Alphabeta Math
Session-authored (Fable 5 assisted)
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.

13 results · all verified · 9 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 4 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Subspaces, Products, and Quotients: Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

Rn\mathbb{R}^n as the product of nn copies of the real line: the product topology is the Euclidean topology and the projections are continuous, open and surjective

Example

Fix nNn \in \mathbb{N} with n1n \ge 1 and give R\mathbb{R} its usual topology (The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded, Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not). Let Rn=k<nR\mathbb{R}^n = \prod_{k<n} \mathbb{R} carry 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), with projections πj(x)=xj\pi_j(x) = x_j. Then:

  1. The product topology is the Euclidean topology. It is the metric topology of dd_\infty, and equally of d1d_1 and of d2d_2 (Rn\mathbb{R}^n as the set of functions nRn \to \mathbb{R}, and d1d_1, d2d_2, dd_\infty are metrics on it, For n1n \ge 1 the product topology on nn copies of the usual topology of R\mathbb{R} is the metric topology of dd_\infty on Rn\mathbb{R}^n, and hence also of d1d_1 and d2d_2, so Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a product and Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a metric space are one space); in particular Rn\mathbb{R}^n with the product topology is metrizable, and "open in Rn\mathbb{R}^n" has one meaning.
  2. A basis of open boxes. The sets k<n(ak,bk)\prod_{k<n}(a_k, b_k) with ak<bka_k < b_k for every k<nk < n form a basis (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length), since the dd_\infty-ball B(x,r)B(x,r) is exactly the box k<n(xkr, xk+r)\prod_{k<n}(x_k - r,\ x_k + r).
  3. The projections are continuous, open and surjective. Continuity and openness are the general facts (A map into a product is continuous iff each of its components is; the projections are continuous and open; and each projection is surjective when every factor is nonempty, which for an infinite index set uses the Axiom of Choice, claims 1 and 3; Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally, Homeomorphism, open map, closed map, embedding, and what it means for a property to be topological). Surjectivity needs no choice principle here: for tRt \in \mathbb{R} the constant function xx with xk=tx_k = t for every k<nk<n satisfies πj(x)=t\pi_j(x) = t.
  4. Componentwise continuity. For a space ZZ, a function h:ZRnh : Z \to \mathbb{R}^n is continuous if and only if each of its nn components hk=πkh:ZRh_k = \pi_k \circ h : Z \to \mathbb{R} is (A map into a product is continuous iff each of its components is; the projections are continuous and open; and each projection is surjective when every factor is nonempty, which for an infinite index set uses the Axiom of Choice, claim 2). This is the statement usually quoted as "a vector-valued map is continuous exactly when its coordinate functions are", and here it is a special case of a theorem about arbitrary products.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A natural n1n \ge 1; Rn=k<nR\mathbb{R}^n = \prod_{k<n}\mathbb{R} with the product topology; the projections πj\pi_j; a topological space ZZ and a function h:ZRnh : Z \to \mathbb{R}^n; a real tt and an index j<nj < n.

[A1]

Rn\mathbb{R}^n is the set of functions nRn \to \mathbb{R} and d(x,y)=max{xkyk:k<n}d_\infty(x,y) = \max\{|x_k-y_k| : k<n\} is a metric on it for n1n \ge 1 (Rn\mathbb{R}^n as the set of functions nRn \to \mathbb{R}, and d1d_1, d2d_2, dd_\infty are metrics on it).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Claim 1 is [L1] verbatim, together with the observation that a topology induced by a metric makes the space metrizable.

A1L1
1.2

The constant function xx with xk:=tx_k := t for every k<nk < n is an element of Rn\mathbb{R}^n, since it is a function nRn \to \mathbb{R}, and πj(x)=xj=t\pi_j(x) = x_j = t.

A1
1.3

Claims 3 and 4, apart from surjectivity, are [L2] read for the family of nn projections.

L2
2.1

Every dd_\infty-ball is a box of bounded open intervals of equal length, by [L1], and the balls form a basis of the metric topology by [L3]; so the boxes k<n(ak,bk)\prod_{k<n}(a_k,b_k) with ak<bka_k < b_k include a basis and are themselves open by [L4], hence form a basis. This is claim 2.

step 1.1L1L3L4
2.2

By step 1.2 the projection πj\pi_j is surjective, with no appeal to a choice principle, the point xx being written down. This completes claim 3 with step 1.3.

step 1.2step 1.3
3.1

Steps 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 1.3 establish claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

step 1.1step 1.3step 2.1step 2.2

Remarks

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (deepseek-v4-pro + gpt-5.6-terra)verified 2026-08-04 (gpt-5.6-sol-codex-subscription)Open item page →

The hyperbola {(x,y):xy=1}\{(x,y) : xy = 1\} is closed in R2\mathbb{R}^2 and its image under the first projection is R{0}\mathbb{R} \setminus \{0\}, which is not closed

Statement refuted

Refuted: that the projections of a product with the product topology are closed maps (FALSE: the projections of a product are closed maps, Homeomorphism, open map, closed map, embedding, and what it means for a property to be topological).

Witness. In R2=R×R\mathbb{R}^2 = \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} with the product topology, which is the usual topology (For n1n \ge 1 the product topology on nn copies of the usual topology of R\mathbb{R} is the metric topology of dd_\infty on Rn\mathbb{R}^n, and hence also of d1d_1 and d2d_2, so Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a product and Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a metric space are one space, Rn\mathbb{R}^n as the product of nn copies of the real line: the product topology is the Euclidean topology and the projections are continuous, open and surjective), take

H  :=  {(x,y)R2:xy=1}.H \;:=\; \{\, (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : xy = 1 \,\} .

Then HH is closed in R2\mathbb{R}^2, its image under the first projection is π0[H]=R{0}\pi_0[H] = \mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}, and R{0}\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\} is not closed in R\mathbb{R}: the point 00 lies in its closure and not in it. So π0\pi_0 is not a closed map, although it is a continuous open surjection (A map into a product is continuous iff each of its components is; the projections are continuous and open; and each projection is surjective when every factor is nonempty, which for an infinite index set uses the Axiom of Choice).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: R2\mathbb{R}^2 with the product topology, the first projection π0(x,y)=x\pi_0(x,y) = x, and the set HH above.

[A1]

The product topology on R2\mathbb{R}^2 is the metric topology of d((x,y),(x,y))=max{xx,yy}d_\infty((x,y),(x',y')) = \max\{|x-x'|, |y-y'|\}, and R2\mathbb{R}^2 is therefore metrizable (For n1n \ge 1 the product topology on nn copies of the usual topology of R\mathbb{R} is the metric topology of dd_\infty on Rn\mathbb{R}^n, and hence also of d1d_1 and d2d_2, so Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a product and Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a metric space are one space).

[L1]

The multiplication map m:R2Rm : \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}, m(x,y):=xym(x,y) := xy, is continuous. At (a,b)(a,b) and for ε>0\varepsilon > 0, take δ:=min{1, εa+b+1}>0.\delta := \min\left\{1,\ \frac{\varepsilon}{|a|+|b|+1}\right\}>0. If d((x,y),(a,b))<δd_\infty((x,y),(a,b))<\delta, then x<a+1|x|<|a|+1 and xyabxyb+bxa<(a+b+1)δε.|xy-ab|\le |x|\,|y-b|+|b|\,|x-a| < (|a|+|b|+1)\delta\le\varepsilon. The bound uses xyab=x(yb)+b(xa)xy-ab = x(y-b)+b(x-a), the triangle inequality u+vu+v|u+v|\le|u|+|v| (The triangle inequality) and uv=uv|uv|=|u|\,|v| (Basic properties of the absolute value). This is the metric definition of continuity (Continuity of a map between metric spaces, at a point and globally, in the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta form, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order, Maximum and minimum of a set).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Since H=m1[{1}]H = m^{-1}[\{1\}], [L1] and [L2] show that HH is closed in R2\mathbb{R}^2.

A1L1L2
1.2

For x0x \ne 0 one has (x,1/x)H(x, 1/x) \in H, since x(1/x)=1x \cdot (1/x) = 1; and no point (0,y)(0,y) lies in HH, since 0y=010 \cdot y = 0 \ne 1. Hence π0[H]=R{0}\pi_0[H] = \mathbb{R} \setminus \{0\}.

given
1.3

The set R{0}\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\} is not closed: its complement {0}\{0\} is not open, because every interval (r,r)(-r,r) with r>0r>0 contains the nonzero point r/2r/2.

L3
2.1

By step 1.1 the set HH is closed and by steps 1.2 and 1.3 its image π0[H]\pi_0[H] is not, so π0\pi_0 is not a closed map by [A2]; by [A2] it is nevertheless a continuous open map, which refutes the claim.

step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3A2

Remarks

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The diagonal x(x,x,)x \mapsto (x,x,\dots) from R\mathbb{R} into RN\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}} is continuous for the product topology and not for the box topology

Statement refuted

Refuted: that the box topology has the characteristic property of a product, that is, that a map into iXi\prod_i X_i with all components continuous is continuous for the box topology. Equivalently, this exhibits again that the two topologies differ (FALSE: the product topology and the box topology agree on every product).

Witness. Let P:=RN=kNRP := \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}} = \prod_{k \in \mathbb{N}}\mathbb{R} with every factor carrying the usual topology (The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded, Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not), and let

Δ:RP,Δ(t)k:=t(kN)\Delta : \mathbb{R} \to P, \qquad \Delta(t)_k := t \quad (k \in \mathbb{N})

be the diagonal map. Every component πkΔ\pi_k \circ \Delta is the identity of R\mathbb{R}, hence continuous. Then Δ\Delta is continuous for the product topology (A map into a product is continuous iff each of its components is; the projections are continuous and open; and each projection is surjective when every factor is nonempty, which for an infinite index set uses the Axiom of Choice, claim 2) and is not continuous for the box topology: the box

B  :=  kN(1k+1, 1k+1)B \;:=\; \prod_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \Big(-\tfrac{1}{k+1},\ \tfrac{1}{k+1}\Big)

is box-open and Δ1[B]={0}\Delta^{-1}[B] = \{0\}, which is not open in R\mathbb{R}.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: P=kNRP = \prod_{k \in \mathbb{N}}\mathbb{R}, the diagonal Δ\Delta, and the box BB above; 1/(k+1)1/(k+1) abbreviates 1/ι(k+1)1/\iota(k+1) (The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field).

[L3]

For every real η>0\eta > 0 there is a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/m<η1/m < \eta (For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon); ι(k+1)1>0\iota(k+1) \ge 1 > 0 and 0<uv0 < u \le v gives 0<1/v1/u0 < 1/v \le 1/u (Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order, The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Each component πkΔ\pi_k \circ \Delta is the identity map of R\mathbb{R}, since (πkΔ)(t)=Δ(t)k=t(\pi_k \circ \Delta)(t) = \Delta(t)_k = t; the identity is continuous, its preimages being the sets themselves.

givenL1
1.2

Each factor of BB is a bounded open interval and 1/(k+1)>01/(k+1) > 0 by [L3], so BB is a box with open factors and hence open in the box topology.

A1L2L3
1.3

{0}\{0\} is not open in R\mathbb{R}: for every r>0r > 0 the interval (r,r)(-r,r) contains r/2r/2, which is different from 00; so no bounded open interval around 00 lies inside {0}\{0\}.

L2
2.1

0Δ1[B]0 \in \Delta^{-1}[B], since Δ(0)k=0(1/(k+1), 1/(k+1))\Delta(0)_k = 0 \in (-1/(k+1),\ 1/(k+1)) for every kk by [L3].

step 1.2L2L3
2.2

Δ\Delta is continuous for the product topology, by step 1.1 and [A2].

step 1.1A2
3.1

Δ1[B]={0}\Delta^{-1}[B] = \{0\}: a real tt lies in it exactly when t<1/(k+1)|t| < 1/(k+1) for every kNk \in \mathbb{N}; if t0t \ne 0 then t>0|t| > 0 and [L3] gives a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/m<t1/m < |t|, and taking k:=m1k := m - 1 contradicts that condition. With step 2.1 this gives the stated equality.

step 2.1L2L3
4.1

By steps 1.2, 3.1 and 1.3 the preimage under Δ\Delta of a box-open set is not open in R\mathbb{R}, so Δ\Delta is not continuous into PP with the box topology, by [L1]; by step 2.2 it is continuous into PP with the product topology, although its components are the same in both cases. That refutes the claim.

step 1.2step 2.2step 3.1step 1.3L1

Remarks

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The Cantor set is homeomorphic to {0,1}N\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}} with the product of discrete topologies, the ternary digits being the coordinates

Example

Let D:={0,1}D := \{0,1\} carry the discrete topology (The discrete, indiscrete, cofinite, cocountable, particular-point and Sierpinski topologies) and let

K  :=  DN  =  jNDK \;:=\; D^{\mathbb{N}} \;=\; \prod_{j \in \mathbb{N}} D

carry 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). Let CC be the Cantor set (The Cantor middle-thirds set as the intersection of the sets CnC_n obtained by removing open middle thirds) with the subspace topology inherited from the usual topology of R\mathbb{R} (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 R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded). Define

Φ:KC,Φ(b)  :=  j=02bj3(j+1).\Phi : K \to C, \qquad \Phi(b) \;:=\; \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} 2 b_j\, 3^{-(j+1)} .

