Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedSession-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 map into a compact space whose graph is closed is continuous; so for a compact Hausdorff codomain, continuity and closedness of the graph are equivalent

Statement

Let XX and YY be topological spaces, let f:XYf : X \to Y be a function, and give X×YX \times Y the product topology (The product set iIXi\prod_{i \in I} X_i of functions choosing a point in each factor, the projections, the box topology, and the product topology as the initial topology of the projections; the empty product is a one-point space), writing

Gf  =  {zX×Y:z1=f(z0)}G_f \;=\; \{\, z \in X \times Y : z_1 = f(z_0) \,\}

for the graph of ff. Then:

  1. Closed graph implies continuity, over a compact codomain. If YY is compact (Open cover, subcover, and compact topological space; a compact subset is a subspace that is compact in its own right) and GfG_f is closed in X×YX \times Y, then ff is continuous (Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally). No separation hypothesis on YY is used in this direction.
  2. Continuity implies closed graph, over a Hausdorff codomain. If YY is Hausdorff (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not) and ff is continuous, then GfG_f is closed in X×YX \times Y.
  3. The equivalence. If YY is compact and Hausdorff then ff is continuous if and only if GfG_f is closed in X×YX \times Y.

The two halves carry different hypotheses and the equivalence is stated only where both hold. Claim 1 needs compactness and does not need the Hausdorff condition; claim 2 needs the Hausdorff condition and does not need compactness. Neither hypothesis may be transplanted to the other half.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Topological spaces XX and YY, a function f:XYf : X \to Y, the product X×YX \times Y with the product topology, and the graph Gf={zX×Y:z1=f(z0)}G_f = \{\, z \in X \times Y : z_1 = f(z_0) \,\}.

[A2]

ff is continuous at x0x_0 exactly when for every open VYV \subseteq Y with f(x0)Vf(x_0) \in V there is an open UXU \subseteq X with x0Ux_0 \in U and f[U]Vf[U] \subseteq V, and ff is continuous when this holds at every point of XX (Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally).

[A3]

A subset of a space is closed exactly when its complement is open; a finite intersection of open sets is open, and XX itself is open (Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison).

[L1]

A space is compact when every family of its open sets whose union is the whole space has a finite subfamily whose union is the whole space; a subset is compact when it is compact as a subspace, whose open sets are the traces of the open sets of the ambient space (Open cover, subcover, and compact topological space; a compact subset is a subspace that is compact in its own right, 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).

[L3]

A finite set is equinumerous with some natural number nn, hence may be listed as a0,,an1a_0, \dots, a_{n-1} (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).

[L4]

If FF is a function with domain a natural number nn all of whose values are nonempty sets, then the family of its values has a choice function; this is a theorem of ZF (Every natural-number-indexed list of nonempty sets has a choice function on its family of values, Choice function).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Assume YY is compact and GfG_f is closed, and put N:=(X×Y)GfN := (X \times Y) \setminus G_f, which is open.

A3
1.2

Fix x0Xx_0 \in X and an open VYV \subseteq Y with f(x0)Vf(x_0) \in V, and put C:=YVC := Y \setminus V; then CC is closed in YY, hence a compact subspace.

A3L2
1.3

Let P\mathcal{P} be the set of all pairs (U,W)(U, W) such that UU is open in XX, WW is open in YY, x0Ux_0 \in U and (U×W)Gf=(U \times W) \cap G_f = \varnothing; this family is specified by a formula and nothing is selected in forming it.

construct
1.4

If YY is Hausdorff and ff is continuous then GfG_f is closed, which is claim 2.

