11

What are the most general criteria we can impose on a locally path connected Hausdorff space $X$ and a path connected subset $A$ such that $\overline{A}$ is path connected? Do more restrictions need to be imposed on $X$ or $A$?

For instance, I know that if $\overline{A}$ is locally path connected then $\overline{A}$ is path connected; for all $x \in \overline{A}$ and some neighborhood $U$ of $x$ that is open in $\overline{A}$, there must be some path connected neighborhood $U' \subseteq U$ of $x$ that is open in $\overline{A}$. That is, there is some open subset $V'$ of $X$ such that $U' = V' \cap \overline{A}$. Since $x$ is a point of closure of $A$, $V'$ must contain some point $x' \in A \subseteq \overline{A}$, i.e. $x' \in U'$, so $x$ is path connected to $x'$ and hence also to $A$. This holds for all $x \in \overline{A}$ so $\overline{A}$ is path connected.

However, the tough part is proving that $\overline{A}$ is locally path connected, because $\overline{A}$ is probably (?) not open in $X$. I'm a complete novice so the only useful thing I know from browsing definitions is that all open subsets of a locally path connected space inherit the local path connectivity. Are there more ways to prove that a subspace inherits local path connectedness?

This is more specific, but would it help if I knew that $A$ was the set difference of two closed sets (i.e. the intersection of a closed set and an open set)?

I've been looking at stronger restrictions such as $X$ being locally simply connected, but the online documentation is scarce. Would local simple connectivity be "inherited more easily" by subspaces?

Alex Ravsky
  • 90,434
Herng Yi
  • 3,156
  • 9
    I don't think you'll get far imposing conditions on $X$: $\mathbb{R}^2$ is about as nice a space as you could wish for, but $A={(x,\sin(1/x))| x \in (0,1) }$ still gives a counterexample. Here $A$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$, another very nice space, suggesting imposing conditions on the topology of $A$ won't help either. It looks like you really do need conditions specifically on how $A$ sits in $X$. – Chris Eagle Jun 25 '12 at 14:34
  • @ChrisEagle: IMO that example is decisive enough to be an answer... oh except that now the question has been edited. I wonder if this is not really just two questions, now. – Ben Millwood Jun 25 '12 at 14:49
  • Good point, I guess I really have to prove some restrictions on $\overline{A}$ to exclude pathological cases such as the Topologist's Sine Curve (in fact, I'd prefer working on $A \cup {x}$, where $x \in \overline{A}$), such as local path connectivity (which I can't prove easily) or local simple path connectivity (which I don't fully understand). – Herng Yi Jun 25 '12 at 14:50
  • Considering the edit, the problem in Chris' counterexample is not that the function doesn't exist, but that it fails to be continuous, which sounds like it would be hard to prove in generality. – Ben Millwood Jun 25 '12 at 14:50
  • Sorry for the change, but the initial question was to give a sufficient condition to construct the $p$ I mention in my edits. The second half of the question now contains another attempt at the same construction. – Herng Yi Jun 25 '12 at 14:52
  • If your space has a metric, you can consider the following quantitative version of path-connectedness: a space is quasiconvex if two points $p,q$ can be joined by a curve of length $L\le Cd(p,q)$ where $C$ is a constant independent of $p,q$. The closure of a quasiconvex set is quasiconvex. And I think one can relax this condition to $L\le \omega(d(p,q))$ where $\omega$ is a modulus of continuity. –  Jun 25 '12 at 15:17
  • "This is more specific, but would it help if I knew that A was the set difference of two closed sets (i.e. the intersection of a closed set and an open set)?" I'm fairly sure the topologists sine curve is the intersection of $\bar{A}$ and the right half-plane. – JSchlather Jun 25 '12 at 18:27
  • @Kovalev: I think that will be quite helpful, but hopefully I don't have to use the magic bullet of metric spaces and even further restrictions. – Herng Yi Jun 26 '12 at 12:19
  • As another way of looking at things, it is known that $x \in \overline{A}$ if and only if there exists a net of points in $A$ that converges to $x$. However, under what conditions are the points of closure of $A$ precisely the terminal points of paths in $A$? That is, we require that the nets are paths. – Herng Yi Jun 30 '12 at 07:36
  • @LeonidKovalev: Do you have some references that discuss quasiconvex metric spaces? All I can find on the internet are very technical papers... – Herng Yi Jun 30 '12 at 14:26
  • The book Metric structures... by Gromov has a short appendix on quasiconvex domains written by Pansu. Quasiconvexity appears in the book Topics on analysis in metric spaces by Heinonen, but only briefly. The webpage of David Herron has Beamer slides of two talks on the subject, which should be easier to follow than the papers themselves. –  Jun 30 '12 at 15:49
  • @LeonidKovalev: Thanks for the references. I'll probably need more time to digest them, but at first glance quasiconvexity seems like a rather strong and specific requirement on a metric space. Is my rough understanding correct that a metric space is quasiconvex if the "holes" in the space are bounded in diameter? The size of the largest hole would supply the constant $C$. If so, then perhaps a lot more "usual" spaces would fit the requirement, and I'd be more willing to use it. – Herng Yi Jun 30 '12 at 16:19
  • No, that's not right since $C$ is a multiplicative constant (hence unit-less). Quasiconvexity is about the shape of holes rather than their size. Any size is OK as long as the shape is round-ish (like a square, for example). I agree that this is a strong requirement. This is why I mentioned a more general concept of "uniformly path-connected"; for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that any pair of points at distance $<\delta$ can be connected by a curve of length $<\epsilon$. This property passes to the closure for the same reason as uniform continuity does. –  Jun 30 '12 at 16:24
  • Actually, the definition in my comment of Jun 25 at 15:17 is probably better. The "modulus of path-connectivity" function $\omega$ should be required to be finite on $(0,\infty)$, with $\omega(0+)=0$. Defined this way, uniformly path-connected implies path-connected. And I don't remember seeing "uniformly path-connected" in the literature at all. –  Jun 30 '12 at 16:34
  • @HerngYi Sorry, I don't use the chat. Feel free to ask by email, [email protected] –  Jul 01 '12 at 16:04
  • @LeonidKovalev: I've decided to use a formalization of connected sets that is removed from its topological context: Connectivity Spaces – Herng Yi Jul 14 '12 at 09:37
  • @ChrisEagle can you help me to understand a thing I was studying about this but one thing I cannot understand that topologist sine curve set is only connected ,is not it?? (As I studied in the Munkres ) if that so then how it become a counterexample?? Is not the question asked that the initial set will have to be path connected?? I got totally puzzeled can you help me to understand this properly!! – Md javed Akhtar Mar 04 '22 at 15:34

