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.
Urysohn's lemma, under the axiom of dependent choice: in a normal space two disjoint closed sets are separated by a continuous function into , and conversely such a space is normal
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Dependent Choice (The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an -indexed chain). Let be a topological space.
- If is normal (Normal spaces and spaces, with the source disagreement over whether normality includes stated explicitly) and are disjoint closed sets, there is a continuous (Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally, Intervals of : the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) with and .
- Conversely, if every pair of disjoint closed subsets of admits a continuous function into separating them in the sense of clause 1, then is normal. This direction uses no choice principle.
Where the choice principle of clause 1 is spent, and why not less. The construction below builds, for each , an assignment of an open set to every dyadic rational of level , extending the level- assignment; at each single level the finitely many new open sets are chosen at once by Every natural-number-indexed list of nonempty sets has a choice function on its family of values, a theorem of ZF, but stringing together infinitely many such levels, each depending on the one before, is exactly the situation dependent choice is for. The published Urysohn's lemma is not a theorem of ZF, nor of ZF plus countable choice ‡ records, with its sources, that and even together with the Axiom of Countable Choice do not suffice, and that dependent choice does; nothing here claims dependent choice is necessary for clause 1, only that the construction given is carried out in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A topological space and dependent choice.
: for every nonempty set , every relation entire on (every has some with ), and every , there is a sequence with and for every (The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an -indexed chain).
Shrinking: if is normal, is closed and is open with , then there is open with (A space is normal if and only if every closed inside an open admits an open with ).
Finite choice: a function with domain a natural number , all of whose values are nonempty sets, admits a choice function for the family of its values (Every natural-number-indexed list of nonempty sets has a choice function on its family of values, Choice function), a theorem of ZF.
The dyadic rationals of are an increasing union of finite levels; for , , where is strictly between the -consecutive pair and , the points are pairwise distinct and disjoint from , and every two elements of lie together in some common (The dyadic rationals of , their finite levels , and their density in ).
Chaining: if () are subsets of with for every , then , since for each (Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space) makes a chain of inclusions.
The generic construction: if is a family of open subsets of with whenever in and , then is a continuous map (If are open with whenever and , then is a continuous map , and no choice principle is used).
The order rays and are open in the usual topology of (The absolute value makes a metric space: is a metric, its open balls are the intervals , and it is unbounded, clause 3), so their traces and are open in the subspace topology of (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, Intervals of : the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length). They are disjoint and contain and , respectively.
Preimages of open sets under a continuous map are open (For a map of spaces the following agree: continuity at every point, preimages of open sets open, preimages of closed sets closed, preimages of subbasic open sets open, and , clause (b), Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally).
Proof
Assume is normal and are disjoint closed sets (the hypothesis of clause 1).
Assume instead that every pair of disjoint closed subsets of admits a continuous function into separating them as in clause 1 (the hypothesis of clause 2).
Under step 1.1: , since , and is open since is closed; by [L1] applied to the closed set and the open set , fix open with , and put , defining on .
Under step 1.2: let be disjoint closed sets; fix a continuous with and .
Under step 1.1: ; ; and .
Under step 1.2, continuing: by [L6], and are open in , disjoint, with and ; put and , open in by [L7].
Under step 1.1: for , call admissible at level when (i) for every in ; (ii) ; (iii) . Put , and for say when and . By step 3.1, .
Under step 1.2: , since on ; , since on ; and .
Under step 1.1: let . For each with , with as in [L3]: since in , admissibility (i) gives , so by [L1] the set of open with is nonempty.
Under step 1.2: since were an arbitrary disjoint closed pair, step 4.2 exhibits disjoint open supersets for every such pair, so is normal by Normal spaces and spaces, with the source disagreement over whether normality includes stated explicitly; this is clause 2, and no step of it used [A1].
Under step 1.1, continuing under step 5.1: by [L2] applied to the function assigning, to each , the nonempty set of open with , fix a simultaneous choice, giving open with for every .
Under step 1.1: define by and for ; this is well defined since with the pairwise distinct and disjoint from by [L3]. Then .
Under step 1.1, with as in step 7.1: for the -consecutive pair : by step 6.1; for the pair : by step 6.1.
Under step 1.1: for in , the finitely many elements of , listed increasingly as , are -consecutive at each step , and each such pair is one of the pairs of step 8.1 (every -consecutive pair has at least one member among the new points , since a new point was inserted into every -consecutive gap); so at each step, and [L4] gives .
Under step 1.1: , since is unaffected by the extension; , since is likewise unaffected; with step 9.1 this is admissibility of at level , so .
Under step 1.1: by steps 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 and 10.1, every has some with ; so is entire on .
Under step 1.1: is nonempty by step 4.1 and is entire on by step 11.1; by [A1] applied with , there is a sequence with and for every .
Under step 1.1: since forces , and , induction on gives for every ; so each is admissible at level , and for every .
Under step 1.1: for , fix with [L3] and define ; by step 13.1, for with , (chaining through the intermediate levels), so does not depend on the level chosen.