L5
2.1

Every yCy \in C lies in WW for some (U,W)P(U,W) \in \mathcal{P}: since f(x0)Vf(x_0) \in V and yVy \notin V we have yf(x0)y \ne f(x_0), so (x0,y)N(x_0, y) \in N, and by [A1] there is a basic box U×WU \times W with (x0,y)U×WN(x_0,y) \in U \times W \subseteq N, which gives (U,W)P(U,W) \in \mathcal{P}.

step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3A1
3.1

The family V:={WC:(U,W)P for some U}\mathcal{V} := \{\, W \cap C : (U,W) \in \mathcal{P} \text{ for some } U \,\} consists of sets open in the subspace CC and its union is CC, by step 2.1.

step 2.1L1
4.1

By compactness of CC there is a finite subfamily of V\mathcal{V} whose union is CC; being finite it may be listed as V0,,Vn1V_0, \dots, V_{n-1} for some nNn \in \mathbb{N}, so that Ci<nViC \subseteq \bigcup_{i<n} V_i.

step 1.2step 3.1L1L3
5.1

For each i<ni < n the set Pi:={(U,W)P:WC=Vi}\mathcal{P}_i := \{\, (U,W) \in \mathcal{P} : W \cap C = V_i \,\} is nonempty, since ViVV_i \in \mathcal{V}; so by [L4] applied to the function iPii \mapsto \mathcal{P}_i on nn there is a choice function on the family of these sets, and it supplies a pair (Ui,Wi)Pi(U_i, W_i) \in \mathcal{P}_i for every i<ni < n.

step 4.1L4choose
6.1

Put U:={xX:xUi for every i<n}U := \{\, x \in X : x \in U_i \text{ for every } i < n \,\}; this is XX when n=0n = 0 and a finite intersection of open sets otherwise, hence open in either case, and x0Ux_0 \in U since x0Uix_0 \in U_i for every i<ni < n.

step 5.1A3construct
7.1

f[U]Vf[U] \subseteq V: let xUx \in U and suppose f(x)Vf(x) \notin V, that is f(x)Cf(x) \in C; then f(x)Vi=WiCWif(x) \in V_i = W_i \cap C \subseteq W_i for some i<ni < n by step 4.1, while xUUix \in U \subseteq U_i, so the point (x,f(x))(x, f(x)) of GfG_f lies in Ui×WiU_i \times W_i, contradicting (Ui×Wi)Gf=(U_i \times W_i) \cap G_f = \varnothing; hence f(x)Vf(x) \in V.

step 4.1step 5.1step 6.1
8.1

By steps 6.1 and 7.1 there is, for the arbitrary x0Xx_0 \in X and the arbitrary open VV containing f(x0)f(x_0) fixed in step 1.2, an open Ux0U \ni x_0 with f[U]Vf[U] \subseteq V; so ff is continuous by [A2], which is claim 1.

step 1.2step 6.1step 7.1A2
9.1

If YY is compact and Hausdorff then step 8.1 gives one implication and step 1.4 the other, so continuity of ff and closedness of GfG_f are equivalent, which is claim 3; with steps 8.1 and 1.4 the theorem is proved.

step 8.1step 1.4

Remarks

  • The choice cost is exactly one finite choice, and the family it is made from is defined by a formula. The textbook phrasing "for each yCy \in C choose a box around (x0,y)(x_0,y) missing the graph" selects one object for each point of an arbitrary set and is an application of the Axiom of Choice. Step 1.3 avoids it by collecting all admissible pairs into one formula-defined family; only after compactness has cut the cover down to finitely many members is anything chosen, and that choice is licensed by Every natural-number-indexed list of nonempty sets has a choice function on its family of values, a theorem of ZF.

  • Why the empty case is written out. If V=YV = Y then C=C = \varnothing and the finite subfamily of step 4.1 may be empty, so n=0n = 0; the set UU of step 6.1 is then XX, which is exactly what is wanted. Writing UU as a defining condition rather than as an intersection is what makes that reading available, an intersection over no sets not being defined.

  • Compactness of the codomain is doing the work in claim 1, and it is not removable. Nothing in that direction separates points, and no Hausdorff hypothesis appears; what is used is that the complement of the target open set is compact. A discontinuous function with closed graph into a non-compact Hausdorff codomain is recorded on this page as a false statement.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 97 results over 28 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