Separated sets
Separated sets
Main page

Separated sets

logo
Community Hub0 subscribers
Read side by side
from Wikipedia
Separation axioms
in topological spaces
Kolmogorov classification
T0 (Kolmogorov)
T1 (Fréchet)
T2 (Hausdorff)
T2½(Urysohn)
completely T2 (completely Hausdorff)
T3 (regular Hausdorff)
T(Tychonoff)
T4 (normal Hausdorff)
T5 (completely normal
 Hausdorff)
T6 (perfectly normal
 Hausdorff)

In topology and related branches of mathematics, separated sets are pairs of subsets of a given topological space that are related to each other in a certain way: roughly speaking, neither overlapping nor touching. The notion of when two sets are separated or not is important both to the notion of connected spaces (and their connected components) as well as to the separation axioms for topological spaces.

Separated sets should not be confused with separated spaces (defined below), which are somewhat related but different. Separable spaces are again a completely different topological concept.

Definitions

[edit]

There are various ways in which two subsets and of a topological space can be considered to be separated. A most basic way in which two sets can be separated is if they are disjoint, that is, if their intersection is the empty set. This property has nothing to do with topology as such, but only set theory. Each of the following properties is stricter than disjointness, incorporating some topological information.

The properties below are presented in increasing order of specificity, each being a stronger notion than the preceding one.

The sets and are separated in if each is disjoint from the other's closure:

This property is known as the Hausdorff−Lennes Separation Condition.[1] Since every set is contained in its closure, two separated sets automatically must be disjoint. The closures themselves do not have to be disjoint from each other; for example, the intervals and are separated in the real line even though the point 1 belongs to both of their closures. A more general example is that in any metric space, two open balls and are separated whenever The property of being separated can also be expressed in terms of derived set (indicated by the prime symbol): and are separated when they are disjoint and each is disjoint from the other's derived set, that is, (As in the case of the first version of the definition, the derived sets and are not required to be disjoint from each other.)

The sets and are separated by neighbourhoods if there are neighbourhoods of and of such that and are disjoint. (Sometimes you will see the requirement that and be open neighbourhoods, but this makes no difference in the end.) For the example of and you could take and Note that if any two sets are separated by neighbourhoods, then certainly they are separated. If and are open and disjoint, then they must be separated by neighbourhoods; just take and For this reason, separatedness is often used with closed sets (as in the normal separation axiom).

The sets and are separated by closed neighbourhoods if there is a closed neighbourhood of and a closed neighbourhood of such that and are disjoint. Our examples, and are not separated by closed neighbourhoods. You could make either or closed by including the point 1 in it, but you cannot make them both closed while keeping them disjoint. Note that if any two sets are separated by closed neighbourhoods, then certainly they are separated by neighbourhoods.

The sets and are separated by a continuous function if there exists a continuous function from the space to the real line such that and , that is, members of map to 0 and members of map to 1. (Sometimes the unit interval is used in place of in this definition, but this makes no difference.) In our example, and are not separated by a function, because there is no way to continuously define at the point 1.[2] If two sets are separated by a continuous function, then they are also separated by closed neighbourhoods; the neighbourhoods can be given in terms of the preimage of as and where is any positive real number less than

The sets and are precisely separated by a continuous function if there exists a continuous function such that and (Again, you may also see the unit interval in place of and again it makes no difference.) Note that if any two sets are precisely separated by a function, then they are separated by a function. Since and are closed in only closed sets are capable of being precisely separated by a function, but just because two sets are closed and separated by a function does not mean that they are automatically precisely separated by a function (even a different function).

Relation to separation axioms and separated spaces

[edit]

The separation axioms are various conditions that are sometimes imposed upon topological spaces, many of which can be described in terms of the various types of separated sets. As an example we will define the T2 axiom, which is the condition imposed on separated spaces. Specifically, a topological space is separated if, given any two distinct points x and y, the singleton sets {x} and {y} are separated by neighbourhoods.

Separated spaces are usually called Hausdorff spaces or T2 spaces.

