursion Theory in Set Theory Theodore A. Slaman 1. Introduction Our goal is to convince the reader that recursion theoretic knowledge and experience can be successfully applied

### Math 317 HW #7 Solutions

Math 17 HW #7 Solutions 1. Exercise..5. Decide which of the following sets are compact. For those that are not compact, show how Definition..1 breaks down. In other words, give an example of a sequence

### Chapter 3. Cartesian Products and Relations. 3.1 Cartesian Products

Chapter 3 Cartesian Products and Relations The material in this chapter is the first real encounter with abstraction. Relations are very general thing they are a special type of subset. After introducing

### CS 341 Homework 9 Languages That Are and Are Not Regular

CS 341 Homework 9 Languages That Are and Are Not Regular 1. Show that the following are not regular. (a) L = {ww R : w {a, b}*} (b) L = {ww : w {a, b}*} (c) L = {ww' : w {a, b}*}, where w' stands for w

### Math 421, Homework #5 Solutions

Math 421, Homework #5 Solutions (1) (8.3.6) Suppose that E R n and C is a subset of E. (a) Prove that if E is closed, then C is relatively closed in E if and only if C is a closed set (as defined in Definition

### Formal Languages and Automata Theory - Regular Expressions and Finite Automata -

Formal Languages and Automata Theory - Regular Expressions and Finite Automata - Samarjit Chakraborty Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich March

### 1 Sets and Set Notation.

LINEAR ALGEBRA MATH 27.6 SPRING 23 (COHEN) LECTURE NOTES Sets and Set Notation. Definition (Naive Definition of a Set). A set is any collection of objects, called the elements of that set. We will most