Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)verified 2026-07-29 (claude-fable-5)
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.

A subspace AXA \subseteq X is disconnected exactly when A=A1A2A = A_1 \cup A_2 with A1,A2A_1, A_2 nonempty and separated in XX, which is the criterion this library already uses on the real line

Statement

Let (X,T)(X, \mathcal{T}) be a topological space (Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison) and let AXA \subseteq X carry the subspace topology (Subspace topology: the traces of the open sets, its closed sets and its bases, the continuity of the inclusion, and the characteristic property of a map into a subspace). Write B\overline{B} for the closure of BB in XX (Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space). Then AA is a disconnected subset of XX (Separation of a topological space, connected and disconnected spaces, clopen sets, and connected subsets) if and only if there are sets A1,A2A_1, A_2 with

A=A1A2,A1A2,A1A2==A1A2.A = A_1 \cup A_2, \qquad A_1 \ne \varnothing \ne A_2, \qquad \overline{A_1} \cap A_2 = \varnothing = A_1 \cap \overline{A_2} .

Equivalently: AA is connected if and only if it admits no such decomposition. The two sets in such a decomposition are automatically disjoint, since A1A2A1A2=A_1 \cap A_2 \subseteq \overline{A_1} \cap A_2 = \varnothing.

The displayed condition is the one Separated sets, disconnection, and connected subset of R\mathbb{R} states for subsets of R\mathbb{R}, with the closure of R\mathbb{R} replaced by the closure of XX: there a disconnection of EE is a pair of nonempty separated sets whose union is EE, and EE is connected when none exists. That the two closures on R\mathbb{R} are the same operation, and hence that the two definitions agree there, is proved later on this page; nothing in the present lemma asserts it.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A topological space (X,T)(X,\mathcal{T}) and a subset AXA \subseteq X with the subspace topology TA\mathcal{T}_A.

[A1]

AA is a disconnected subset of XX exactly when the space (A,TA)(A,\mathcal{T}_A) admits a separation, that is a pair (W1,W2)(W_1,W_2) of sets open in AA, nonempty, disjoint, with W1W2=AW_1 \cup W_2 = A (Separation of a topological space, connected and disconnected spaces, clopen sets, and connected subsets, Subspace topology: the traces of the open sets, its closed sets and its bases, the continuity of the inclusion, and the characteristic property of a map into a subspace).

[A4]

In any space a subset is closed exactly when its complement is open; two disjoint sets whose union is the whole space are each the complement of the other (Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Suppose AA is disconnected and fix a separation (W1,W2)(W_1, W_2) of (A,TA)(A,\mathcal{T}_A) as in [A1]; then W1W_1 and W2W_2 are nonempty subsets of AA with W1W2=AW_1 \cup W_2 = A and W1W2=W_1 \cap W_2 = \varnothing.

A1
1.2

Each of W1,W2W_1, W_2 is closed in AA: being complementary in AA and both open in AA, each is the complement in AA of an open set.

A1A4
1.3

Conversely suppose A=A1A2A = A_1 \cup A_2 with A1,A2A_1, A_2 nonempty and A1A2==A1A2\overline{A_1} \cap A_2 = \varnothing = A_1 \cap \overline{A_2}; then A1A2=A_1 \cap A_2 = \varnothing, since A1A2A1A2A_1 \cap A_2 \subseteq \overline{A_1} \cap A_2 by [A3].

A3
2.1

In the situation of step 1.1, clA(W1)=W1\operatorname{cl}_A(W_1) = W_1 by step 1.2 and [A3], hence W1A=W1\overline{W_1} \cap A = W_1 by [A2]; symmetrically W2A=W2\overline{W_2} \cap A = W_2.

step 1.1step 1.2A2A3
2.2

In the situation of step 1.3, A1A=(A1A1)(A1A2)=A1=A1\overline{A_1} \cap A = (\overline{A_1} \cap A_1) \cup (\overline{A_1} \cap A_2) = A_1 \cup \varnothing = A_1, using A=A1A2A = A_1 \cup A_2, the hypothesis A1A2=\overline{A_1} \cap A_2 = \varnothing and A1A1A_1 \subseteq \overline{A_1} from [A3]; symmetrically A2A=A2\overline{A_2} \cap A = A_2.

step 1.3A3
3.1

So in the situation of step 1.1 one has W1W2W1AW2=W1W2=\overline{W_1} \cap W_2 \subseteq \overline{W_1} \cap A \cap W_2 = W_1 \cap W_2 = \varnothing, because W2AW_2 \subseteq A; symmetrically W1W2=W_1 \cap \overline{W_2} = \varnothing. Hence A1:=W1A_1 := W_1 and A2:=W2A_2 := W_2 are nonempty, have union AA, and are separated in XX.

step 1.1step 2.1
3.2

And in the situation of step 1.3 one has clA(A1)=A1A=A1\operatorname{cl}_A(A_1) = \overline{A_1} \cap A = A_1 by [A2] and step 2.2, so A1A_1 is closed in AA by [A3]; symmetrically A2A_2 is closed in AA.

step 1.3step 2.2A2A3
4.1

In the situation of step 1.3 the sets A1A_1 and A2A_2 are therefore disjoint, cover AA, and are each closed in AA by step 3.2, so each is the complement in AA of the other and hence open in AA by [A4]; being nonempty, (A1,A2)(A_1, A_2) is a separation of (A,TA)(A, \mathcal{T}_A) and AA is disconnected by [A1].

step 1.3step 3.2A1A4
5.1

Step 3.1 gives the forward implication and step 4.1 the backward one, so AA is disconnected exactly when the displayed decomposition exists; negating both sides gives the statement for connectedness.

step 3.1step 4.1

Remarks

  • Why the closures are taken in XX and the openness in AA. The two halves of the criterion live in different spaces on purpose. Relative openness is not visible from XX alone — a set open in AA need not be open in XX — whereas the closure operator of AA is computed from that of XX by [A2]. Trading the relatively open pieces for ambiently separated ones is exactly what makes the criterion usable when only XX is concretely known, which is the situation in every worked example on the companion page.

  • Separated is strictly stronger than disjoint, and that is what is needed. If the condition asked only for a partition into two nonempty disjoint pieces then every space with at least two points would be "disconnected". The two closure conditions are what forbid one piece from clinging to the other, and each of them is used once in the proof above.

  • The hypothesis AiAA_i \subseteq A is not imposed and is automatic. Both sets appear inside a union equal to AA, so each is contained in AA; the statement is written without the redundant hypothesis so that it can be applied directly to a candidate pair.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 40 results over 12 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