13

If a topological space is Hausdorff, then every point is closed. Is the converse true?

Edited: Let $G$ be a topological group and $H$ the intersection of all neighborhoods of zero. Since every coset of $H$ is closed, every point of $G/H$ will be closed. Why does that make $G/H$ Hausdorff?

Manos
  • 25,833

2 Answers2

13

A space $X$ has the property that all singletons are closed if and only if it is $T_1$, meaning that whenever $x,y\in X$ and $x\ne y$, there is an open set $U$ such that $x\in U$ and $y\notin U$. The definition is symmetric, so there is also an open set $V$ such that $y\in V$ and $x\notin V$, but there is no guarantee that $U$ and $V$ can be chosen to be disjoint. For example, if $X=\Bbb N$, and the open sets are $\varnothing$ and the sets whose complements in $\Bbb N$ are finite, then $X$ is $T_1$ but not Hausdorff: in this space $U\cap V\ne\varnothing$ whenever $U$ and $V$ are non-empty open sets, but for any distinct $m,n\in X$, $X\setminus\{n\}$ is an open nbhd of $m$ that does not contain $n$.

Brian M. Scott
  • 616,228
12

Notice that $H$ is a closed normal subgroup of $G$, for that see e.g. this for proof that it is a closed subgroup (equal to $\operatorname{cl} \{e\}$), and for normality just notice that conjugation preserves the neighbourhoods of identity (as a set), so it does preserve intersection as well.

From that we see that $G/H$ is a topological group.

It is a known fact that for topological groups, $T_0$ implies completely regular Hausdorff. Every point being closed is equivalent to $T_1$, from which $T_{3\frac {1}{2}}$, so in particular $T_2$, follows.

A proof can be found in many places, e.g. Engelking's General Topology iirc.

A short one for closed $\{e\}\implies T_2$: notice that Hausdorffness is equivalent to the diagonal being closed. But the diagonal is the preimage of identity by the map $(x,y)\mapsto xy^{-1}$.

In general, we do not have the implication, as shown by e.g. the cofinite topology on an infinite space.

tomasz
  • 35,474
  • 1
    I like this proof much better than the usual one involving symmetric neighborhoods and $VV \subseteq U$ and so on. [Not that those are hard facts, but I find it hard to remember to use them.] Very nice! – Dylan Moreland Sep 03 '12 at 20:50
  • @tomasz: Since $H$ need not be normal in $G$, $G/H$ is not necessarily a group. Thus we don't have an identity element in general. How does then the Hausdorffness of $G/H$ follow? – Manos Sep 03 '12 at 20:53
  • @DylanMoreland: I don't know much about it, but I think the proof you refer to is much more general, since it works for arbitrary uniform spaces. – tomasz Sep 03 '12 at 20:54
  • @Manos: I think it actually is normal (and closed), but I need to think about it for a minute. – tomasz Sep 03 '12 at 20:56
  • 2
    I believe this $H$ is the closure of ${e}$ (see this question), which is normal: a different conjugate $H'$ of $H$ would yield a smaller (check this) closed subgroup $H' \cap H \ni e$. – Dylan Moreland Sep 03 '12 at 20:57
  • @tomasz: Ok, in the context that i found this statement, $G$ is an abelian group, so $H$ is trivially normal... – Manos Sep 03 '12 at 20:58
  • @DylanMoreland: $H$ is indeed the closure, but why need it be normal if $G$ is not abelian? – Manos Sep 03 '12 at 21:00
  • @Manos: I adressed your issue in the edit. Thanks to Dylan for the link. :) – tomasz Sep 03 '12 at 21:03
  • @DylanMoreland: Nice! – Manos Sep 03 '12 at 21:06
  • @tomasz: Thanks! – Manos Sep 03 '12 at 21:07
  • 2
    It's a general fact that the closure of a normal subgroup group is normal: $gN = Ng$ implies that $g\overline{N} = \overline{gN} = \overline{Ng} = \overline{N}g$. – t.b. Sep 03 '12 at 21:10
  • @tomasz In your answer you have linked to another m.se question. That question is for abelian topological groups while your statement here is for general topological groups. Could you please prove it or give a reference ? Thanks – user90041 Jan 11 '15 at 20:02
  • @user90041: The proof in the linked question does not really rely on the group being abelian. It works more or less the same in general. – tomasz Jan 11 '15 at 20:09