Relation to connected spaces

[edit]

Given a topological space X, it is sometimes useful to consider whether it is possible for a subset A to be separated from its complement. This is certainly true if A is either the empty set or the entire space X, but there may be other possibilities. A topological space X is connected if these are the only two possibilities. Conversely, if a nonempty subset A is separated from its own complement, and if the only subset of A to share this property is the empty set, then A is an open-connected component of X. (In the degenerate case where X is itself the empty set , authorities differ on whether is connected and whether is an open-connected component of itself.)

Relation to topologically distinguishable points

[edit]

Given a topological space X, two points x and y are topologically distinguishable if there exists an open set that one point belongs to but the other point does not. If x and y are topologically distinguishable, then the singleton sets {x} and {y} must be disjoint. On the other hand, if the singletons {x} and {y} are separated, then the points x and y must be topologically distinguishable. Thus for singletons, topological distinguishability is a condition in between disjointness and separatedness.

See also

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Pervin 1964, p. 51
  2. ^ Munkres, James R. (2000). Topology (2 ed.). Prentice Hall. p. 211. ISBN 0-13-181629-2.

Sources

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In topology, separated sets are two nonempty subsets AA and BB of a topological space XX such that AB=A \cap B = \emptyset, AB=A \cap \overline{B} = \emptyset, and AB=\overline{A} \cap B = \emptyset, where A\overline{A} and B\overline{B} denote the closures of AA and BB, respectively; this means the sets are disjoint and neither contains limit points of the other.[1][2] This concept is central to the study of connectedness in topological spaces. A space XX is defined as disconnected if it can be expressed as the union of two nonempty separated sets whose union is XX, and conversely, connected if no such separation exists.[1][2] For subspaces, a subset YXY \subseteq X is connected if it admits no separation into two nonempty relatively separated sets within the subspace topology.[3] Key properties include the fact that the image of a connected set under a continuous function is connected, preserving the absence of separations.[1] Beyond connectedness, separated sets play a role in higher separation axioms. For instance, in a completely normal (or T5) space, any two separated sets can be separated by disjoint open neighborhoods, extending the T4 (normal) axiom from disjoint closed sets.[4] This framework applies to metric spaces, where the definition aligns with the topological one, and has implications for properties like path-connectedness and local connectedness in more structured spaces.[1]

Fundamental Concepts

Definition

In a topological space XX, two subsets AA and BB are said to be separated if AB=\overline{A} \cap B = \emptyset and BA=\overline{B} \cap A = \emptyset, where A\overline{A} and B\overline{B} denote the closures of AA and BB, respectively.[4][5] This condition implies that AB=A \cap B = \emptyset, as any intersection point would belong to both closures.[6] The closures play a central role in this definition by incorporating limit points: a point lies in the closure of a set if it is either in the set or is a limit point of sequences (or nets) from that set. Thus, separated sets ensure that no point of one set belongs to the other or serves as a limit point of the other, preventing any topological "adherence" between them.[7] Intuitively, this means the sets are topologically isolated from each other, with no overlap even in their accumulated boundaries.[2] For example, in the real line R\mathbb{R} equipped with the standard topology, the sets (,0](-\infty, 0] and [1,)[1, \infty) are separated. Here, the closure of (,0](-\infty, 0] is itself, and the closure of [1,)[1, \infty) is itself; neither closure intersects the other set, as the gap between 0 and 1 ensures complete separation.[8]

Equivalent Formulations

A standard equivalent formulation of separated sets relies on neighborhoods. Two subsets AA and BB of a topological space XX are separated if there exist open sets U,VXU, V \subseteq X such that AUA \subseteq U, BVB \subseteq V, UB=U \cap B = \emptyset, and VA=V \cap A = \emptyset. Another characterization uses filters. Let AA and BB be subsets of a topological space XX. An ultrafilter F\mathcal{F} on AA converges to a point xXx \in X if every open neighborhood of xx contains a member of F\mathcal{F}. Then AA and BB are separated if no ultrafilter on AA converges to any point in BB, and no ultrafilter on BB converges to any point in AA. This holds because a point xx lies in the closure of AA if and only if there exists an ultrafilter on AA that converges to xx.[9] The closure-based definition from the previous section is equivalent to the neighborhood formulation. To see that the closure condition implies the neighborhood condition, note that if AB=\overline{A} \cap B = \emptyset and AB=A \cap \overline{B} = \emptyset, then U=XBU = X \setminus \overline{B} is open, contains AA (since AB=A \cap \overline{B} = \emptyset), and satisfies UB=U \cap B = \emptyset. Similarly, V=XAV = X \setminus \overline{A} is open, contains BB, and satisfies VA=V \cap A = \emptyset. Conversely, suppose there exist open UAU \supseteq A with UB=U \cap B = \emptyset and open VBV \supseteq B with VA=V \cap A = \emptyset. Assume for contradiction that pABp \in \overline{A} \cap B. Then VV, an open neighborhood of pp, intersects AA, so VAV \cap A \neq \emptyset, contradicting the assumption. The argument for AB=A \cap \overline{B} = \emptyset is symmetric. The filter-based formulation follows directly from the ultrafilter characterization of closure points.