Then:

  1. Φ\Phi is a well defined bijection onto CC. Writing Φ0(a):=k=0ak3k1\Phi_0(a) := \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} a_k 3^{-k-1} for a sequence a:N{0,2}a : \mathbb{N} \to \{0,2\}, one has Φ(b)=Φ0((2bk)k)\Phi(b) = \Phi_0\big((2b_k)_k\big), and claim 3 of The Cantor set is exactly the set of k1ak3k\sum_{k \ge 1} a_k 3^{-k} with every ak{0,2}a_k \in \{0,2\}, and this gives a bijection with {0,1}N\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}} says exactly that this assignment is a bijection from {0,1}N\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}} onto CC.
  2. Two estimates control Φ\Phi completely. For b,cKb, c \in K and nNn \in \mathbb{N}:
    • if bj=cjb_j = c_j for every j<nj < n, then Φ(b)Φ(c)3n|\Phi(b) - \Phi(c)| \le 3^{-n};
    • if bj=cjb_j = c_j for every j<mj < m and bmcmb_m \ne c_m, then Φ(b)Φ(c)3(m+1)|\Phi(b) - \Phi(c)| \ge 3^{-(m+1)}.
  3. Φ\Phi is a homeomorphism (Homeomorphism, open map, closed map, embedding, and what it means for a property to be topological): it is continuous by the first estimate and open onto CC by the second, and a continuous open bijection is a homeomorphism (A continuous bijection is a homeomorphism iff it is open iff it is closed, and homeomorphy is an equivalence relation on spaces).

So the Cantor set, a subspace of the line, and the space of all binary sequences, a product of two-point discrete spaces, are the same topological space; the ternary digits of a point of CC are its coordinates in the product.

Compactness is not used anywhere below. The usual argument, that a continuous bijection from a compact space to a Hausdorff space is a homeomorphism, is not available at this point in the reading order, and the openness of Φ\Phi is proved by hand instead.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: D={0,1}D = \{0,1\} discrete, K=DNK = D^{\mathbb{N}} with the product topology, the Cantor set CRC \subseteq \mathbb{R} with the subspace topology, the map Φ\Phi above, and points b,cKb, c \in K. For nNn \in \mathbb{N} the cylinder at bb of depth nn is Z(b,n):={cK:cj=bj for every j<n}Z(b,n) := \{\, c \in K : c_j = b_j \text{ for every } j < n \,\}. Powers 3k3^{-k} are integer powers (Integer powers ama^m) and 33 denotes ι(3)\iota(3) (The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field).

[A1]

For a sequence a:N{0,2}a : \mathbb{N} \to \{0,2\} the series k0ak3k1\sum_{k \ge 0} a_k 3^{-k-1} converges, its sum Φ0(a)\Phi_0(a) lies in [0,1][0,1], the Cantor set is exactly the set of these sums, and bΦ0((2bk)k)b \mapsto \Phi_0\big((2b_k)_k\big) is a bijection from {0,1}N\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}} onto CC (The Cantor set is exactly the set of k1ak3k\sum_{k \ge 1} a_k 3^{-k} with every ak{0,2}a_k \in \{0,2\}, and this gives a bijection with {0,1}N\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}, claims 1, 2 and 3; The Cantor middle-thirds set as the intersection of the sets CnC_n obtained by removing open middle thirds).

[L1]

k=0rk=1/(1r)\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} r^k = 1/(1-r) for r<1|r|<1 (For r<1|r| < 1, k0rk=1/(1r)\sum_{k \ge 0} r^k = 1/(1-r), and for r1|r| \ge 1 the series diverges); a nonnegative series converges iff its partial sums are bounded, and then every partial sum is at most the sum (A series of nonnegative terms converges iff its partial sums are bounded, and then the sum is their supremum); series may be shifted to a general starting index (Series, partial sums, convergence and the sum, divergence, and the tail series); sums are additive and homogeneous (Convergent series add and scale termwise).

[L2]

Finite sums are monotone in their terms and satisfy k<nλ=nλ\sum_{k<n}\lambda = n\lambda (Laws of finite sums and finite products); weak inequalities pass to limits (Limits preserve non-strict inequalities); uv|u| \le v is equivalent to vuv-v \le u \le v (Basic properties of the absolute value).

[L3]

3m3n=3m+n3^{m}3^{n} = 3^{m+n} and 3m=(3m)13^{-m} = (3^m)^{-1} (Laws of integer exponents, Integer powers ama^m); 3k>03^k > 0 and k3kk \mapsto 3^k is nondecreasing for kNk \in \mathbb{N}, so 0<uv0 < u \le v gives 3v3u3^{-v} \le 3^{-u} (Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order, Laws of integer exponents).

[L4]

If ak\sum a_k converges then ak0a_k \to 0 (If a series converges then its terms tend to 00); below any positive real lies a positive rational, so convergence tested against rational tolerances gives every real tolerance (The rationals embed densely in the reals).

[L5]

Every nonempty set of naturals has a least element (The well-ordering principle); a listed finite set of reals has a maximum (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

For every bKb \in K the terms 2bj3(j+1)2b_j 3^{-(j+1)} lie between 00 and 23(j+1)2 \cdot 3^{-(j+1)}, and j23(j+1)\sum_j 2 \cdot 3^{-(j+1)} converges with sum 11, since it is 231j3j=(2/3)(3/2)2 \cdot 3^{-1}\sum_j 3^{-j} = (2/3)(3/2) by [L1] and [L3]. So Φ(b)\Phi(b) is defined and lies in [0,1][0,1].

givenL1L2L3
1.2

3k03^{-k} \to 0, since k3k\sum_k 3^{-k} converges by [L1]; hence for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is nNn \in \mathbb{N} with 3n<ε3^{-n} < \varepsilon, a positive rational below ε\varepsilon serving as the tolerance.

L1L4
1.3

Each cylinder Z(b,n)Z(b,n) is open in KK: it is the box with factor {bj}\{b_j\} at each j<nj<n and DD elsewhere, and every subset of DD is open. Moreover Z(c,n)=Z(b,n)Z(c,n) = Z(b,n) whenever cZ(b,n)c \in Z(b,n), the defining condition being agreement of the first nn coordinates.

A2
1.4

The cylinders form a basis of KK: given a basic box jUj\prod_j U_j with Uj=DU_j = D off a list j0,,jr1j_0,\dots,j_{r-1} and a point bb in it, put n:=1+jm0n := 1 + j_{m_0} where jm0j_{m_0} is the largest of the listed indices, available by [L5] for r1r \ge 1, and n:=0n := 0 for r=0r = 0; then bZ(b,n)jUjb \in Z(b,n) \subseteq \prod_j U_j, since every listed index is <n< n.

A2L5
2.1

Φ(b)=Φ0((2bk)k)\Phi(b) = \Phi_0\big((2b_k)_k\big) for every bKb \in K, the two series having the same terms 2bk3k12b_k 3^{-k-1}; so by [A1] the map Φ\Phi is a bijection of KK onto CC. This is claim 1.

step 1.1A1L1
2.2

For every nNn \in \mathbb{N}: jn23(j+1)=3n\sum_{j \ge n} 2 \cdot 3^{-(j+1)} = 3^{-n}, by shifting the index and applying [L1] and [L3] as in step 1.1.

step 1.1L1L3
3.1

Suppose bj=cjb_j = c_j for every j<nj < n. For NnN \ge n the finite sum j<N2(bjcj)3(j+1)\sum_{j<N} 2(b_j - c_j)3^{-(j+1)} has vanishing terms for j<nj < n, and each remaining term lies between 23(j+1)-2 \cdot 3^{-(j+1)} and 23(j+1)2 \cdot 3^{-(j+1)}, so by [L2] the finite sum lies between 3n-3^{-n} and 3n3^{-n}, using step 2.2 and [L1]. Letting NN grow and applying [L1] and [L2] gives Φ(b)Φ(c)3n|\Phi(b) - \Phi(c)| \le 3^{-n}.

step 2.2L1L2
3.2

Suppose bj=cjb_j = c_j for every j<mj < m and bmcmb_m \ne c_m; interchanging bb and cc if necessary, take bm=1b_m = 1 and cm=0c_m = 0. For N>mN > m the finite sum j<N2(bjcj)3(j+1)\sum_{j<N} 2(b_j-c_j)3^{-(j+1)} equals 23(m+1)2 \cdot 3^{-(m+1)} plus a term bounded below by jm+123(j+1)=3(m+1)-\sum_{j \ge m+1} 2 \cdot 3^{-(j+1)} = -3^{-(m+1)}, by step 2.2, [L1] and [L2]; so it is at least 3(m+1)3^{-(m+1)}. Letting NN grow gives Φ(b)Φ(c)3(m+1)\Phi(b) - \Phi(c) \ge 3^{-(m+1)}, hence Φ(b)Φ(c)3(m+1)|\Phi(b)-\Phi(c)| \ge 3^{-(m+1)}.

step 2.2L1L2
4.1

Steps 3.1 and 3.2 are claim 2.

step 3.1step 3.2
4.2

Φ\Phi is continuous: let VV be open in CC and bΦ1[V]b \in \Phi^{-1}[V]; by [A3] there is ε>0\varepsilon > 0 with BC(Φ(b),ε)VB_C(\Phi(b),\varepsilon) \subseteq V, by step 1.2 there is nn with 3n<ε3^{-n} < \varepsilon, and by step 3.1 every cZ(b,n)c \in Z(b,n) has Φ(c)Φ(b)3n<ε|\Phi(c)-\Phi(b)| \le 3^{-n} < \varepsilon, so Z(b,n)Φ1[V]Z(b,n) \subseteq \Phi^{-1}[V]; and Z(b,n)Z(b,n) is open by step 1.3.

step 1.2step 1.3step 3.1A3
4.3

For bKb \in K and nNn \in \mathbb{N}: BC(Φ(b),3n)Φ[Z(b,n)]B_C(\Phi(b), 3^{-n}) \subseteq \Phi[Z(b,n)]. Indeed such a point is Φ(c)\Phi(c) for a unique cKc \in K by step 2.1; if cZ(b,n)c \notin Z(b,n), let mm be the least index with bmcmb_m \ne c_m, which exists by [L5] and satisfies m<nm < n, and then step 3.2 gives Φ(c)Φ(b)3(m+1)3n|\Phi(c)-\Phi(b)| \ge 3^{-(m+1)} \ge 3^{-n} by [L3], contradicting the choice of Φ(c)\Phi(c).

step 2.1step 3.2L3L5
5.1

Φ\Phi is an open map onto CC: by step 1.3 the set Φ[Z(b,n)]\Phi[Z(b,n)] contains, around each of its points Φ(c)\Phi(c) with cZ(b,n)c \in Z(b,n), the ball BC(Φ(c),3n)Φ[Z(c,n)]=Φ[Z(b,n)]B_C(\Phi(c),3^{-n}) \subseteq \Phi[Z(c,n)] = \Phi[Z(b,n)] by step 4.3; so each Φ[Z(b,n)]\Phi[Z(b,n)] is open in CC by [A3], and by step 1.4 every open subset of KK is a union of cylinders, whose image is the union of their images.

step 1.3step 1.4step 4.3A3
6.1

By step 2.1 the map Φ\Phi is a bijection onto CC, by step 4.2 it is continuous and by step 5.1 it is open, so it is a homeomorphism by [L6]. This is claim 3, and with steps 2.1 and 4.1 all three claims are proved.

step 2.1step 4.1step 4.2step 5.1L6

Remarks

  • The two estimates say that Φ\Phi almost preserves distance. Agreement of the first nn coordinates forces the images to be within 3n3^{-n}, and the first disagreement at index mm forces them to be at least 3(m+1)3^{-(m+1)} apart. Together they say that the cylinder Z(b,n)Z(b,n) and the trace on CC of an interval of length about 3n3^{-n} around Φ(b)\Phi(b) determine each other, which is exactly what makes Φ\Phi a homeomorphism.