Under step 1.1: for in , fix with [L3]; then by admissibility (i) of . Also and , by admissibility (ii) and (iii) of for any .
Under step 1.1: define for with , and . For in : if , by step 15.1; if , by step 15.1. So whenever in , and .
Under step 1.1: by [L5] applied to of step 16.1, is a continuous map .
Under step 1.1: for and with : fix with [L3]; since also, admissibility (i) of applied to gives , that is ; since by [L8] and by step 16.1, , so .
Under step 1.1: for : by step 15.1, and by step 16.1 (as ), so and ; hence , and since maps into by step 17.1, so .
Under step 1.1: for : by step 17.2, for every with , and by step 16.1; so , giving .
Steps 17.1, 18.1 and 18.2 show that, under the hypothesis of step 1.1, is a continuous map with and , which is clause 1.
Steps 19.1 and 5.2 establish clauses 1 and 2 respectively.
Remarks
-
The lemma is stated for a normal space, not a space. is used nowhere above; it is needed only to turn a point into a closed set, which is the extra step the next corollary spends. The published Urysohn's lemma is not a theorem of ZF, nor of ZF plus countable choice ‡ states the classical form; the form proved here is the more general one, and the two are not in tension — the form follows by adding the hypothesis, which is not used in this proof at all.
-
Only clause 1 costs a choice principle, and it is spent at exactly one place: the single application of dependent choice in step 12.1, which strings together the countably many admissible levels built one finite step at a time in steps 5.1–10.1. Every other existential instantiation above (steps 2.1, 2.2 and 6.1) draws from a single nonempty set or, in step 6.1, from a finite family of them via Every natural-number-indexed list of nonempty sets has a choice function on its family of values, and neither costs anything beyond ZF.
-
Why the construction tracks rather than at . Recording throughout the recursion, rather than , is what makes admissibility clause (i) alone carry the whole -avoidance property: since for every , clause (i) applied to any already gives , with no separate bookkeeping. Only at the very end, in step 16.1, is the top value widened from to , which is exactly what If are open with whenever and , then is a continuous map , and no choice principle is used requires.
Depends on
- If $(U_r)_{r \in D}$ are open with $\overline{U_r} \subseteq U_s$ whenever $r < s$ and $U_1 = X$, then $x \mapsto \inf\{ r \in D : x \in U_r \}$ is a continuous map $X \to [0,1]$, and no choice principle is used
- The dyadic rationals of $[0,1]$, their finite levels $D_n$, and their density in $[0,1]$
- Normal spaces and $T_4$ spaces, with the source disagreement over whether normality includes $T_1$ stated explicitly
- A space is normal if and only if every closed $A$ inside an open $U$ admits an open $V$ with $A \subseteq V \subseteq \overline{V} \subseteq U$
- The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an $\mathbb{N}$-indexed chain
- Every natural-number-indexed list of nonempty sets has a choice function on its family of values
- Choice function
- Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally
- For a map of spaces the following agree: continuity at every point, preimages of open sets open, preimages of closed sets closed, preimages of subbasic open sets open, and $f(\overline{A}) \subseteq \overline{f(A)}$
- Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space
- Intervals of $\mathbb{R}$: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length
- Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison
- 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
- The absolute value makes $\mathbb{R}$ a metric space: $d(x,y) = |x-y|$ is a metric, its open balls are the intervals $(x-r, x+r)$, and it is unbounded
Used by
- Under dependent choice a compact Hausdorff space is Tychonoff, and its disjoint closed sets are separated by continuous functions Corollary
- Under dependent choice a normal T₁ space is completely regular, so T₄ ⟹ T_31/2, and together with the implications already proved this is the whole classical chain Corollary
- Under dependent choice, a continuous real-valued map on a closed subspace of a normal space extends to the whole space, and a map into an open interval extends into that same open interval Corollary
- A Urysohn function for (-∞, 0] and [1, ∞) in ℝ, written down and checked against the definition Example
- In a metric space the function d(x,A)/(d(x,A) + d(x,B)) separates two disjoint closed sets outright, so the metric case spends no choice principle Example
- The sets U₀, U₁, U_1/2, U_1/4, U_3/4 of the Urysohn construction computed for two disjoint closed subsets of ℝ Example
- Which results on this page spend dependent choice, which spend countable choice, and which are theorems of ZF Remark
- Tietze's extension theorem, under dependent choice: a continuous map from a closed subspace of a normal space into [a,b] extends continuously to the whole space, and this property characterises normality Theorem
- Under choice and dependent choice, every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space admits a locally finite subordinate partition of unity Theorem
- Under dependent choice a locally compact Hausdorff space is completely regular, hence Tychonoff Theorem
- Under dependent choice a space is perfectly normal if and only if it is normal and every closed set is a zero set Theorem
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 132 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
- Urysohn's lemma (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. Munkres, Topology, 2nd ed., §33 (standard reference, not scraped)
- S. Willard, General Topology, §15 (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. P. May, An Outline Summary of Basic Point Set Topology, §6 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Axiom of dependent choice (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)