Properties and Characterizations

Closure-Based Properties

In a topological space XX, if subsets AA and BB are separated—meaning AB=\overline{A} \cap \overline{B} = \emptyset—then both AA and BB are open (and closed) in the subspace topology on S=ABS = A \cup B. To see this, note that the closure of AA in SS is AS=A(AB)=(AA)(AB)=A=A\overline{A} \cap S = \overline{A} \cap (A \cup B) = (\overline{A} \cap A) \cup (\overline{A} \cap B) = A \cup \emptyset = A, so AA is closed in SS; the argument for BB is symmetric. Since AA and BB are disjoint and S=ABS = A \cup B, the complement of AA in SS is BB, which is closed, making AA open in SS, and likewise for BB.[10] Separatedness also exhibits stability under finite unions relative to a fixed set. Suppose BXB \subseteq X is separated from each of finitely many pairwise disjoint sets A1,,AnXA_1, \dots, A_n \subseteq X. Let A=i=1nAiA = \bigcup_{i=1}^n A_i. Then A=i=1nAi\overline{A} = \bigcup_{i=1}^n \overline{A_i}, so AB=i=1n(AiB)=i=1n=\overline{A} \cap B = \bigcup_{i=1}^n (\overline{A_i} \cap B) = \bigcup_{i=1}^n \emptyset = \emptyset; similarly, BA=B \cap \overline{A} = \emptyset. Thus, AA remains separated from BB. This property underscores the robustness of separatedness with respect to finite amalgamations.[10] When one set is compact and the other closed, separatedness yields stronger structural implications. In metric spaces, if AA is compact and BB is closed with AB=\overline{A} \cap \overline{B} = \emptyset, the distance inf{d(a,b)aA,bB}\inf \{ d(a,b) \mid a \in A, b \in B \} is positive. To see this, suppose the infimum is zero. Then there exist sequences anAa_n \in A and bnBb_n \in B with d(an,bn)0d(a_n, b_n) \to 0. Since AA is compact, there is a subsequence ankaAa_{n_k} \to a \in A. Along this subsequence, bnkab_{n_k} \to a, and since BB is closed, aBa \in B. But then aAB=a \in \overline{A} \cap B = \emptyset, a contradiction. More generally, in topological terms, such pairs can be separated by disjoint open neighborhoods in regular spaces: for each xAx \in A, there exist disjoint opens UxxU_x \ni x and VxBV_x \ni B; a finite subcover of the UxU_x yields open UAU \ni A and V=VxBV = \bigcap V_x \ni B with UV=U \cap V = \emptyset. In uniform spaces, an analogue ensures the sets are "uniformly separated" via entourages excluding close pairs.[11][12]

Distinguishability of Points

In a topological space, two distinct points xx and yy are said to be topologically distinguishable if the singleton sets {x}\{x\} and {y}\{y\} form a pair of separated sets, meaning {x}{y}=\{x\} \cap \overline{\{y\}} = \emptyset and {y}{x}=\{y\} \cap \overline{\{x\}} = \emptyset.[5] This condition ensures that neither point lies in the closure of the singleton consisting of the other point. This distinguishability is characterized by the existence of open neighborhoods UU of xx not containing yy and VV of yy not containing xx.[13] Equivalently, the neighborhood systems of xx and yy differ, as there is at least one open set that contains exactly one of the two points.[14] A topological space is T0, also known as Kolmogorov, if every pair of distinct points is topologically distinguishable in this sense.[14] In such spaces, the topology provides a minimal level of separation between points based on their open neighborhoods. For example, in the indiscrete topology on a set with more than one point, where the only open sets are the empty set and the entire space, no two distinct points are distinguishable, as every nonempty open set contains both points and their closures are the whole space.[13] Conversely, in the discrete topology, every subset is open, so singletons are closed and every pair of distinct points is distinguishable, with {x}\{x\} itself serving as an open neighborhood of xx excluding yy.[2]