  • Why openness has to be proved and not quoted. For a continuous bijection, openness is equivalent to being a homeomorphism (A continuous bijection is a homeomorphism iff it is open iff it is closed, and homeomorphy is an equivalence relation on spaces) and is not automatic; the standard shortcut uses compactness of the source and the Hausdorff condition on the target, and compactness is later in the reading order. Steps 4.3 and 5.1 replace it with a direct computation.

  • The coordinates are the digits, and the digits are not the point. A real number in CC has exactly one ternary expansion with digits in {0,2}\{0,2\}, which is what makes Φ\Phi injective; the ambiguity of ternary expansions in general, such as two expansions of 1/31/3, does not arise inside CC because the alternative expansion uses the digit 11.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The Hilbert cube [0,1]N[0,1]^{\mathbb{N}} with the product topology is metrizable, by d(x,y)=kxkyk/2k+1d(x,y) = \sum_{k} |x_k - y_k| / 2^{\,k+1}

Example

Let [0,1][0,1] carry the subspace topology from the usual topology of R\mathbb{R} (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length, 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 R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded) and let

Q  :=  [0,1]N  =  kN[0,1]Q \;:=\; [0,1]^{\mathbb{N}} \;=\; \prod_{k \in \mathbb{N}} [0,1]

carry 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); QQ is the Hilbert cube. Define

d(x,y)  :=  k=0xkyk2k+1(x,yQ).d(x,y) \;:=\; \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{|x_k - y_k|}{2^{\,k+1}} \qquad (x,y \in Q).

Then:

  1. dd is defined, with 0d(x,y)10 \le d(x,y) \le 1: the series has nonnegative terms bounded by 2(k+1)2^{-(k+1)}, and k2(k+1)=1\sum_{k} 2^{-(k+1)} = 1 (For r<1|r| < 1, k0rk=1/(1r)\sum_{k \ge 0} r^k = 1/(1-r), and for r1|r| \ge 1 the series diverges, If 0akbk0 \le a_k \le b_k eventually, convergence of bk\sum b_k gives convergence of ak\sum a_k, and divergence of ak\sum a_k gives divergence of bk\sum b_k).
  2. dd is a metric on QQ (Metric space: d(x,y)=0d(x,y) = 0 iff x=yx = y, symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric).
  3. dd induces the product topology, so QQ is metrizable (Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not).

Claim 3 is the only real work, and it is what the index weights are for: the factor 2(k+1)2^{-(k+1)} makes the tail of the sum small no matter what the coordinates do, so a constraint on finitely many coordinates already forces dd to be small, and conversely dd small forces each individual coordinate to be close.

By claim 1 of Products commute with subspaces; for infinite nonempty families, the closure identity Ai=Ai\overline{\prod A_i}=\prod \overline{A_i} uses the Axiom of Choice the topology on QQ is also the subspace topology it inherits from RN\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}}, so the two readings of "[0,1]N[0,1]^{\mathbb{N}}" agree.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Q=kN[0,1]Q = \prod_{k \in \mathbb{N}}[0,1] with the product topology, points x,y,zQx, y, z \in Q, the function dd above, and a real r>0r > 0. Powers 2k2^{-k} are integer powers (Integer powers ama^m) and 22 denotes ι(2)\iota(2) (The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field).

[A1]

A basis for the product topology on QQ is the family of boxes kOk\prod_k O_k with every OkO_k open in [0,1][0,1] and Ok=[0,1]O_k = [0,1] off a list k0,,kn1k_0,\dots,k_{n-1}; the product topology is generated by the sets πj1[O]\pi_j^{-1}[O] with OO open in [0,1][0,1] (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).

[A2]

O[0,1]O \subseteq [0,1] is open in [0,1][0,1] exactly when O=V[0,1]O = V \cap [0,1] for some VV open in R\mathbb{R}; in particular {t[0,1]:ts<ε}=(sε, s+ε)[0,1]\{\, t \in [0,1] : |t - s| < \varepsilon \,\} = (s-\varepsilon,\ s+\varepsilon) \cap [0,1] is open in [0,1][0,1] for every ss and every ε>0\varepsilon > 0, and every open OsO \ni s of [0,1][0,1] contains such a set (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 R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L2]

Finite sums are monotone in their terms, k<nλ=nλ\sum_{k<n}\lambda = n\lambda, and a finite sum of nonnegative terms that vanishes has all its terms zero (Laws of finite sums and finite products, claims 2 and 4); weak inequalities pass to limits (Limits preserve non-strict inequalities).

[L3]

s0|s| \ge 0, s=0|s| = 0 iff s=0s = 0, s=s|s| = |-s| (Basic properties of the absolute value), and sust+tu|s-u| \le |s-t| + |t-u| (The triangle inequality).

[L4]

2m2n=2m+n2^{m}2^{n} = 2^{m+n} and 2m=(2m)12^{-m} = (2^m)^{-1}, with 2k>02^k > 0 (Laws of integer exponents, Integer powers ama^m, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).

[L5]

If ak\sum a_k converges then ak0a_k \to 0 (If a series converges then its terms tend to 00); below any positive real lies a positive rational (The rationals embed densely in the reals), so a convergence tested at rational tolerances delivers every real tolerance.

[L6]

In a metric space the balls Bd(u,ρ)B_d(u,\rho) form a basis of the metric topology, and UU is dd-open exactly when every uUu \in U has some ρ>0\rho > 0 with Bd(u,ρ)UB_d(u,\rho) \subseteq U (The metric topology: a set is open when every one of its points has a ball around it inside the set; closed means open complement, Open ball, closed ball and sphere in a metric space).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

k2(k+1)=1\sum_{k} 2^{-(k+1)} = 1, being 12k2k=122\tfrac{1}{2}\sum_k 2^{-k} = \tfrac{1}{2} \cdot 2 by [L1] and [L4]; and more generally kN2(k+1)=2N\sum_{k \ge N} 2^{-(k+1)} = 2^{-N} for every NNN \in \mathbb{N}, by shifting the index.

L1L4
1.2

2k02^{-k} \to 0, since k2k\sum_k 2^{-k} converges by [L1]; so for every real η>0\eta > 0 there is NNN \in \mathbb{N} with 2N<η2^{-N} < \eta.

L1L5
1.3

d(x,y)=d(y,x)d(x,y) = d(y,x), term by term, by [L3]. This is (M2).

L3
2.1

For x,yQx, y \in Q and every kk: 0xkyk10 \le |x_k - y_k| \le 1, since both coordinates lie in [0,1][0,1]; hence 0xkyk2(k+1)2(k+1)0 \le |x_k-y_k| 2^{-(k+1)} \le 2^{-(k+1)}. By [L1] and step 1.1 the series defining d(x,y)d(x,y) converges and 0d(x,y)10 \le d(x,y) \le 1. This is claim 1.

step 1.1A2L1L2L3L4
3.1

For every jNj \in \mathbb{N} and x,yQx,y \in Q: xjyj2(j+1)d(x,y)|x_j - y_j| 2^{-(j+1)} \le d(x,y), the left side being a single term of a nonnegative convergent series and hence at most one of its partial sums, which is at most the sum by [L1].

step 2.1L1L2
3.2

d(x,z)d(x,y)+d(y,z)d(x,z) \le d(x,y) + d(y,z): for every kk one has xkzkxkyk+ykzk|x_k-z_k| \le |x_k-y_k| + |y_k-z_k| by [L3], so each partial sum of the left series is at most the corresponding partial sum of the sum of the two right series by [L2], and the inequality passes to the limits by [L2] and [L1]. This is (M3), so claim 2 holds.

step 2.1L1L2L3
3.3

Every dd-ball contains a basic product-open neighbourhood of its centre. Given uQu \in Q and ρ>0\rho > 0, take NN with 2N<ρ/22^{-N} < \rho/2 by step 1.2 and put W:={yQ:ykuk<ρ/2 for every k<N}W := \{\, y \in Q : |y_k - u_k| < \rho/2 \text{ for every } k < N \,\}, which is a basic product-open set containing uu by [A1] and [A2]. For yWy \in W, splitting the series at NN gives d(u,y)(ρ/2)k<N2(k+1)+kN2(k+1)ρ/2+2N<ρd(u,y) \le (\rho/2)\sum_{k<N}2^{-(k+1)} + \sum_{k \ge N} 2^{-(k+1)} \le \rho/2 + 2^{-N} < \rho, by steps 1.1 and 2.1 with [L1] and [L2]. So uWBd(u,ρ)u \in W \subseteq B_d(u,\rho).

step 1.1step 2.1step 1.2A1A2L1L2
4.1

d(x,x)=0d(x,x) = 0, every term vanishing by [L3]. Conversely if d(x,y)=0d(x,y) = 0 then by step 3.1 every xjyj2(j+1)0|x_j-y_j|2^{-(j+1)} \le 0, so xjyj=0|x_j - y_j| = 0 and xj=yjx_j = y_j for every jj by [L3] and [L4]; hence x=yx = y. This is (M1).

step 3.1L3L4
4.2

Every subbasic product-open set is dd-open. Let OO be open in [0,1][0,1], let xπj1[O]x \in \pi_j^{-1}[O] and take ε>0\varepsilon > 0 with {t[0,1]:txj<ε}O\{\, t \in [0,1] : |t - x_j| < \varepsilon \,\} \subseteq O, available by [A2]. If d(x,y)<ε2(j+1)d(x,y) < \varepsilon 2^{-(j+1)} then xjyj2(j+1)<ε2(j+1)|x_j-y_j| 2^{-(j+1)} < \varepsilon 2^{-(j+1)} by step 3.1, so xjyj<ε|x_j - y_j| < \varepsilon by [L4], so yjOy_j \in O; hence Bd(x,ε2(j+1))πj1[O]B_d(x, \varepsilon 2^{-(j+1)}) \subseteq \pi_j^{-1}[O].

step 3.1A1A2L4L6
4.3

Td\mathcal{T}_d is contained in the product topology: by [L6] it suffices that every ball Bd(x,r)B_d(x,r) be product-open, and for zBd(x,r)z \in B_d(x,r) the triangle inequality of step 3.2 gives Bd(z,rd(x,z))Bd(x,r)B_d(z, r - d(x,z)) \subseteq B_d(x,r) with rd(x,z)>0r - d(x,z) > 0, while step 3.3 supplies a basic product-open WW with zWBd(z,rd(x,z))z \in W \subseteq B_d(z, r - d(x,z)).

step 3.2step 3.3L6
5.1

The product topology is contained in Td\mathcal{T}_d: by step 4.2 every subbasic product-open set is dd-open, and Td\mathcal{T}_d is a topology containing them, hence contains the topology they generate, which is the product topology by [A1].

step 4.2A1L6
6.1

By steps 5.1 and 4.3 the metric topology of dd is the product topology on QQ, so QQ is metrizable; this is claim 3, and with steps 2.1 and 3.2 all three claims are proved.

step 2.1step 3.2step 5.1step 4.3

Remarks

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

R/Z\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}: the quotient map is open, and the quotient is homeomorphic to [0,1][0,1] with its endpoints identified

Example

Identify Z\mathbb{Z} with its canonical copy inside R\mathbb{R} (The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals, Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1) and give R\mathbb{R} its usual topology (The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded, Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not). Let

xy:xyZ,x \sim y \quad :\Longleftrightarrow \quad x - y \in \mathbb{Z},

an equivalence relation, and let T:=R/ZT := \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} be the quotient with its canonical projection qq (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection). Let [0,1][0,1] carry the subspace topology (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length, 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), let \approx be the relation on [0,1][0,1] whose classes are {0,1}\{0,1\} and the singletons {t}\{t\} for 0<t<10 < t < 1, and let K:=[0,1]/{0,1}K := [0,1]/\{0,1\} be that quotient with projection pp. Then:

  1. qq is an open map, hence an open quotient map (A continuous open surjection, a continuous closed surjection, and a continuous surjection admitting a continuous section are all quotient maps): for open URU \subseteq \mathbb{R} the saturation of UU is mZ(U+m)\bigcup_{m \in \mathbb{Z}} (U + m), a union of translates of UU and hence open.
  2. TT and KK are homeomorphic (Homeomorphism, open map, closed map, embedding, and what it means for a property to be topological). Two mutually inverse continuous maps are exhibited: the map induced by q[0,1]q \restriction [0,1] in one direction, and in the other the map induced by the fractional part xxxx \mapsto x - \lfloor x \rfloor (Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1).