1 Answers1

6

Here's something that I came up with. The proposition below is what you're asking for but I've also encapsulated the main idea behind these results in the following lemma in case that's more helpful.

Lemma: Let $S \subseteq X$ be path-connected and $x^1 \in \overline{S}$. Suppose there exists a countable decreasing (i.e. $U_{i+1} \subseteq U_i$) neighborhood basis $\left( U_i \right)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ in $X$ at $x^1$ such that for each $i$, whenever $s^i \in S \cap U_i$ then there exists a path in $S \cap U_i$ from $s^i$ to some element of $S \cap U_{i+1}$. Then $S \cup \left\lbrace x^1 \right\rbrace$ is path-connected.

Remark: Note that we are not assuming that for all $i$, there exists a path between any two point of $S \cap U_i$. The sets $S \cap U_i$ need not even be connected so this is weaker than requiring local connectivity of $\overline{S}$ at $x^1$.

Corollary: Let $S \subseteq X$ be path-connected. If the condition of the above lemma is satisfied at each $x^1 \in \overline{S}$ (or slightly more generally, if each path-component of the boundary of $S$ contains some point satisfying this condition) then $\overline{S}$ is path-connected.

Prop: Let $S \subseteq X$ be path-connected. Suppose that each path component of $\overline{S} \setminus S$ contains some $x^1$ for which there exists a countable decreasing neighborhood basis $\left( U_i \right)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ in $X$ at $x^1$ s.t. for each $i$ and each path-component $P_i$ of $S \cap U_i$, there exists a path in $\overline{S} \cap U_i$ whose image intersects both $P_i$ and $S \cap U_{i+1}$. Then $\overline{S}$ is path-connected.

Remark: In this proposition, you can replace "of $\overline{S} \setminus S$" with "of the boundary of $S$ in $\overline{S}$". Also, to prove that $\overline{S}$ is path-connected, it may be easier to find some other path-connected $R \subseteq X$ such that $\overline{R} = \overline{S}$ and then apply these results to $R$ in place of $S$.

Proof of lemma: Pick any $s^1 \in S \cap U_1$ and any $0 = t_0 < t_1 < \cdots < 1$ s.t. $t_i \to 1$ and let $\gamma_0 : [t_0, t_1] \to S$ be the constant path at $s^0 := s^1$. Suppose for all $0 \leq l \leq i + 1$ we've picked $s^l \in S \cap U_l$ and for every $0 \leq l \leq i$ we have a path $\gamma_l : [t_l, t_{l+1}] \to S \cap U_l$ from $s^l$ to $s^{l+1}$ (where observe that this holds for $i = 0$). By assumption, we can pick $s^{i+2} \in S \cap U_{i+2}$ and a path $\gamma_{i+1} : [t_{i+1}, t_{i+2}] \to S \cap U_{i+1}$ from $s^{i+1}$ to $s^{i+2}$.

After starting this inductive construction at $i = 0$ we can use $\gamma_0, \gamma_1, \ldots$ to define $\gamma : [0, 1] \to S \cup \left\lbrace x^1 \right\rbrace$ on $[0, 1)$ in the obvious way and then declare that $\gamma(1) := x^1$. For any integer $N$, $l \geq N$ implies $\operatorname{Im} \gamma_l \subseteq U_l \subseteq U_N$ so that $\gamma([t_N, 1]) \subseteq U_N$. Thus $\gamma$ is continuous at $1$ so that $S \cup \left\lbrace x^1 \right\rbrace$ is path-connected. Q.E.D.

It should now be clear how the idea behind this lemma's proof led to the above proposition's statement.

Proof of prop: Let $x^1$ and $\left( U_i \right)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ have the properties described in the proposition's statement, let $0 = t_0 < t_1 < \cdots < 1$ be s.t. $t_i \to 1$, and let $\gamma_0 : [t_0, t_1] \to S \cap U_1$ be any constant path. Suppose $i \geq 0$ is such that for all $1 \leq l \leq i$, we have constructed a path $\gamma_l : \left[ t_l, t_{l+1} \right] \to \overline{S} \cap U_l$ such that $\gamma_l(t_l) = \gamma_{l-1}\left( t_{l} \right)$ and $\gamma_l\left( t_{l+1} \right) \in S \cap U_{l+1}$ (note that this is true for $i = 0$). Our assumption on $\left( U_i \right)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ allows us to construct a path $\gamma_{i+1} : \left[ t_{i+1}, t_{i+2} \right] \to \overline{S} \cap U_{i+1}$ starting that $\gamma_i\left( t_{i+1} \right)$ and ending at some point of $S \cap U_{i+2}$. Exactly as was done in the proof of the above lemma, we may now define a continuous map $\gamma : [0, 1] \to \overline{S}$ such that $\gamma(1) = x^1$. Q.E.D.