Relations to Separation Axioms

T1 spaces

In topology, a T1 space is defined as a topological space XX in which, for any two distinct points x,yXx, y \in X, there exists an open neighborhood UU of xx that does not contain yy and an open neighborhood VV of yy that does not contain xx.[15] This property ensures that points can be distinguished by their open neighborhoods in a symmetric manner, building on the notion of distinguishability of points where one point can be isolated from another via open sets.[16] A key characterization of T1 spaces is that every singleton set {x}\{x\} is closed. To see this equivalence, suppose XX is T1. For a fixed xXx \in X, consider the complement X{x}X \setminus \{x\}. For each yX{x}y \in X \setminus \{x\}, there exists an open neighborhood VyV_y of yy not containing xx. The union yxVy=X{x}\bigcup_{y \neq x} V_y = X \setminus \{x\} is then open, so {x}\{x\} is closed. Conversely, if every singleton is closed, then for distinct x,yXx, y \in X, the complement X{y}X \setminus \{y\} is open and contains xx but not yy, and similarly X{x}X \setminus \{x\} is open containing yy but not xx. Thus, the T1 axiom holds.[15][16] In T1 spaces, singletons are separated sets, since {x}{y}=\{x\} \cap \overline{\{y\}} = \emptyset and {x}{y}=\overline{\{x\}} \cap \{y\} = \emptyset. The term "separated space" in topology typically refers to Hausdorff (T2) spaces, where distinct points have disjoint open neighborhoods, a stronger condition. This terminology arose in early 20th-century developments of separation axioms, with variations in usage; for example, in French texts, "espace séparé" often means T2, while in algebraic geometry, "separated" refers to the diagonal being closed, analogous to the T1 condition.[16][17]

Connection to Hausdorff Spaces

A topological space XX is said to be Hausdorff, or to satisfy the T2T_2 separation axiom (also known as a separated space), if for every pair of distinct points x,yXx, y \in X, there exist disjoint open neighborhoods UU of xx and VV of yy, that is, UV=U \cap V = \emptyset.[18] This condition ensures that the singletons {x}\{x\} and {y}\{y\} can be openly separated, which in turn implies that they are separated sets in the sense that neither lies in the closure of the other. The Hausdorff axiom builds upon and strengthens the T1T_1 axiom. A space is T1T_1 if every singleton set is closed, meaning that for any distinct points x,yXx, y \in X, x{y}x \notin \overline{\{y\}} and y{x}y \notin \overline{\{x\}}, so {x}{y}=\{x\} \cap \overline{\{y\}} = \emptyset and {x}{y}=\overline{\{x\}} \cap \{y\} = \emptyset, making the singletons separated sets.[15] However, while T1T_1 guarantees this closure-based separation for points, the Hausdorff property imposes the stricter requirement of disjoint open neighborhoods around them, enabling a more robust distinguishability. A classic example illustrating a T1T_1 space that fails to be Hausdorff is the line with double origin. This space is formed by taking the real line R\mathbb{R} and adjoining a second origin oo' to the origin oo, with the topology generated by the usual open sets of R\mathbb{R} together with sets of the form (a,b){o}{o}(a, b) \setminus \{o\} \cup \{o'\} for intervals (a,b)(a, b) containing 00. Singletons remain closed, so distinct points—including oo and oo'—are separated sets, but no disjoint open neighborhoods exist to separate oo and oo'.[19] In Hausdorff spaces, the separation concept extends beyond points: any two disjoint closed sets AA and BB are separated sets, since A=A\overline{A} = A and B=B\overline{B} = B, ensuring AB=AB=A \cap \overline{B} = A \cap B = \emptyset and AB=\overline{A} \cap B = \emptyset.[20] This holds generally in any topological space but underscores how the Hausdorff condition preserves the closure-based separation for closed subsets while enhancing pointwise distinguishability through open sets.