So "the interval with its endpoints glued" and "the line modulo the integers" name one space. This library does not identify either of them with a circle in R2\mathbb{R}^2: parametrising the unit circle needs the trigonometric functions, which are not available at this point in the reading order.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: R\mathbb{R} with its usual topology; the relation \sim and the quotient T=R/ZT = \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} with projection qq; the subspace [0,1][0,1], the relation \approx and the quotient K=[0,1]/{0,1}K = [0,1]/\{0,1\} with projection pp; the map j:=q[0,1]:[0,1]Tj := q \restriction [0,1] : [0,1] \to T; and the map r:RKr : \mathbb{R} \to K, r(x):=p(xx)r(x) := p(x - \lfloor x \rfloor).

[A1]

qq and pp are surjections; VV is open in TT exactly when q1[V]q^{-1}[V] is open in R\mathbb{R}, and WW is open in KK exactly when p1[W]p^{-1}[W] is open in [0,1][0,1]; both are quotient maps and both are continuous (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection, Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally).

[A2]

For every real xx there is exactly one integer x\lfloor x \rfloor with xx<x+1\lfloor x \rfloor \le x < \lfloor x \rfloor + 1 (Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1, The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals).

[L3]

Composites of continuous maps are continuous; continuity may be checked on an open cover, and on a finite closed cover (Continuity may be checked on any open cover, and on any finite closed cover; composites of continuous maps are continuous, claims 1, 2 and 3).

[L4]

For a quotient map ss and a continuous ff constant on the fibres of ss, there is exactly one fˉ\bar f with fˉs=f\bar f \circ s = f and it is continuous (For a quotient map q:XYq : X \to Y, a map out of YY is continuous iff its composite with qq is; a continuous map on XX constant on the fibres of qq factors uniquely through qq; and a composite of quotient maps is a quotient map, claim 2).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

For cRc \in \mathbb{R} the translation τc(t):=t+c\tau_c(t) := t + c carries an open UU to an open set: if yU+cy \in U + c then ycUy - c \in U, so [L1] gives r0>0r_0 > 0 with (ycr0, yc+r0)U(y-c-r_0,\ y-c+r_0) \subseteq U, whence (yr0, y+r0)U+c(y-r_0,\ y+r_0) \subseteq U + c.

L1
1.2

For URU \subseteq \mathbb{R}: q1[q[U]]=mZ(U+m)q^{-1}[q[U]] = \bigcup_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}(U+m), since q(x)=q(u)q(x) = q(u) for some uUu \in U exactly when xuZx - u \in \mathbb{Z}, that is xU+mx \in U + m for some integer mm.

givenA1
1.3

jj is continuous, being a restriction of the continuous qq; and jj is surjective, since for xRx \in \mathbb{R} the number xxx - \lfloor x \rfloor lies in [0,1)[0,1) by [A2] and satisfies q(xx)=q(x)q(x - \lfloor x \rfloor) = q(x).

A1A2L2
1.4

For s,t[0,1]s,t \in [0,1]: j(s)=j(t)j(s) = j(t) exactly when stZs - t \in \mathbb{Z}, and since st1|s-t| \le 1 that happens exactly when s=ts = t or {s,t}={0,1}\{s,t\} = \{0,1\}. So the fibres of jj are exactly the classes of \approx.

givenA2L1
1.5

rr is constant on the fibres of qq: if q(x)=q(y)q(x) = q(y) then y=x+my = x + m for an integer mm, and y=x+m\lfloor y \rfloor = \lfloor x \rfloor + m by the uniqueness in [A2], so yy=xxy - \lfloor y \rfloor = x - \lfloor x \rfloor and r(y)=r(x)r(y) = r(x).

A2
1.6

For each integer mm define gm:[m1, m+1]Kg_m : [m-1,\ m+1] \to K by gm(t):=p(tm+1)g_m(t) := p(t-m+1) for t[m1,m]t \in [m-1,m] and gm(t):=p(tm)g_m(t) := p(t-m) for t[m,m+1]t \in [m,m+1]. The two clauses agree at t=mt = m, giving p(1)p(1) and p(0)p(0), which are equal because {0,1}\{0,1\} is one class of \approx.

givenA1
2.1

By step 1.1 and step 1.2 the saturation of an open UU is a union of open sets, hence open; so q[U]q[U] is open in TT by [A1], and qq is an open map, hence an open quotient map by [L5]. This is claim 1.

step 1.1step 1.2A1L5
2.2

Each clause of step 1.6 is continuous: ttm+1t \mapsto t - m + 1 and ttmt \mapsto t - m are continuous by step 1.1 read through [L1], they map the stated closed interval into [0,1][0,1], and pp is continuous; so [L2] and [L3] apply. By the finite closed cover {[m1,m], [m,m+1]}\{[m-1,m],\ [m,m+1]\} of [m1,m+1][m-1,m+1] and [L3], gmg_m is continuous.

step 1.1step 1.6A1L1L2L3
2.3

gmg_m agrees with rr on [m1,m+1][m-1,m+1]: for t[m1,m)t \in [m-1,m) one has t=m1\lfloor t \rfloor = m-1 and r(t)=p(tm+1)=gm(t)r(t) = p(t-m+1) = g_m(t); for t[m,m+1)t \in [m,m+1) one has t=m\lfloor t \rfloor = m and r(t)=p(tm)=gm(t)r(t) = p(t-m) = g_m(t); and at t=m+1t = m+1 one has r(t)=p(0)=p(1)=gm(t)r(t) = p(0) = p(1) = g_m(t).

step 1.6A2
3.1

rr is continuous: the open intervals (m1, m+1)(m-1,\ m+1), mZm \in \mathbb{Z}, cover R\mathbb{R}, and on each of them rr agrees with a restriction of the continuous gmg_m by steps 2.2 and 2.3, hence is continuous there by [L2]; [L3] then gives continuity of rr.

step 2.2step 2.3L1L2L3
4.1

By step 1.4 and [L4] applied to the quotient map pp and the continuous jj, there is exactly one continuous jˉ:KT\bar j : K \to T with jˉp=j\bar j \circ p = j; by step 1.5 and [L4] applied to the quotient map qq and the continuous rr of step 3.1, there is exactly one continuous rˉ:TK\bar r : T \to K with rˉq=r\bar r \circ q = r.

step 1.3step 1.4step 1.5step 3.1A1L4
5.1

rˉjˉ=idK\bar r \circ \bar j = \mathrm{id}_K: for t[0,1]t \in [0,1] one has rˉ(jˉ(p(t)))=rˉ(j(t))=rˉ(q(t))=r(t)=p(tt)\bar r(\bar j(p(t))) = \bar r(j(t)) = \bar r(q(t)) = r(t) = p(t - \lfloor t\rfloor), which is p(t)p(t) for t[0,1)t \in [0,1) and p(0)=p(1)p(0) = p(1) for t=1t = 1; so rˉjˉp=p\bar r \circ \bar j \circ p = p, and pp is surjective.

step 4.1A1A2
5.2

jˉrˉ=idT\bar j \circ \bar r = \mathrm{id}_T: for xRx \in \mathbb{R} one has jˉ(rˉ(q(x)))=jˉ(r(x))=jˉ(p(xx))=j(xx)=q(xx)=q(x)\bar j(\bar r(q(x))) = \bar j(r(x)) = \bar j(p(x - \lfloor x\rfloor)) = j(x - \lfloor x\rfloor) = q(x - \lfloor x \rfloor) = q(x); so jˉrˉq=q\bar j \circ \bar r \circ q = q, and qq is surjective.

step 4.1A1A2
6.1

By steps 5.1 and 5.2 the maps jˉ\bar j and rˉ\bar r are mutually inverse, and both are continuous by step 4.1; so jˉ\bar j is a homeomorphism KTK \to T, which is claim 2. With step 2.1 both claims are proved.

step 2.1step 4.1step 5.1step 5.2

Remarks

  • The fractional part is not continuous, and rr nevertheless is. The map xxxx \mapsto x - \lfloor x \rfloor jumps from values near 11 to 00 at every integer; composing it with pp repairs the jump, because p(1)=p(0)p(1) = p(0). That is the whole content of step 2.2, and it is why the closed pasting lemma of Continuity may be checked on any open cover, and on any finite closed cover; composites of continuous maps are continuous is used with exactly two pieces.

  • Why the quotient map being open matters here. Claim 1 is not needed for claim 2, but it is what makes TT easy to work with: the images of the intervals (a,b)(a,b) form a basis of TT, so a neighbourhood of a class is the image of a neighbourhood of any of its representatives. The torus example on this page uses the same fact for the product q×qq \times q.

  • No circle appears. Nothing above says that TT is the unit circle of R2\mathbb{R}^2, and nothing may: the map t(cos2πt,sin2πt)t \mapsto (\cos 2\pi t, \sin 2\pi t) needs the trigonometric functions, which are not available at this point in the reading order. The name "circle" is avoided in the statement for that reason.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The square with opposite edges identified is homeomorphic to the product (R/Z)×(R/Z)(\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}) \times (\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z})

Example

Let T:=R/ZT := \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} with its quotient topology and open quotient map qq (R/Z\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}: the quotient map is open, and the quotient is homeomorphic to [0,1][0,1] with its endpoints identified, The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection), and give T×TT \times T 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). Let

S  :=  [0,1]×[0,1]S \;:=\; [0,1] \times [0,1]

be the unit square, the product of two copies of the subspace [0,1][0,1] of R\mathbb{R}, which by claim 1 of Products commute with subspaces; for infinite nonempty families, the closure identity Ai=Ai\overline{\prod A_i}=\prod \overline{A_i} uses the Axiom of Choice is also the subspace [0,1]2[0,1]^2 of R2\mathbb{R}^2 (For n1n \ge 1 the product topology on nn copies of the usual topology of R\mathbb{R} is the metric topology of dd_\infty on Rn\mathbb{R}^n, and hence also of d1d_1 and d2d_2, so Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a product and Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a metric space are one space, 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). Let \sim be the relation on SS given by

(s,t)(s,t):ssZ and ttZ,(s,t) \sim (s',t') \quad :\Longleftrightarrow \quad s - s' \in \mathbb{Z} \text{ and } t - t' \in \mathbb{Z},

which glues each edge of the square to the opposite edge: it identifies (0,t)(0,t) with (1,t)(1,t) and (s,0)(s,0) with (s,1)(s,1), and identifies the four corners with one another. Let S/ ⁣S/\!\sim carry the quotient topology with projection PP. Then:

  1. Q:=q×q:R2T×TQ := q \times q : \mathbb{R}^2 \to T \times T, Q(x,y)=(q(x),q(y))Q(x,y) = (q(x), q(y)), is an open quotient map (A continuous open surjection, a continuous closed surjection, and a continuous surjection admitting a continuous section are all quotient maps): it is continuous by A map into a product is continuous iff each of its components is; the projections are continuous and open; and each projection is surjective when every factor is nonempty, which for an infinite index set uses the Axiom of Choice, surjective, and open because Q[U×V]=q[U]×q[V]Q[U \times V] = q[U] \times q[V] for open U,VRU, V \subseteq \mathbb{R}.
  2. S/ ⁣S/\!\sim and T×TT \times T are homeomorphic (Homeomorphism, open map, closed map, embedding, and what it means for a property to be topological). The homeomorphism is induced by the restriction QSQ \restriction S, and its inverse by the coordinatewise fractional part (Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1).

So the square with opposite edges identified is the torus T×TT \times T. The torus is not identified here with any subset of R3\mathbb{R}^3, and TT is not identified with a circle in R2\mathbb{R}^2: both identifications need the trigonometric functions, which are not available at this point in the reading order (R/Z\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}: the quotient map is open, and the quotient is homeomorphic to [0,1][0,1] with its endpoints identified).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: T=R/ZT = \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} with projection qq; T×TT \times T with the product topology; R2\mathbb{R}^2 with the product topology; the square S=[0,1]×[0,1]S = [0,1]\times[0,1]; the relation \sim and the quotient S/ ⁣S/\!\sim with projection PP; the maps Q(x,y)=(q(x),q(y))Q(x,y) = (q(x),q(y)), E:=QSE := Q \restriction S, and F:R2S/ ⁣F : \mathbb{R}^2 \to S/\!\sim, F(x,y):=P(xx, yy)F(x,y) := P(x - \lfloor x \rfloor,\ y - \lfloor y \rfloor).

[A2]

For every real xx there is exactly one integer x\lfloor x \rfloor with xx<x+1\lfloor x \rfloor \le x < \lfloor x \rfloor + 1, and x+m=x+m\lfloor x + m \rfloor = \lfloor x \rfloor + m for every integer mm (Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1).

[A3]

PP is a surjective quotient map, and WW is open in S/ ⁣S/\!\sim exactly when P1[W]P^{-1}[W] is open in SS (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

QQ is continuous, its components qπ0q \circ \pi_0 and qπ1q \circ \pi_1 being composites of continuous maps, and surjective, since every (a,b)T×T(a,b) \in T\times T is (q(u),q(v))(q(u),q(v)) for some u,vu,v by surjectivity of qq.

