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.
For the closure of in is , while the interior only contains , with equality when is open; and a dense subset of traces to a dense subset of every open
Statement
Let be a topological space (Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison), let 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) and let . Write and for the closure and the interior of in , and and for those taken in the space (Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space). Then:
- Closure traces exactly.
- Interior traces only one way. , so , and an inclusion that may be strict.
- Equality for an open subspace. If then .
- Density traces to open subspaces only. If is dense in (Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets) and , then is dense in . Without the hypothesis this fails.
Both failures are witnessed inside the proof, in Sierpinski space (The discrete, indiscrete, cofinite, cocountable, particular-point and Sierpinski topologies): the unqualified forms of claims 2 and 3 and of claim 4 are false, and the counterexamples are two lines each rather than deferred.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A topological space , a subset with its subspace topology , and a subset . Also Sierpinski space with and .
is a topology on , and is closed in if and only if for some closed (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).
If then a subset of is open in if and only if it is open in (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).
is the largest open subset of and is the smallest closed superset of ; both are taken in whichever space is named (Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space).
is dense in a space exactly when meets every nonempty open subset of that space (Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets).
In Sierpinski space the open sets are , and , so the closed sets are , and (The discrete, indiscrete, cofinite, cocountable, particular-point and Sierpinski topologies, Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison).
Proof
is closed in by [A1], since is closed in , and it contains , since and .
for some closed , by [A1] applied to the set , which is closed in ; and .
is open in and satisfies , so is a trace of an open set of and hence lies in .
In , put , and . Then , since is open in and ; and the interior of in is , since by [L3] the only open subset of in is . So the inclusion of claim 2 is strict for this pair.
Assume . Then , being open in , is open in by [A2], and it is contained in ; so by [L1].
Assume and that is dense in , and let be a nonempty open subset of . By [A2] the set is open in , so by [L2]; and gives .
In with the sets of step 1.4: the closure of in is , since by [L3] the only closed superset of is , so is dense in ; and , which is not dense in the nonempty space , because is a nonempty open subset of that does not meet.
: by step 1.1 the set is a closed subset of containing , and is the smallest such.
: with as in step 1.2 one has with closed in , so by [L1], whence .
: by step 1.3 the set is open in and contained in , and is the largest such.
Steps 2.2 and 2.3 give , which is claim 1.
Step 1.3 gives , step 2.4 gives the inclusion, and step 1.4 exhibits a case where the inclusion is strict; this is claim 2.
Steps 2.4 and 1.5 give when , which is claim 3.
By step 1.6 the set meets every nonempty open subset of , hence is dense in by [L2]; and step 2.1 shows that the conclusion fails for a subspace that is not open. This is claim 4, and with steps 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 all four claims are proved.
Remarks
-
The same two failures occur in , and there they are the familiar ones. With the usual topology, and give while ; and is dense in while its trace on the subspace of irrationals is empty, so a dense set need not trace to a dense set of a subspace that is not open. Sierpinski space is used in the proof only because it needs no real-number machinery.
-
Why closure behaves better than interior. Claim 1 holds for every , with no hypothesis, because the closed sets of a subspace are exactly the traces of the closed sets and tracing preserves the "smallest superset" that defines a closure. The interior is a largest subset, and tracing does not preserve that: a set can be open in without being the trace of any open set of that is contained in , which is exactly what step 1.4 exhibits.
-
Claim 4 is what makes "has a countable dense subset" behave the way it does. The property passes to open subspaces by claim 4, and it does not pass to arbitrary subspaces; the witness for the failure is worked on the companion page, where an uncountable discrete subspace is exhibited inside a space with a countable dense subset.
Depends on
- 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
- Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space
- Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets
- The discrete, indiscrete, cofinite, cocountable, particular-point and Sierpinski topologies
- Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison
Used by
- In the subspace of ℝ² made of the vertical unit segments over 1/(n+1) together with the two points (0,0) and (0,1), the component of (0,0) is a singleton while its quasicomponent is {(0,0), (0,1)} Counterexample
- On A = ([0,∞) × ℝ) ∪ (ℝ × {0}) the first projection is a quotient map, by the section x ↦ (x,0), and is neither open nor closed Counterexample
- Refuted, assuming countable choice: every Hausdorff space built from ordinal spaces is normal. The deleted Tychonoff plank ((ω₁ + 1) × (ω + 1)) ∖ {(ω₁, ω)} is Hausdorff and not normal Counterexample
- The antidiagonal {(x,-x)} is an uncountable discrete subspace of the Sorgenfrey plane, so having a countable dense subset is not a hereditary property Counterexample
- Separated sets: overlineA ∩ B = A ∩ overlineB = ∅ Definition
- The zigzag curve and its closure worked out: the components, the path components, and the points at which local connectedness fails Example
- A subspace A ⊆ X is disconnected exactly when A = A₁ ∪ A₂ with A₁, A₂ nonempty and separated in X, which is the criterion this library already uses on the real line Lemma
- In a locally compact Hausdorff space every open set containing a point contains an open set containing it whose closure is compact and still inside; such a space is regular Lemma
- Regularity is hereditary, without a hidden T₁ hypothesis Lemma
- The graph of the piecewise-linear map oscillating between 0 and 1 on the intervals [1/(n+2), 1/(n+1)] is path-connected, its closure adds the segment {0} × [0,1], and that closure is connected, is not path-connected because no path joins the segment to the graph, and is not locally connected Lemma
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 43 results over 17 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
- Subspace topology (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Closure (topology) (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. Munkres, Topology, 2nd ed., §17 (standard reference, not scraped)