Broader Topological Connections

Relation to Connected Spaces

In topology, separated sets play a fundamental role in characterizing disconnected spaces. Specifically, a topological space XX is disconnected if it can be expressed as the union of two nonempty separated sets whose union is XX.[21] This condition implies that XX admits a separation into disjoint clopen subsets whose closures do not intersect each other, preventing the space from being connected. Conversely, a space XX is connected if and only if it cannot be written as the union of two nonempty separated sets.[21] The connected components of a topological space further illustrate the interplay between separated sets and connectedness. The connected components of XX are the maximal connected subspaces, and any two distinct connected components are pairwise separated, meaning their closures in XX are disjoint.[21] This separation ensures that the components form a partition of XX into disjoint closed sets, each of which is connected but cannot be extended without merging with another component. In particular, the closure of a connected component is itself connected and closed.[21] Quasicomponents provide another decomposition related to separated sets, defined as the intersection of all clopen sets containing a given point xXx \in X. Unlike connected components, quasicomponents may not be connected, but any two distinct quasicomponents of XX are separated in XX, with their closures disjoint.[22] This property holds in any topological space and underscores the global separation enforced by clopen sets, which are both open and closed. In compact Hausdorff spaces, quasicomponents coincide with connected components, both being single points in totally disconnected examples.[21] A classic example highlighting these relations is the space of rational numbers Q\mathbb{Q} with the subspace topology inherited from R\mathbb{R}. Here, the connected components are precisely the singletons {q}\{q\} for each qQq \in \mathbb{Q}, as any subset of Q\mathbb{Q} with more than one point is disconnected and can be separated by open sets in R\mathbb{R}.[23] These singleton components are pairwise separated, since the closure of {q}\{q\} in Q\mathbb{Q} is itself and disjoint from other points, reflecting the total disconnectedness of Q\mathbb{Q}. The quasicomponents also coincide with these singletons, reinforcing the separation across the space.[22]

Applications in Quotient Spaces

In quotient spaces, separated sets play a key role in determining how topological properties transfer under the identification induced by an equivalence relation \sim on a topological space XX. The quotient space X/X/{\sim} is equipped with the quotient topology, where the canonical projection p:XX/p: X \to X/{\sim} is continuous and surjective, and a subset UX/U \subseteq X/{\sim} is open if and only if p1(U)p^{-1}(U) is open in XX. A subset AXA \subseteq X is saturated with respect to pp if A=p1(p(A))A = p^{-1}(p(A)), meaning AA is a union of entire equivalence classes [x][x]. If two saturated sets AA and BB in XX are separated—i.e., AB=\overline{A} \cap B = \emptyset and BA=\overline{B} \cap A = \emptyset—then their images p(A)p(A) and p(B)p(B) are separated in X/X/{\sim}. Conversely, separated sets in the quotient always lift to separated sets in XX. If C,DX/C, D \subseteq X/{\sim} are separated, let A=p1(C)A = p^{-1}(C) and B=p1(D)B = p^{-1}(D); then AA and BB are disjoint since CC and DD are. Moreover, if xABx \in \overline{A} \cap B, then p(x)p(A)p(B)CD=p(x) \in \overline{p(A)} \cap p(B) \subseteq \overline{C} \cap D = \emptyset, a contradiction, and similarly for BA\overline{B} \cap A. Thus, the equivalence relation respects separation in the sense that the projection pp preserves and reflects the separated property bidirectionally for appropriate sets. A related application concerns when the quotient X/X/{\sim} is Hausdorff, which requires that distinct points in X/X/{\sim} (i.e., inequivalent classes) can be separated by disjoint open sets. This holds if and only if the graph of \sim—the set {(x,y)X×Xxy}\{(x,y) \in X \times X \mid x \sim y\}—is closed in X×XX \times X, assuming XX is Hausdorff and pp is an identification map (continuous, surjective, and UX/U \subseteq X/{\sim} open iff p1(U)p^{-1}(U) open in XX). The closed graph ensures that separated points in XX remain distinguishable post-identification, preventing "accidental" gluings that merge closures.[24]
User Avatar
No comments yet.