A1L1L3
1.2

For U,VRU, V \subseteq \mathbb{R}: Q[U×V]=q[U]×q[V]Q[U \times V] = q[U] \times q[V]. Indeed Q(u,v)=(q(u),q(v))Q(u,v) = (q(u),q(v)) gives the inclusion \subseteq, and conversely (q(u),q(v))(q(u), q(v)) with uUu \in U, vVv \in V is Q(u,v)Q(u,v).

given
1.3

Q(x,y)=Q(x,y)Q(x,y) = Q(x',y') exactly when xxZx - x' \in \mathbb{Z} and yyZy - y' \in \mathbb{Z}, by [A1] applied in each coordinate.

A1
1.4

E=QSE = Q \restriction S is continuous by [L3], and surjective: given (a,b)T×T(a,b) \in T \times T write a=q(u)a = q(u), b=q(v)b = q(v); then uuu - \lfloor u \rfloor and vvv - \lfloor v \rfloor lie in [0,1)[0,1) by [A2] and E(uu, vv)=(a,b)E(u - \lfloor u\rfloor,\ v - \lfloor v \rfloor) = (a,b) by [A1].

A1A2L3L5
1.5

Fix integers m,nm,n and put R:=[m1, m+1]×[n1, n+1]R := [m-1,\ m+1] \times [n-1,\ n+1]. For α,β{0,1}\alpha,\beta \in \{0,1\} let Rαβ:=[m1+α, m+α]×[n1+β, n+β]R_{\alpha\beta} := [m-1+\alpha,\ m+\alpha] \times [n-1+\beta,\ n+\beta] and define gαβ:RαβS/ ⁣g_{\alpha\beta} : R_{\alpha\beta} \to S/\!\sim by gαβ(x,y):=P(x(m1+α), y(n1+β))g_{\alpha\beta}(x,y) := P\big(x - (m-1+\alpha),\ y - (n-1+\beta)\big). Each gαβg_{\alpha\beta} is continuous, being PP composed with a translation of each coordinate into [0,1][0,1], which is continuous by [L2], [L3] and [L5].

A3L2L3L5
2.1

For (s,t),(s,t)S(s,t),(s',t') \in S: E(s,t)=E(s,t)E(s,t) = E(s',t') exactly when (s,t)(s,t)(s,t) \sim (s',t'), by step 1.3 and the definition of \sim. So the fibres of EE are exactly the classes of \sim.

step 1.3
2.2

FF is constant on the fibres of QQ: if Q(x,y)=Q(x,y)Q(x,y) = Q(x',y') then x=x+mx' = x + m and y=y+ny' = y + n for integers m,nm,n by step 1.3, and then xx=xxx' - \lfloor x'\rfloor = x - \lfloor x \rfloor and yy=yyy' - \lfloor y' \rfloor = y - \lfloor y \rfloor by [A2].

step 1.3A2
2.3

QQ is an open map: by [L1] and [L2] the boxes U×VU \times V with U,VU,V open in R\mathbb{R} form a basis of R2\mathbb{R}^2, their images are the boxes q[U]×q[V]q[U] \times q[V] by step 1.2, which are open in T×TT \times T by [A1] and [L1], and the image of a union is the union of the images. With step 1.1 and [L4] this makes QQ an open quotient map, which is claim 1.

step 1.1step 1.2A1L1L2L4
2.4

The four maps of step 1.5 agree on the overlaps of the RαβR_{\alpha\beta}, which are contained in the lines x=mx = m and y=ny = n. On x=mx = m the two candidate values differ only in that the first coordinate of the argument of PP is 11 in one and 00 in the other, and (1,u)(0,u)(1,u) \sim (0,u); on y=ny = n the same holds in the second coordinate, and at (m,n)(m,n) all four values are PP of the four corners of SS, which are all \sim-equivalent.

step 1.5given
3.1

By steps 1.5 and 2.4 and the finite closed cover {Rαβ}\{R_{\alpha\beta}\} of RR, [L3] gives a continuous g:RS/ ⁣g : R \to S/\!\sim restricting to each gαβg_{\alpha\beta}; and g=Fg = F on RR, since for x[m1,m)x \in [m-1,m) one has x=m1\lfloor x \rfloor = m-1, for x[m,m+1)x \in [m,m+1) one has x=m\lfloor x \rfloor = m, and at x=m+1x = m+1 the value P(, 0,)P(\dots,\ 0,\dots) agrees with P(,1,)P(\dots, 1, \dots) by \sim, the same three cases applying to yy.

step 1.5step 2.4A2L3
4.1

FF is continuous: the open sets (m1,m+1)×(n1,n+1)(m-1,m+1) \times (n-1,n+1), m,nZm,n \in \mathbb{Z}, cover R2\mathbb{R}^2 by [L1] and [L2], and on each of them FF is the restriction of the continuous gg of step 3.1, hence continuous by [L3]; the open cover clause of [L3] then gives continuity of FF.

step 3.1L1L2L3
5.1

By step 2.1 and [L4] applied to the quotient map PP and the continuous map EE of step 1.4, there is exactly one continuous Eˉ:S/ ⁣ T×T\bar E : S/\!\sim\ \to T \times T with EˉP=E\bar E \circ P = E; by step 2.2 and [L4] applied to the quotient map QQ of step 2.3 and the continuous FF of step 4.1, there is exactly one continuous Fˉ:T×TS/ ⁣\bar F : T \times T \to S/\!\sim with FˉQ=F\bar F \circ Q = F.

step 1.4step 2.1step 2.2step 2.3step 4.1A3L4
6.1

FˉEˉ=id\bar F \circ \bar E = \mathrm{id}: for (s,t)S(s,t) \in S one has Fˉ(Eˉ(P(s,t)))=Fˉ(Q(s,t))=F(s,t)=P(ss, tt)\bar F(\bar E(P(s,t))) = \bar F(Q(s,t)) = F(s,t) = P(s - \lfloor s\rfloor,\ t - \lfloor t \rfloor), which equals P(s,t)P(s,t) in every case, since u=0\lfloor u \rfloor = 0 for u[0,1)u \in [0,1) and 11=01 - \lfloor 1 \rfloor = 0 with (0,)(1,)(0,\cdot) \sim (1,\cdot) and (,0)(,1)(\cdot,0) \sim (\cdot,1); and PP is surjective.

step 5.1A2A3
6.2

EˉFˉ=id\bar E \circ \bar F = \mathrm{id}: for (x,y)R2(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 one has Eˉ(Fˉ(Q(x,y)))=Eˉ(F(x,y))=E(xx, yy)=Q(xx, yy)=Q(x,y)\bar E(\bar F(Q(x,y))) = \bar E(F(x,y)) = E(x - \lfloor x\rfloor,\ y - \lfloor y\rfloor) = Q(x - \lfloor x \rfloor,\ y - \lfloor y \rfloor) = Q(x,y) by [A1] and [A2]; and QQ is surjective by step 1.1.

step 1.1step 5.1A1A2
7.1

By steps 6.1 and 6.2 the continuous maps Eˉ\bar E and Fˉ\bar F are mutually inverse, so Eˉ\bar E is a homeomorphism, which is claim 2; with step 2.3 both claims are proved.

step 2.3step 5.1step 6.1step 6.2

Remarks

  • Why the two-dimensional pasting is needed at all. A shorter route would be to say that q×qq \times q is a quotient map because each factor is, but "a product of quotient maps is a quotient map" is false in general and is not available here (What the theory of these constructions still owes at this point in the reading order: preservation of quotient maps under products, separation beyond Hausdorff, and the invariants that tell the glued spaces apart). What rescues the argument is that qq is open, so QQ is open outright by step 2.3, and openness does pass to products.

  • The corners are where the gluing is genuinely four-fold. The relation identifies (0,0)(0,0), (1,0)(1,0), (0,1)(0,1) and (1,1)(1,1) with one another, so the torus has a single point coming from the four corners of the square. Step 2.4 is exactly the check that the four local descriptions of FF agree there.

  • The same technique with only one pair of edges glued gives the cylinder, and with one pair glued after a flip gives the Mobius band; both are worked in the next item, which reuses the argument of steps 2.2 to 4.1 in one variable.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-08-04 (gpt-5.6-sol-codex-subscription)Open item page →

The cylinder and the Mobius band as quotients of the square by (0,y)(1,y)(0,y) \sim (1,y) and by (0,y)(1,1y)(0,y) \sim (1, 1-y), both by a closed quotient map

Example

Let S:=[0,1]×[0,1]S := [0,1] \times [0,1] be the unit square, which carries one topology by claim 1 of Products commute with subspaces; for infinite nonempty families, the closure identity Ai=Ai\overline{\prod A_i}=\prod \overline{A_i} uses the Axiom of Choice (For n1n \ge 1 the product topology on nn copies of the usual topology of R\mathbb{R} is the metric topology of dd_\infty on Rn\mathbb{R}^n, and hence also of d1d_1 and d2d_2, so Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a product and Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a metric space are one space, 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 R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length). Define two relations on SS, in each case leaving every point not on the two vertical edges alone:

cylinder:(0,y)c(1,y);Mobius band:(0,y)m(1,1y)(y[0,1]).\text{cylinder:}\quad (0,y) \sim_{\mathrm{c}} (1,y); \qquad\qquad \text{Mobius band:}\quad (0,y) \sim_{\mathrm{m}} (1, 1-y) \qquad (y \in [0,1]).

Precisely, c\sim_{\mathrm{c}} has as classes the pairs {(0,y),(1,y)}\{(0,y),(1,y)\} and the singletons {(s,t)}\{(s,t)\} with 0<s<10 < s < 1; m\sim_{\mathrm{m}} has as classes the pairs {(0,y),(1,1y)}\{(0,y),(1,1-y)\} and the same singletons. Write Mc:=S/ ⁣cM_{\mathrm{c}} := S/\!\sim_{\mathrm{c}} (the cylinder) and Mm:=S/ ⁣mM_{\mathrm{m}} := S/\!\sim_{\mathrm{m}} (the Mobius band), each with the quotient topology (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection) and canonical projection PcP_{\mathrm{c}}, PmP_{\mathrm{m}}. Then:

  1. Both projections are closed quotient maps: the saturation of a closed subset of SS is closed, so PcP_{\mathrm{c}} and PmP_{\mathrm{m}} carry closed sets to closed sets (A continuous open surjection, a continuous closed surjection, and a continuous surjection admitting a continuous section are all quotient maps).
  2. The cylinder is (R/Z)×[0,1](\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}) \times [0,1]. With T=R/ZT = \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} and its open quotient map qq (R/Z\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}: the quotient map is open, and the quotient is homeomorphic to [0,1][0,1] with its endpoints identified), the map Q1:=q×id[0,1]Q_1 := q \times \mathrm{id}_{[0,1]} is an open quotient map R×[0,1]T×[0,1]\mathbb{R} \times [0,1] \to T \times [0,1] and induces a homeomorphism McT×[0,1]M_{\mathrm{c}} \cong T \times [0,1] (Homeomorphism, open map, closed map, embedding, and what it means for a property to be topological).

Nothing here claims that the cylinder and the Mobius band are different spaces. Distinguishing them needs an invariant, and the standard ones are not available at this point in the reading order (What the theory of these constructions still owes at this point in the reading order: preservation of quotient maps under products, separation beyond Hausdorff, and the invariants that tell the glued spaces apart). Both are recorded as constructions, and only the cylinder is identified with a space built earlier.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The square S=[0,1]×[0,1]S = [0,1]\times[0,1]; the relations c\sim_{\mathrm{c}} and m\sim_{\mathrm{m}} with their quotients and projections; the edges E0:={0}×[0,1]E_0 := \{0\}\times[0,1] and E1:={1}×[0,1]E_1 := \{1\}\times[0,1]; T=R/ZT = \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} with projection qq; the maps Q1:=q×id:R×[0,1]T×[0,1]Q_1 := q \times \mathrm{id} : \mathbb{R}\times[0,1] \to T \times [0,1] and F1:R×[0,1]McF_1 : \mathbb{R}\times[0,1] \to M_{\mathrm{c}}, F1(x,y):=Pc(xx, y)F_1(x,y) := P_{\mathrm{c}}(x - \lfloor x \rfloor,\ y).

[A1]

For a quotient Z/ ⁣Z/\!\sim with projection Π\Pi: Π\Pi is a surjection, WW is open exactly when Π1[W]\Pi^{-1}[W] is open, WW is closed exactly when Π1[W]\Pi^{-1}[W] is closed, and Π1[Π[A]]\Pi^{-1}[\Pi[A]] is the saturation of AA (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection, The adjunction space YfXY \cup_f X glued along a continuous map, and, for a nonempty space, the cone and the suspension as quotients of X×[0,1]X \times [0,1]).

