2
$\begingroup$

I was just reading through a proof about the maximum possible cardinality of a separable Hausdorff space, but I'm stuck on one part of it. The essence of the proof is copied and pasted below, and they say "it's easy to see that $f$ is injective." I'm having trouble proving that $f$ is injective, probably because I'm new at topology.

Let $X$ be a separable Hausdorff space and let $A$ be a countable dense subset of $X$. Define a function $f:X\to\mathcal P(\mathcal P(A))$ by setting $f(x)=\{B\subseteq A:x\in\overline{B}\}$. Using the fact that $X$ is Hausdorff, it's easy to see that $f$ is injective, whence $|X|\le|\mathcal P(\mathcal P(A))|\le2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$.

My proof so far is as follows: We prove that $f$ is injective by contradiction. Suppose $f$ is not injective; that is, suppose $\exists x_1, x_2 \in X$ with $x_1 \neq x_2$ and $f(x_1) = f(x_2).$

$X$ is Hausdorff $\implies \exists U_1, U_2$ open in $X$ such that $x_1 \in U_1, x_2 \in U_2$, and $U_1 \cap U_2 = \varnothing$. Since $f(x_1) = f(x_2),$ then if $B \subseteq A$, $x_1 \in \overline B \iff x_2 \in \overline B$. We now consider 3 cases; note that cases 1 and 2 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Case 1: $\exists B\subseteq A: x_1 \in B$. Then consider $B_1 = \{x_1\} \subseteq A.$ $x_2 \notin B_1$ but $x_2 \in \overline{B_1}$, so $x_2$ is a limit point of $B_1$. But $U_2$ is an open set containing $x_2$ with $(U_2 \setminus \{x_2\}) \cap B_1 = \varnothing$, a contradiction.

Case 2: $\exists B \subseteq A: x_2 \in B$. Then consider $B_2 = \{x_2\} \subseteq A.$ $x_1 \notin B_2$ but $x_1 \in \overline{B_2}$, so $x_1$ is a limit point of $B_2$. But $U_1$ is an open set containing $x_1$ with $(U_1 \setminus \{x_1\}) \cap B_2 = \varnothing$, a contradiction.

Case 3: $\forall B \subseteq A$, $x_1 \notin B$ and $x_2 \notin B$. Let $B_0 \in f(x_1)$, then $x_1$ and $x_2$ must both be limit points of $B_0$....but now I'm stuck here, and not sure how to arrive at a contradiction. Please help!

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For case 3, consider $B_0 \setminus U_1$ and $B_0\setminus U_2$. But you get it more directly, without any case distinction, by: Let $x_1 \neq x_2$. Then $\exists U_1,U_2$ ... Then consider $B_1 = A\cap U_1$. You will find that $B_1 \in f(x_1)\setminus f(x_2)$, so $f(x_1) \neq f(x_2)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 22:06
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer, thank you very much! I've got it now! $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 23:11
  • $\begingroup$ That's great. Did you do it both ways or only one? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ I did it with the more direct method you suggested; it seemed more elegant. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 2:07
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer I typed up a solution below to illustrate how I used the direct method. If you are available to provide some more advice, there's a different topology problem I'm stuck on that I just posted here: math.stackexchange.com/q/757255/111520 $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 3:16

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

Let $x_1, x_2 \in X$ with $x_1 \neq x_2$. $X$ is Hausdorff $\implies$ there exist open sets $U_1$ and $U_2$ such that $x_1 \in U_1, x_2 \in U_2$, and $U_1 \cap U_2 = \varnothing$. Define $B_1 \subseteq A$ as $B_1 = A \cap U_1$.

Then $x_2 \notin B_1$ since $x_2 \notin U_1$. Furthermore, $x_2$ is not a limit point of $B_1$, since $U_2$ is an open set containing $x_2$, and $(U_2 \setminus \{x_2\}) \cap B_1 = \varnothing$. Hence $x_2 \notin \overline{B_1}$.

Now we show that $x \in \overline{B_1}$. $x \in \overline{B_1} \iff \forall$ open sets $U$ containing $x$, $U\cap B_1 \neq \varnothing$. Then let $U$ be any open set containing $x$. $U\cap B_1 = U\cap (A\cap U_1) = (U\cap U_1)\cap A \neq \varnothing$, since $(U\cap U_1)$ is an open set containing $x$, and $A$ is dense in $X$.

$f(x_1) \neq f(x_2)$, so $f$ is injective.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ One fact that would help shorten this exposition (and is perhaps implicit in what you have written above) is the following: if $D \subseteq X$ is dense and $U \subseteq X$ is open, then $\overline{ U \cap D } = \overline{U}$. (And this does not rely on any separation axiom holding in $X$.) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 9:16
  • $\begingroup$ Another thing that would help shorten the exposition is that $x\in \overline{B}$ if and only if every (open) neighbourhood of $x$ intersects $B$. Then the cases 1 and 2 are reduced to $U\cap B_1 = U\cap (U_1\cap A) = (U\cap U_1)\cap A \neq \varnothing$, since $U\cap U_1$ is an open set containing $x_1$, hence nonempty, and $A$ is dense. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 10:54
  • $\begingroup$ I see, thanks! I hadn't encountered those facts yet. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 13:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.