1

What shown below is a reference from Engelking Topology text

enter image description here

So I would be sure that the statement iv implies that if $C$ is closed then there exists a continuous function $\varphi$ form $X$ to $[0,1]$ such that $$ \varphi^{-1}[0]=C\quad\text{and}\quad \varphi^{-1}[1]=\emptyset $$ I know that this could seem a trivial question but the issue is that my professor defined perfect normality using the statement iv so that by it I have to infer the others and in particular the second: indeed if iv holds for any closed and disjoint sets then in particular holds for a closed set $C$ and for empty so that there exist a the above function $\varphi$. Anyway I am quite sure that for a metrica space the function $\varphi$ exists: indeed, if $d$ is a metric on $X$ then I know that the position $$ d^*(x,y):=\min\{d(x,y)1\} $$ defines an equivalent bounded metric so that the position $$ f(x):=\inf_{c\in C}d(x,c) $$ defines a continuous (see here for details) function from $X$ to $[0,1]$ such that $$ f^{-1}[0]=C $$ but the function $$ \psi:[0,1]\ni x\longrightarrow \frac x 2\in\Big[0,\frac 1 2\Big] $$ is a bijection such that $$ \psi(0)=0 $$ so that finally we can put $$ \varphi\equiv\psi\circ f $$

So could someone help me, please?

  • So what is your question? Are you going to prove that (iv) implies (i)-(iii) or only (ii) or the condition $\varphi^{-1}[0]=C\quad\text{and}\quad \varphi^{-1}[1]=\emptyset$? Then you provide a proof for metric spaces. It's not clear. – Mateo Jul 29 '22 at 09:02
  • @Mateo I am trying to prove that iv implies i and since I am not sure (although it seems trivially ture) that this is ture then I verified it for metric space. So what can you say about? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Jul 29 '22 at 09:21
  • Good question (I upvoted). But please don't say "could someone help me, please" at the end of each of your questions. People will look at them if they find them interesting, and they will answer if they can or feel like it. Asking for "help" is just noise and distracts from the contents. – PatrickR Jul 31 '22 at 01:25
  • @PatrickR Sorry for redundancy: I am always afraid to appear rough. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Jul 31 '22 at 15:34
  • Don't worry about that. The best you can do is post non-trivial interesting contents. It will stand by itself. – PatrickR Jul 31 '22 at 21:53

2 Answers2

1

I assume $I=[0,1]$ here.

First a simple observation: If the case $B=\emptyset$ is excluded in (iv) then we can put $B=\{b\}$ for some $b\notin A$ (if $A\neq X$) and find a function $f\colon X\to I$ separating $A$ and $\{b\}$. Then the function $\psi\circ f$ (that is $x\mapsto\frac 12f(x)$) satisfies (iv) for $A$ and $\emptyset$.

Definition The set $U\in X$ is functionally open iff $U=f^{-1}(V)$, where $f\colon X\to I$ is continuous and $V\subset I$ is open. The set $C\in X$ is functionally closed iff $C=f^{-1}(K)$, where $f\colon X\to I$ is continuous and $K\subset I$ is closed.

Proof (of the theorem). (ii)$\implies$(iii): If $C$ is closed then the set $U=X\setminus C$ is open and therefore it's functionally open, so $U=f^{-1}(V)$, where $f\colon X\to I$ is continuous and $V\subset I$ is open. Then $C=X\setminus f^{-1}(V)=f^{-1}(I\setminus V)$, so $C$ is functionally closed.

(iii)$\implies$(ii): as above.

(iv)$\implies$(ii): Take any closed $C\subset X$. From (iv) we know that there exists $f\colon X\to I$ such that $C=f^{-1}(\{0\})$ and $\emptyset=f^{-1}(\{1\})$. Since $\{0\}$ is closed in $I$ we have that $C$ is functionally closed.

(iv)$\implies$(i) Let $C$ be closed. Then from (iv) we have a continuous $f\colon X\to I$ such that $C=f^{-1}(\{0\})$. Then $$C=\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty f^{-1}([0,1/n)).$$ Since $[0,1/n)$ are open in $I$ we see that $C$ is $G_\delta$.

(i)$\implies$(iii) Let $C\subset X$ be closed. Then $C=\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty U_n$. Since $X$ is normal, from Urysohn Theorem we have a continuous $f_n\colon X\to I$ such that $f_n|C\equiv 0$ and $f_n|X\setminus U_n\equiv 1$. Then the function $f$ defined by $$f(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac 1{2^n}f_n(x)$$ safisfies $C=f^{-1}(\{0\})$.

(iii)$\implies$(iv) Let $C,D$ be disjoint and closed. Let $f,g,h\colon X\to I$ be continuous and such that $$C=f^{-1}(\{0\}),\ D=g^{-1}(\{1\}),\ h|C\equiv 0,\ h|D\equiv 1.$$ Let $$f'=\max(f,h),\ g'=\min(g,h).$$ Then $$C=f'^{-1}(\{0\}),\ D\subset f'^{-1}(\{1\}) \ D=g'^{-1}(\{1\}),\ C\subset g'^{-1}(\{0\})$$ and $s:=\frac 12(f'+g')$ satisfies (iv).

Mateo
  • 4,956
  • Thanks for the answer; however I cannot accept it: in fact when I said that the implication seems trivial I wanted to direct myself to prove that iv implies ii (sorry, but for the hurry I wrote i rather than ii) and so I will accept your answer if you will prove that iv implies ii. Forgive the mistake, I'm really sorry. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Jul 29 '22 at 12:55
  • So what do you mean by 'functionally open'? – Mateo Jul 29 '22 at 13:40
  • @AntonioMariaDiMauro, I tried to help you with understanding that what you've asked is trivial, but you didnt reply, so I just gave you the solution in the answer. – Mateo Jul 29 '22 at 16:54
  • An open set is functionally open when its complement is functionally closed. Anyway thanks for the revised answer: so effectively the function $\varphi$ in the title exists, right? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Jul 29 '22 at 19:39
  • Yes, it does. It follows either directly from (iv) (if we take into account empty sets there) or from the reasoning from the beginning of the answer. – Mateo Jul 29 '22 at 19:45
  • Okay, perfect: answer upvoted and approved. Thanks very much for your assistance! See you soon. :-) – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Jul 29 '22 at 20:46
1

Engelking assumes Hausdorff for all separation properties above $T_2$, in particular normal spaces (and perfectly normal spaces) are assumed to be $T_1$, which implies Hausdorff in that case. That's why Vedenissoff's theorem is stated with the $T_1$ assumption. But the theorem holds with the same proof even if the space is not Hausdorff/$T_1$.

With the more modern definition of normal/perfectly normal that does not assume $T_1$, the various equivalent characterizations of a "perfectly normal" space $X$ are:

  • $X$ is normal and every closed set is a $G_\delta$.
  • Every closed set is a zero-set (= your (iii))
  • Disjoint closed sets $A$ and $B$ can be precisely separated by a function (= your (iv))

As you noticed, it is essential to allow $B$ empty in that last condition, which then shows that any closed set $A$ is a zero-set and hence a $G_\delta$.

It would not be equivalent to use the following condition:

(*) Nonempty disjoint closed sets can be precisely separated by a function.

Ultraconnected spaces have no nonempty disjoint closed sets, so they vacuously satisfy (*). But ultraconnected spaces are not perfectly normal in general. For example, in the Sierpinski space the unique closed singleton is not a $G_\delta$.

PatrickR
  • 4,247