[A2]

qq is a surjective open quotient map with q(x)=q(x)q(x) = q(x') exactly when xxZx - x' \in \mathbb{Z}; for every real xx there is exactly one integer x\lfloor x \rfloor with xx<x+1\lfloor x\rfloor \le x < \lfloor x\rfloor + 1, and x+m=x+m\lfloor x+m\rfloor = \lfloor x \rfloor + m for integers mm (R/Z\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}: the quotient map is open, and the quotient is homeomorphic to [0,1][0,1] with its endpoints identified, Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1, The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals).

[L1]

A continuous closed surjection and a continuous open surjection are quotient maps (A continuous open surjection, a continuous closed surjection, and a continuous surjection admitting a continuous section are all quotient maps, clauses 1 and 2); for a quotient map ss and a continuous ff constant on its fibres there is exactly one continuous fˉ\bar f with fˉs=f\bar f \circ s = f (For a quotient map q:XYq : X \to Y, a map out of YY is continuous iff its composite with qq is; a continuous map on XX constant on the fibres of qq factors uniquely through qq; and a composite of quotient maps is a quotient map, claim 2).

[L5]

The pasting technique of The square with opposite edges identified is homeomorphic to the product (R/Z)×(R/Z)(\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}) \times (\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}): a map defined on R\mathbb{R} by taking a fractional part and then applying a quotient projection that identifies the two endpoints of [0,1][0,1] is continuous, because on [m1,m+1][m-1,m+1] it agrees with a map glued from two continuous pieces over the finite closed cover {[m1,m], [m,m+1]}\{[m-1,m],\ [m,m+1]\}, and the open intervals (m1,m+1)(m-1,m+1), mZm \in \mathbb{Z}, cover R\mathbb{R}.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

E0E_0 and E1E_1 are closed in SS: each is the trace on SS of a closed subset of R2\mathbb{R}^2, namely {0}×R\{0\}\times\mathbb{R} and {1}×R\{1\}\times\mathbb{R}, whose complements are open by [L2] and [L4].

L2L4
1.2

The maps τc(0,y):=(1,y)\tau_{\mathrm{c}}(0,y) := (1,y) and τm(0,y):=(1,1y)\tau_{\mathrm{m}}(0,y) := (1,1-y) are homeomorphisms E0E1E_0 \to E_1, being yyy \mapsto y and y1yy \mapsto 1-y read through the homeomorphisms y(0,y)y \mapsto (0,y) and y(1,y)y \mapsto (1,y) of [0,1][0,1] onto E0E_0 and E1E_1, and both are continuous with continuous inverses by [L2], [L3] and [L4].

L2L3L4
1.3

For CSC \subseteq S the saturation of CC under c\sim_{\mathrm{c}} is Cτc[CE0]τc1[CE1]C \cup \tau_{\mathrm{c}}[C \cap E_0] \cup \tau_{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}[C \cap E_1], since the only non-singleton classes are the pairs {(0,y),(1,y)}\{(0,y),(1,y)\}; the same formula with τm\tau_{\mathrm{m}} gives the saturation under m\sim_{\mathrm{m}}.

givenA1
1.4

Q1Q_1 is continuous, surjective and open: continuity and surjectivity are [L2] and [A2] coordinatewise, and Q1[U×V]=q[U]×VQ_1[U \times V] = q[U] \times V for UU open in R\mathbb{R} and VV open in [0,1][0,1], which is open by [A2] and [L2]; images of unions are unions of images. By [L1] it is an open quotient map.

A2L1L2
1.5

Q1(x,y)=Q1(x,y)Q_1(x,y) = Q_1(x',y') exactly when xxZx - x' \in \mathbb{Z} and y=yy = y', by [A2]; so the restriction E:=Q1SE := Q_1 \restriction S has exactly the classes of c\sim_{\mathrm{c}} as its fibres, and EE is continuous by [L3] and surjective, since xx[0,1)x - \lfloor x \rfloor \in [0,1) by [A2].

A2L3
1.6

F1F_1 is constant on the fibres of Q1Q_1, since xxx - \lfloor x \rfloor depends only on the class of xx modulo Z\mathbb{Z} by [A2], and it is continuous by [L5] applied in the first variable, the second variable being untouched, together with [L2] and [L3].

A2L2L3L5
2.1

If CC is closed in SS then CE0C \cap E_0 is closed in E0E_0 and hence in SS by step 1.1 and [L4], so τc[CE0]\tau_{\mathrm{c}}[C\cap E_0] is closed in E1E_1 by step 1.2 and hence in SS; likewise for τc1[CE1]\tau_{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}[C \cap E_1]. So by step 1.3 the saturation of CC is a union of three closed sets, hence closed, and Pc[C]P_{\mathrm{c}}[C] is closed by [A1]. The same argument with τm\tau_{\mathrm{m}} gives the statement for PmP_{\mathrm{m}}.

step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3A1L4
2.2

By step 1.5 and [L1] applied to the quotient map PcP_{\mathrm{c}} and the continuous EE, there is exactly one continuous Eˉ:McT×[0,1]\bar E : M_{\mathrm{c}} \to T \times [0,1] with EˉPc=E\bar E \circ P_{\mathrm{c}} = E; by step 1.6 and [L1] applied to the quotient map Q1Q_1 of step 1.4 and the continuous F1F_1, there is exactly one continuous Fˉ:T×[0,1]Mc\bar F : T \times [0,1] \to M_{\mathrm{c}} with FˉQ1=F1\bar F \circ Q_1 = F_1.

step 1.4step 1.5step 1.6A1L1
3.1

FˉEˉ=id\bar F \circ \bar E = \mathrm{id} and EˉFˉ=id\bar E \circ \bar F = \mathrm{id}: for (s,t)S(s,t) \in S one has Fˉ(Eˉ(Pc(s,t)))=F1(s,t)=Pc(ss, t)\bar F(\bar E(P_{\mathrm{c}}(s,t))) = F_1(s,t) = P_{\mathrm{c}}(s - \lfloor s \rfloor,\ t), which is Pc(s,t)P_{\mathrm{c}}(s,t) because s=0\lfloor s \rfloor = 0 for s[0,1)s \in [0,1) and (0,t)c(1,t)(0,t) \sim_{\mathrm{c}} (1,t) for s=1s = 1; and for (x,y)R×[0,1](x,y) \in \mathbb{R}\times[0,1] one has Eˉ(Fˉ(Q1(x,y)))=E(xx, y)=Q1(x,y)\bar E(\bar F(Q_1(x,y))) = E(x - \lfloor x\rfloor,\ y) = Q_1(x,y) by [A2]. Both PcP_{\mathrm{c}} and Q1Q_1 are surjective.

step 1.4step 1.5step 2.2A1A2
4.1

Claim 1 is step 2.1, and claim 2 follows from steps 2.2 and 3.1, the maps Eˉ\bar E and Fˉ\bar F being mutually inverse and continuous, hence homeomorphisms.

step 2.1step 2.2step 3.1

Remarks

  • The two constructions differ in one sign and in nothing else. They use the same square, the same two edges and the same kind of relation; the Mobius band glues the left edge to the right edge after reversing it. Claim 1 is proved for both. Claim 2 is not: it identifies the cylinder with (R/Z)×[0,1](\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}) \times [0,1], and no analogous description of the Mobius band is attempted here. Separating the two spaces would need an invariant, and none is claimed here.

  • Why closedness rather than openness. Neither projection is open. Take U:={(s,t)S:s<1/2}U := \{\, (s,t) \in S : s < 1/2 \,\}, which is open in SS; its saturation is U({1}×[0,1])U \cup (\{1\} \times [0,1]), and that is not open in SS, because every neighbourhood in SS of the point (1,1/2)(1,1/2) contains points (s,1/2)(s,1/2) with 1/2<s<11/2 < s < 1, which lie in neither piece. So Pc[U]P_{\mathrm{c}}[U] is not open, and the same computation applies to PmP_{\mathrm{m}}; this is the failure recorded in FALSE: every quotient map is an open map. Closedness holds instead because the two edges are closed and the gluing map between them is a homeomorphism, which is what step 2.1 uses.

  • The cylinder is a product and the Mobius band is not built as one. Claim 2 writes McM_{\mathrm{c}} as T×[0,1]T \times [0,1]; no analogous description is attempted for MmM_{\mathrm{m}}, and none is available at this point in the reading order.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-08-04 (gpt-5.6-sol-codex-subscription)Open item page →

On A=([0,)×R)(R×{0})A = ([0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}) \cup (\mathbb{R} \times \{0\}) the first projection is a quotient map, by the section x(x,0)x \mapsto (x,0), and is neither open nor closed

Statement refuted

Refuted: that a quotient map is an open map (FALSE: every quotient map is an open map), and in the same breath that a quotient map is a closed map.

Witness. In R2\mathbb{R}^2 with its usual topology (For n1n \ge 1 the product topology on nn copies of the usual topology of R\mathbb{R} is the metric topology of dd_\infty on Rn\mathbb{R}^n, and hence also of d1d_1 and d2d_2, so Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a product and Rn\mathbb{R}^n as a metric space are one space) let

A  :=  ([0,)×R)(R×{0})A \;:=\; \big([0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}\big) \cup \big(\mathbb{R} \times \{0\}\big)

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 q:=π0A:ARq := \pi_0 \restriction A : A \to \mathbb{R} be the first projection. Then:

  1. qq is a quotient map, because s(x):=(x,0)s(x) := (x,0) is a continuous section: ss is continuous, takes values in AA, and qs=idRq \circ s = \mathrm{id}_{\mathbb{R}} (A continuous open surjection, a continuous closed surjection, and a continuous surjection admitting a continuous section are all quotient maps, clause 3).
  2. qq is not open: U:=A(R×(0,))=[0,)×(0,)U := A \cap (\mathbb{R} \times (0,\infty)) = [0,\infty) \times (0,\infty) is open in AA and q[U]=[0,)q[U] = [0,\infty) is not open in R\mathbb{R}.
  3. qq is not closed: H+:={(x,1/x):x>0}H^{+} := \{\, (x, 1/x) : x > 0 \,\} is closed in R2\mathbb{R}^2, hence closed in AA, and q[H+]=(0,)q[H^{+}] = (0,\infty) is not closed in R\mathbb{R}.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: R2\mathbb{R}^2 with the usual topology; the set AA above with the subspace topology; q=π0Aq = \pi_0 \restriction A; the map s(x)=(x,0)s(x) = (x,0); the sets UU and H+H^{+} of the statement.

[L3]

The repaired hyperbola result proves that H:={(x,y):xy=1}H := \{(x,y) : xy = 1\} is closed in R2\mathbb{R}^2 as the preimage of the closed singleton {1}\{1\} under continuous multiplication (The hyperbola {(x,y):xy=1}\{(x,y) : xy = 1\} is closed in R2\mathbb{R}^2 and its image under the first projection is R{0}\mathbb{R} \setminus \{0\}, which is not closed); an intersection of two closed sets is closed.

[L4]

[a,)={t:at}[a,\infty) = \{t : a \le t\} and (a,)={t:a<t}(a,\infty) = \{t : a < t\}; a subset of R\mathbb{R} is open exactly when each of its points has a bounded open interval around it inside the set, and (a,)(a,\infty) is open (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length, The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded, Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not).

[L5]

For every real η>0\eta > 0 there is a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/m<η1/m < \eta, and 0<uv0 < u \le v gives 0<1/v1/u0 < 1/v \le 1/u (For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).

[L6]

ff is open when images of open sets are open and closed when images of closed sets are closed (Homeomorphism, open map, closed map, embedding, and what it means for a property to be topological).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

ss is continuous into R2\mathbb{R}^2, its components being the identity and the constant 00; its values (x,0)(x,0) lie in AA, so its corestriction s:RAs : \mathbb{R} \to A is continuous by [L2]. And q(s(x))=xq(s(x)) = x, so qs=idRq \circ s = \mathrm{id}_{\mathbb{R}}.

A1L2
1.2

U=A(R×(0,))=[0,)×(0,)U = A \cap (\mathbb{R} \times (0,\infty)) = [0,\infty) \times (0,\infty): a point of AA with positive second coordinate cannot lie on R×{0}\mathbb{R} \times \{0\}, so it lies in [0,)×R[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R} with second coordinate positive. And R×(0,)\mathbb{R}\times(0,\infty) is open in R2\mathbb{R}^2 by [A1] and [L4], so UU is open in AA by [A2].

