How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Two continuous maps into a Hausdorff space that agree on a dense subset are equal
Statement
Let be a topological space, let be dense (Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets), let be Hausdorff (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not) and let be continuous (Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally) with
Then .
So a continuous map into a Hausdorff space is determined by its restriction to any dense subset of its domain. Nothing is asserted about which functions on extend: the statement is about uniqueness of an extension, not existence.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A topological space , a dense subset , a Hausdorff space , and continuous maps agreeing at every point of .
The agreement set is closed in (For continuous with Hausdorff the agreement set is closed in , Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not, Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally).
is the smallest closed superset of : it is contained in every closed set containing (A point lies in the closure of iff every basic neighbourhood of it meets ; the closure is the smallest closed superset and equals together with its derived set, claim 2, Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space).
Proof
is closed in .
, since and agree at every point of .
, the equality by [A1] and the inclusion because is a closed set containing .
holds by definition, so , that is for every and .
Remarks
-
The Hausdorff hypothesis is spent exactly once, inside [L1], and the density hypothesis exactly once, at step 2.1. Neither is used anywhere else, and neither can be weakened to the other: a dense agreement set alone does not force equality without a separation hypothesis on the codomain, and a Hausdorff codomain alone plainly does not.
-
Density is a hypothesis about , not about . In particular the statement is about one domain and one dense subset of it; it says nothing about restrictions to subsets that are merely large in some other sense, and there is no cardinality condition anywhere in it.
-
The uniqueness/existence split matters. A continuous need not extend continuously to at all. What this corollary rules out is two different extensions, and that is exactly what makes an extension, when it exists, worth naming.
Depends on
- For continuous $f, g : Z \to Y$ with $Y$ Hausdorff the agreement set $\{ z \in Z : f(z) = g(z) \}$ is closed in $Z$
- Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets
- A point lies in the closure of $A$ iff every basic neighbourhood of it meets $A$; the closure is the smallest closed superset and equals $A$ together with its derived set
- Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not
- Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally
- Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space
Used by
- Samuel compactifications are unique up to the unique isomorphism fixing the original space Corollary
- Stone–Čech compactifications are uniquely homeomorphic over the original space Corollary
- Refuted: the agreement set of two continuous maps is closed, with no hypothesis on the codomain. Two continuous maps ℝ → {a,b} into the indiscrete two-point space have agreement set ℚ Counterexample
- Two continuous maps ℝ → ℝ agreeing at every rational are equal Example
- FALSE: two continuous maps that agree on a dense subset of their common domain are equal, with no hypothesis on the codomain False statement
- Every continuous [0,1]-valued function extends uniquely over the closure of the full evaluation image Lemma
- Every uniformly continuous map into a complete Hausdorff uniform space extends uniquely across the Hausdorff completion; consequently completions are unique up to a unique uniform isomorphism Theorem
- Under the ultrafilter lemma and dependent choice, the closure of the full evaluation image is the Stone–Čech compactification Theorem
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 56 results over 14 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Dense set (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Hausdorff space (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- General Topology Notes (UC Riverside) (standard reference, not scraped)