10-327/Homework Assignment 7: Difference between revisions
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
*Questions: |
*Questions: |
||
(1)I have concern about this "Adding T_1 thing". When we are proving the Urysohn's Lemma, we proved that if X is a T.S. and A,B are any two disjoint closed sets in X, they can be separated by two disjoint open sets in X iff they can be separated by a continuous function. So there is no T_1 axiom involved in any of these two proofs. So Urysohn's Lemma is something more general |
(1)I have concern about this "Adding T_1 thing". When we are proving the Urysohn's Lemma, we proved that if X is a T.S. and A,B are any two disjoint closed sets in X, they can be separated by two disjoint open sets in X iff they can be separated by a continuous function. So there is no T_1 axiom involved in any of these two proofs. So Urysohn's Lemma is something more general than T_4 iff T_4.5 right? |
||
(2)I just want to also confirm the definition of T_4 and T_4.5: T_4 is T_1 + separation by two disjoint open sets for any two disjoint closed sets and T_4.5 is T_1 + separation by a continuous function for any two disjoint closed sets? |
(2)I just want to also confirm the definition of T_4 and T_4.5: T_4 is T_1 + separation by two disjoint open sets for any two disjoint closed sets and T_4.5 is T_1 + separation by a continuous function for any two disjoint closed sets? |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
(3)The only purpose of this manually adding T_1 thing is that so that T_4 and T_4.5 could imply T_3 T_2 T_1 right? |
(3)The only purpose of this manually adding T_1 thing is that so that T_4 and T_4.5 could imply T_3 T_2 T_1 right? |
||
-Kai[[User:Xwbdsb|Xwbdsb]] 21:26, 19 November 2010 (EST) |
|||
-Kai |
Revision as of 21:26, 19 November 2010
|
Reading
Read sections in Munkres' textbook (Topology, 2nd edition). Remember that reading math isn't like reading a novel! If you read a novel and miss a few details most likely you'll still understand the novel. But if you miss a few details in a math text, often you'll miss everything that follows. So reading math takes reading and rereading and rerereading and a lot of thought about what you've read. Also, preread sections , just to get a feel for the future.
Doing
Solve and submit the following problems from Munkres' book:
- Problem 1 on page 199.
- Problem 1 on page 205.
- Problems 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 on pages 212-213.
Remark. The following fact, which we will prove later, may be used without a proof: If is a topological space and are continuous functions, then the sum is convergent and defines a continuous function on .
Due date
This assignment is due at the end of class on Thursday, November 25, 2010.
Dror's notes above / Student's notes below |
- Question: In problem 1 p205, is asks us to show that any closed subspace of a normal space is also normal. Do we really need the condition that the subspace be closed? - Jdw
- Yes. Drorbn 19:14, 19 November 2010 (EST)
- Questions:
(1)I have concern about this "Adding T_1 thing". When we are proving the Urysohn's Lemma, we proved that if X is a T.S. and A,B are any two disjoint closed sets in X, they can be separated by two disjoint open sets in X iff they can be separated by a continuous function. So there is no T_1 axiom involved in any of these two proofs. So Urysohn's Lemma is something more general than T_4 iff T_4.5 right?
(2)I just want to also confirm the definition of T_4 and T_4.5: T_4 is T_1 + separation by two disjoint open sets for any two disjoint closed sets and T_4.5 is T_1 + separation by a continuous function for any two disjoint closed sets?
(3)The only purpose of this manually adding T_1 thing is that so that T_4 and T_4.5 could imply T_3 T_2 T_1 right?
-KaiXwbdsb 21:26, 19 November 2010 (EST)