A1A2L4
1.3

H+=H([0,)×R)H^{+} = H \cap \big([0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}\big) is closed in R2\mathbb{R}^2, being an intersection of two closed sets, the second being the complement of the open set (,0)×R(-\infty,0)\times\mathbb{R}; here H+HH^{+} \subseteq H has first coordinate positive, since xy=1xy = 1 forbids x=0x = 0. So H+H^{+} is closed in AA by [A2], being H+AH^{+} \cap A with H+AH^{+} \subseteq A.

A1A2L3L4
1.4

[0,)[0,\infty) is not open in R\mathbb{R}: for every r>0r > 0 the interval (r,r)(-r,r) contains r/2<0-r/2 < 0, so no bounded open interval around 00 lies inside [0,)[0,\infty).

L4
1.5

(0,)(0,\infty) is not closed in R\mathbb{R}: its complement (,0](-\infty,0] is not open, since for every r>0r > 0 the interval (r,r)(-r,r) contains r/2>0r/2 > 0.

L4
2.1

qq is continuous, being a restriction of the continuous π0\pi_0; and it is surjective, since q(s(x))=xq(s(x)) = x for every xx.

step 1.1A1L2
2.2

q[U]=[0,)q[U] = [0,\infty): for x0x \ge 0 the point (x,1)(x,1) lies in UU, and every point of UU has first coordinate in [0,)[0,\infty).

step 1.2L4
2.3

q[H+]=(0,)q[H^{+}] = (0,\infty): for x>0x > 0 the point (x,1/x)(x,1/x) lies in H+H^{+}, and every point of H+H^{+} has positive first coordinate.

step 1.3L5
3.1

By steps 1.1 and 2.1 with [L1], qq is a quotient map. This is claim 1.

step 1.1step 2.1L1
3.2

By steps 1.2, 2.2 and 1.4 the map qq carries the open set UU to a set that is not open, so qq is not open by [L6]. This is claim 2.

step 1.2step 2.2step 1.4L6
3.3

By steps 1.3, 2.3 and 1.5 the map qq carries the closed set H+H^{+} to a set that is not closed, so qq is not closed by [L6]. This is claim 3.

step 1.3step 2.3step 1.5L6
4.1

Steps 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 give the three claims, so a quotient map need be neither open nor closed, which refutes the claim.

step 3.1step 3.2step 3.3

Remarks

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-08-04 (gpt-5.6-sol-codex-subscription)Open item page →

Two copies of R\mathbb{R} glued along R{0}\mathbb{R} \setminus \{0\} give a non-Hausdorff quotient of a metrizable space, by an open quotient map

Statement refuted

Refuted: that a quotient of a Hausdorff space is Hausdorff (FALSE: a quotient of a Hausdorff space is Hausdorff, Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not).

Witness. Let S:=RR=i<2RS := \mathbb{R} \sqcup \mathbb{R} = \bigsqcup_{i<2}\mathbb{R} be the disjoint union of two copies of the real line with its usual topology (The disjoint union (coproduct) iXi\bigsqcup_i X_i with the final topology of the canonical injections: a set is open exactly when each of its traces is, The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded), so the points of SS are the pairs (x,i)(x,i) with xRx \in \mathbb{R} and i<2i < 2. Let \sim have as classes {(x,0),(x,1)}\{(x,0),(x,1)\} for x0x \ne 0 together with the two singletons {(0,0)}\{(0,0)\} and {(0,1)}\{(0,1)\}, let L:=S/ ⁣L := S/\!\sim carry the quotient topology and let qq be the canonical projection (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection). Then:

  1. SS is metrizable, by the explicit metric d((x,i),(y,j))  :=  {min{xy, 1}i=j,2ij,d\big((x,i),(y,j)\big) \;:=\; \begin{cases} \min\{|x-y|,\ 1\} & i = j, \\ 2 & i \ne j,\end{cases} which induces the disjoint union topology (Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not, Metric space: d(x,y)=0d(x,y) = 0 iff x=yx = y, symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric). In particular SS is Hausdorff (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not).
  2. qq is an open map, hence an open quotient map (A continuous open surjection, a continuous closed surjection, and a continuous surjection admitting a continuous section are all quotient maps): the saturation of an open set is open, being the set together with the image of its part off the two origins under the homeomorphism of SS that swaps the two copies.
  3. LL is not Hausdorff: the two origins a:=q(0,0)a := q(0,0) and b:=q(0,1)b := q(0,1) are distinct and every pair of open sets containing them respectively meets.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: S=i<2RS = \bigsqcup_{i<2}\mathbb{R} with the disjoint union topology; the function dd above; the relation \sim, the quotient L=S/ ⁣L = S/\!\sim and its projection qq; the points a=q(0,0)a = q(0,0) and b=q(0,1)b = q(0,1); the set N:={(x,i)S:x0}N := \{\, (x,i) \in S : x \ne 0 \,\} and the swap σ(x,i):=(x,1i)\sigma(x,i) := (x, 1-i).

[A2]

qq is a surjection and VLV \subseteq L is open exactly when q1[V]q^{-1}[V] is open in SS; the saturation of ASA \subseteq S is q1[q[A]]q^{-1}[q[A]] (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection).

[L2]

s0|s| \ge 0 with s=0|s| = 0 iff s=0s = 0, s=s|s| = |-s| (Basic properties of the absolute value), and sust+tu|s-u| \le |s-t| + |t-u| (The triangle inequality); the order of R\mathbb{R} is total, so two reals have a minimum, which lies in the pair and is a lower bound for it (Maximum and minimum of a set).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

dd satisfies (M1) and (M2): for i=ji = j one has min{xy,1}=0\min\{|x-y|,1\} = 0 exactly when xy=0|x-y| = 0, that is x=yx = y, by [L2]; for iji \ne j the value is 202 \ne 0 and the two points differ; and both clauses are symmetric in the two arguments.

L1L2
1.2

dd satisfies (M3). If the two outer points share a tag, the left side is at most 11; a middle point with the same tag gives min{xz,1}xzxy+yz\min\{|x-z|,1\} \le |x-z| \le |x-y|+|y-z| when both right-hand terms are below 11, and a right-hand side of at least 11 otherwise, while a middle point with the other tag gives a right-hand side of 44. If the two outer points have different tags, the left side is 22 and the middle point shares a tag with at most one of them, so at least one right-hand term is 22.

L1L2
1.3

σ\sigma is a homeomorphism of SS: it is its own inverse, and it carries a set UU with traces U0,U1U_0, U_1 to the set with traces U1,U0U_1, U_0, so it preserves openness by [A1].

A1L4
1.4

aba \ne b, the classes {(0,0)}\{(0,0)\} and {(0,1)}\{(0,1)\} being distinct; and q(t,0)=q(t,1)q(t,0) = q(t,1) for every t0t \ne 0.

A2
1.5

NN is open in SS, both of its traces being R{0}\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}, which is open by [L3].

A1L3
2.1

For 0<r10 < r \le 1: Bd((x,i),r)=(xr, x+r)×{i}B_d((x,i), r) = (x-r,\ x+r) \times \{i\}, since a point with the other tag is at distance 2r2 \ge r, and for the same tag min{xy,1}<r\min\{|x-y|,1\} < r holds exactly when xy<r|x-y| < r.

step 1.1L1L2L3
2.2

The saturation of USU \subseteq S is Uσ[UN]U \cup \sigma[U \cap N]: the class of (x,i)(x,i) is {(x,0),(x,1)}\{(x,0),(x,1)\} for x0x \ne 0 and {(x,i)}\{(x,i)\} for x=0x = 0, so saturating adds exactly the swapped copies of the points of UU off the two origins.

step 1.4step 1.5A2
2.3

Suppose V,WV, W are open in LL with aVa \in V, bWb \in W. Then q1[V]q^{-1}[V] and q1[W]q^{-1}[W] are open in SS by [A2], containing (0,0)(0,0) and (0,1)(0,1) respectively, so by [A1] and [L3] there are ε,δ>0\varepsilon, \delta > 0 with (ε,ε)×{0}q1[V](-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\times\{0\} \subseteq q^{-1}[V] and (δ,δ)×{1}q1[W](-\delta,\delta)\times\{1\} \subseteq q^{-1}[W].

step 1.4A1A2L3
3.1

Td\mathcal{T}_d is the disjoint union topology. If WW is dd-open and (x,i)W(x,i) \in W, a ball of radius r1r \le 1 inside WW is (xr,x+r)×{i}(x-r,x+r)\times\{i\} by step 2.1, so each trace WiW_i is open by [L3], whence WW is open in SS by [A1]; conversely if UU is open in SS and (x,i)U(x,i) \in U, then UiU_i is open, so [L3] gives ρ>0\rho > 0 with (xρ,x+ρ)Ui(x-\rho,x+\rho) \subseteq U_i, and the ball of radius min{ρ,1}\min\{\rho,1\} lies in UU by step 2.1 and [L2].

step 2.1A1L1L2L3
3.2

By steps 1.3, 1.5 and 2.2 the saturation of an open UU is the union of the open sets UU and σ[UN]\sigma[U \cap N], hence open; so q[U]q[U] is open in LL by [A2], and qq is an open quotient map by [L4]. This is claim 2.

step 1.3step 1.5step 2.2A2L4
3.3

With t:=min{ε,δ}/2t := \min\{\varepsilon,\delta\}/2 one has 0<t<ε0 < t < \varepsilon and t<δt < \delta by [L2] and [L3], so t0t \ne 0, and q(t,0)=q(t,1)q(t,0) = q(t,1) by step 1.4 lies in VWV \cap W; hence VWV \cap W \ne \varnothing. As VV and WW were arbitrary, aa and bb have no disjoint open neighbourhoods, and LL is not Hausdorff by [A3]. This is claim 3.

step 1.4step 2.3A3L2L3
4.1

By steps 1.1, 1.2 and 3.1 the function dd is a metric inducing the topology of SS, so SS is metrizable and hence Hausdorff by [A3]. This is claim 1.

step 1.1step 1.2step 3.1A3L1
5.1

By step 4.1 the space SS is Hausdorff, by step 3.2 the map qq is a quotient map, and by step 3.3 the quotient LL is not Hausdorff; so a quotient of a Hausdorff space need not be Hausdorff, which refutes the claim.

step 4.1step 3.2step 3.3

Remarks

  • The name. As a set, LL is R\mathbb{R} with the point 00 doubled: every class other than the two origins has a unique representative (x,i)(x,i) with x0x \ne 0 and is determined by xx alone. Each origin has neighbourhoods that look like intervals around 00, and any two such intervals overlap away from 00, which is exactly step 3.3.

  • The metric of claim 1 is the standard truncation trick. Truncating at 11 keeps the two copies at distance 22 from each other while leaving the topology of each copy untouched, since only balls of radius at most 11 matter for the topology (step 2.1). Any bounded metric equivalent to the usual one on each copy would do.

  • Strengthening the source's separation and countability properties does not help here. SS is metrizable, hence Hausdorff and first countable, and qq is an open quotient map; none of that is enough. What would be needed is a condition on the relation itself, and no such condition is stated at this point in the reading order (What the theory of these constructions still owes at this point in the reading order: preservation of quotient maps under products, separation beyond Hausdorff, and the invariants that tell the glued spaces apart).

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-08-04 (gpt-5.6-sol-codex-subscription)Open item page →

R/Q\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Q} carries the indiscrete topology, although R\mathbb{R} is metrizable and the quotient has more than one point

Statement refuted

Refuted: that a quotient of a metrizable space must be Hausdorff. Here the quotient of R\mathbb{R} collapses to the indiscrete topology and, because it has more than one point, is not Hausdorff (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not).

Witness. Give R\mathbb{R} its usual topology (The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded, Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not), identify Q\mathbb{Q} with its canonical copy in R\mathbb{R} (The rationals as equivalence classes of pairs of integers), and set

xy:xyQ,x \sim y \quad :\Longleftrightarrow \quad x - y \in \mathbb{Q},

an equivalence relation. Let R:=R/QR := \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Q} carry the quotient topology with canonical projection qq (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection). Then the only open subsets of RR are \varnothing and RR: the topology of RR is the indiscrete one (The discrete, indiscrete, cofinite, cocountable, particular-point and Sierpinski topologies). Moreover RR has more than one point, since R\mathbb{R} has an irrational number (The irrationals are uncountable), so this is not the degenerate one-point case.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: R\mathbb{R} with its usual topology; the relation \sim; the quotient R=R/QR = \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Q} with projection qq; and a nonempty open VRV \subseteq R.

[A1]

qq is a surjection, VRV \subseteq R is open exactly when q1[V]q^{-1}[V] is open in R\mathbb{R}, and q1[V]q^{-1}[V] is saturated: xq1[V]x \in q^{-1}[V] and yxQy - x \in \mathbb{Q} imply yq1[V]y \in q^{-1}[V] (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection).

[L2]

Strictly between any two reals lies a rational (The rationals embed densely in the reals); equivalently Q\mathbb{Q} is dense in R\mathbb{R} and meets every nonempty open subset (Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets).

[L3]

The set of irrationals is uncountable, hence nonempty (The irrationals are uncountable, The rationals as equivalence classes of pairs of integers).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Let VRV \subseteq R be open and nonempty, and put G:=q1[V]G := q^{-1}[V], which is open in R\mathbb{R} by [A1] and nonempty, qq being surjective.

A1
2.1

By [L1] there are a<ba < b with (a,b)G(a,b) \subseteq G.

step 1.1L1
3.1

Let yRy \in \mathbb{R} be arbitrary. By [L2] there is a rational tt with ay<t<bya - y < t < b - y, so y+t(a,b)y + t \in (a,b).

step 2.1L2
4.1

By step 2.1 and step 3.1 the point y+ty + t lies in GG, and (y+t)y=tQ(y+t) - y = t \in \mathbb{Q}, so yGy \in G by the saturation clause of [A1]. As yy was arbitrary, G=RG = \mathbb{R} and hence V=q[G]=RV = q[G] = R, qq being surjective.

step 2.1step 3.1A1
5.1

So the only open subsets of RR are \varnothing and RR, which is the indiscrete topology by [A2].

step 4.1A2
6.1

By [L3] there is an irrational α\alpha, and α0=αQ\alpha - 0 = \alpha \notin \mathbb{Q}, so q(α)q(0)q(\alpha) \ne q(0) and RR has at least two points; with step 5.1 the quotient of the metrizable space R\mathbb{R} is a space with more than one point carrying the indiscrete topology, which is not Hausdorff, no two distinct points having disjoint open neighbourhoods.

step 5.1A2L3

Remarks

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The Sorgenfrey plane: the product of two half-open-interval lines has the rectangles [a,b)×[c,d)[a,b) \times [c,d) as a basis and Q×Q\mathbb{Q} \times \mathbb{Q} as a countable dense subset

Example

Let B:={[a,b):a,bR, a<b}\mathcal{B} := \{\, [a,b) : a,b \in \mathbb{R},\ a < b \,\} be the family of bounded half-open intervals of R\mathbb{R} (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length). Then:

  1. B\mathcal{B} is a basis for a topology TS\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{S}} on R\mathbb{R} (A family is a basis for a unique topology iff it covers the set and every point of an intersection of two members lies in a member inside that intersection; finite intersections of any subbasis form a basis); the space S:=(R,TS)S := (\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{S}}) is the Sorgenfrey line, and TS\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{S}} is finer than the usual topology (The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded, Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not).
  2. The Sorgenfrey plane is S×SS \times S with 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). The rectangles [a,b)×[c,d)(a<b, c<d)[a,b) \times [c,d) \qquad (a<b,\ c<d) form a basis for it.
  3. Q×Q\mathbb{Q} \times \mathbb{Q} is a dense subset of S×SS \times S (Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets) and is at most countable (Q\mathbb{Q} is countably infinite, A product of two at most countable sets is at most countable, Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable). So the Sorgenfrey plane has a countable dense subset.

The word separable is not used here: it is not defined at this point in the reading order, and claim 3 says in full what it would abbreviate. Claim 1 restates, and reproves from the basis criterion, the construction of the Sorgenfrey line; the level-8 worked example of that line is linked in the remarks rather than depended on, since it lives on an examples page.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The family B\mathcal{B} above; the Sorgenfrey line SS; the product S×SS \times S with the product topology; reals a<ba<b, c<dc<d and points x,yRx, y \in \mathbb{R}.

[A1]

[a,b)={tR:at<b}[a,b) = \{\, t \in \mathbb{R} : a \le t < b \,\} and (a,b)={t:a<t<b}(a,b) = \{\, t : a < t < b \,\} (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[A2]
[L1]

A family is a basis for a topology on a set exactly when it covers the set and every point of an intersection of two members lies in a member inside that intersection; the topology is then the family of unions of its members, and is unique (A family is a basis for a unique topology iff it covers the set and every point of an intersection of two members lies in a member inside that intersection; finite intersections of any subbasis form a basis, Basis and subbasis for a topology, and the topology generated by a family of sets).

[L4]

Strictly between any two reals lies a rational (The rationals embed densely in the reals); Q\mathbb{Q} is at most countable and a product of two at most countable sets is at most countable (Q\mathbb{Q} is countably infinite, A product of two at most countable sets is at most countable, Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).

[L5]

The order of R\mathbb{R} is total, so a two-element set of reals has a maximum and a minimum (Maximum and minimum of a set, Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum); a topology is a family of subsets of the underlying set (Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

B\mathcal{B} covers R\mathbb{R}: for xRx \in \mathbb{R} one has x<x+1x < x+1, so [x,x+1)B[x, x+1) \in \mathcal{B} and x[x,x+1)x \in [x,x+1).

A1L5
1.2

B\mathcal{B} satisfies the intersection condition: for x[a,b)[c,d)x \in [a,b) \cap [c,d) put a:=max{a,c}a' := \max\{a,c\} and b:=min{b,d}b' := \min\{b,d\}, available by [L5]; then [a,b)[c,d)=[a,b)[a,b) \cap [c,d) = [a',b'), and ax<ba' \le x < b' gives a<ba' < b', so this is a member of B\mathcal{B} containing xx.

A1L5
1.3

Every bounded open interval is a union of members of B\mathcal{B}: (a,b)={[t,b):a<t<b}(a,b) = \bigcup \{\, [t,b) : a < t < b \,\}, since every s(a,b)s \in (a,b) lies in [s,b)[s,b) and every such [t,b)[t,b) lies in (a,b)(a,b).

A1
1.4

Every nonempty [a,b)B[a,b) \in \mathcal{B} contains a rational, by [L4] applied to a<ba < b: a rational pp with a<p<ba < p < b satisfies p[a,b)p \in [a,b).

A1L4
2.1

By steps 1.1 and 1.2 with [L1], B\mathcal{B} is a basis for a unique topology TS\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{S}} on R\mathbb{R}.

step 1.1step 1.2L1
3.1

TS\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{S}} is finer than the usual topology: a set open in the usual topology is a union of bounded open intervals by [L2], and each of those is a union of members of B\mathcal{B} by step 1.3, hence lies in TS\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{S}} by [L1]. With step 2.1 this is claim 1.

step 1.3step 2.1L1L2
3.2

The rectangles [a,b)×[c,d)[a,b) \times [c,d) form a basis for S×SS \times S: they are boxes with open factors, hence open by [A2] and step 2.1; and given a box U×VU \times V with U,VTSU, V \in \mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{S}} and (x,y)U×V(x,y) \in U \times V, step 2.1 and [L1] supply [a,b)U[a,b) \subseteq U containing xx and [c,d)V[c,d) \subseteq V containing yy, whence (x,y)[a,b)×[c,d)U×V(x,y) \in [a,b)\times[c,d) \subseteq U \times V. So every basic open box of S×SS \times S is a union of such rectangles, and [L1] applies. This is claim 2.

step 2.1A2L1L5
4.1

Q×Q\mathbb{Q}\times\mathbb{Q} meets every nonempty rectangle [a,b)×[c,d)[a,b)\times[c,d): by step 1.4 there are rationals p[a,b)p \in [a,b) and r[c,d)r \in [c,d), and (p,r)(p,r) lies in the rectangle. By step 3.2 and [L3] the set Q×Q\mathbb{Q}\times\mathbb{Q} is therefore dense in S×SS \times S; and it is at most countable by [L4]. This is claim 3.

step 1.4step 3.2L3L4

Remarks

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The antidiagonal {(x,x)}\{(x,-x)\} is an uncountable discrete subspace of the Sorgenfrey plane, so having a countable dense subset is not a hereditary property

Statement refuted

Refuted: that the property "has a countable dense subset" is hereditary (Hereditary, open-hereditary and closed-hereditary properties of topological spaces, Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets).

Witness. In the Sorgenfrey plane S×SS \times S (The Sorgenfrey plane: the product of two half-open-interval lines has the rectangles [a,b)×[c,d)[a,b) \times [c,d) as a basis and Q×Q\mathbb{Q} \times \mathbb{Q} as a countable dense subset), which has the countable dense subset Q×Q\mathbb{Q}\times\mathbb{Q}, take the antidiagonal

L  :=  {(x,x):xR}L \;:=\; \{\, (x,-x) : x \in \mathbb{R} \,\}

with 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). Then:

  1. LL is discrete: for every xx, the basic rectangle [x, x+1)×[x, x+1)[x,\ x+1) \times [-x,\ -x+1) meets LL exactly in {(x,x)}\{(x,-x)\}, so every singleton of LL is open in LL and the subspace topology is the discrete one (The discrete, indiscrete, cofinite, cocountable, particular-point and Sierpinski topologies).
  2. LL is uncountable (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable), being in bijection with R\mathbb{R} (R\mathbb{R} is uncountable (Cantor's nested intervals, 1874)).
  3. The only dense subset of LL is LL itself, since in a discrete space every subset is closed. So LL has no countable dense subset, although the space it sits inside has one.

The word separable is not used: it is not defined at this point in the reading order, and the three claims above say in full what it would abbreviate.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Sorgenfrey plane S×SS \times S with the rectangles [a,b)×[c,d)[a,b)\times[c,d) as a basis, the antidiagonal LL with the subspace topology, and a subset DLD \subseteq L.

[A1]

The rectangles [a,b)×[c,d)[a,b)\times[c,d) with a<ba<b and c<dc<d form a basis for S×SS \times S, and Q×Q\mathbb{Q}\times\mathbb{Q} is a countable dense subset of it (The Sorgenfrey plane: the product of two half-open-interval lines has the rectangles [a,b)×[c,d)[a,b) \times [c,d) as a basis and Q×Q\mathbb{Q} \times \mathbb{Q} as a countable dense subset).

[A2]

The open sets of LL are the traces BLB \cap L with BB open in S×SS \times S, and a basis of them is the family of traces of basic open sets (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).

[L1]

[a,b)={t:at<b}[a,b) = \{\, t : a \le t < b \,\} (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L3]

R\mathbb{R} is uncountable: there is no surjection NR\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R} (R\mathbb{R} is uncountable (Cantor's nested intervals, 1874), Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable). A nonempty at most countable set admits a surjection from N\mathbb{N} (A nonempty set is at most countable iff it is a surjective image of N\mathbb{N}), and a composite of surjections is a surjection (Injection, surjection, bijection).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

For xRx \in \mathbb{R} put Bx:=[x, x+1)×[x, x+1)B_x := [x,\ x+1) \times [-x,\ -x+1), a basic open set of S×SS \times S containing (x,x)(x,-x), by [A1] and [L1].

A1L1
1.2

The map φ:RL\varphi : \mathbb{R} \to L, φ(x):=(x,x)\varphi(x) := (x,-x), is a surjection, every point of LL being of that form.

given
2.1

BxL={(x,x)}B_x \cap L = \{(x,-x)\}: a point of LL is (t,t)(t,-t), and it lies in BxB_x exactly when xt<x+1x \le t < x+1 and xt<x+1-x \le -t < -x+1; the second pair of inequalities says x1<txx - 1 < t \le x, and together with xtx \le t this forces t=xt = x.

step 1.1L1
2.2

LL is uncountable: if LL were at most countable then, being nonempty, it would admit a surjection NL\mathbb{N} \to L by [L3]; composing that with the surjection LRL \to \mathbb{R}, (x,x)x(x,-x) \mapsto x, would give a surjection NR\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}, contradicting [L3]. This is claim 2.

step 1.2L3
3.1

By steps 1.1 and 2.1 with [A2], every singleton {(x,x)}\{(x,-x)\} is open in LL; hence every subset of LL is a union of singletons and so is open, and the subspace topology on LL is the discrete one. This is claim 1.

step 1.1step 2.1A2A3
4.1

By step 3.1 and [A3] every subset of LL is closed in LL, so D=D\overline{D} = D for every DLD \subseteq L, and DD is dense in LL exactly when D=LD = L by [L2]. With step 2.2 the only dense subset of LL is uncountable, so LL has no countable dense subset. This is claim 3.

step 3.1step 2.2A3L2
5.1

By [A1] the space S×SS \times S has a countable dense subset and by step 4.1 its subspace LL has none, so the property "has a countable dense subset" is not hereditary, which refutes the claim.

step 4.1A1

Remarks

Sources