This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: CONNECTED COMPONENTS Recall the definition of connectedness (2.45 in [1]). Definition 1. Let ( X,d ) be a metric space. A subset E X is called disconnected (or sepa rated ) if there exists nonempty A,B E such that E = A B , and A B = A B = . A subset is called connected if it is not disconnected. Example 2. In R with the Euclidean metric, consider the set E = [0 , 1] (2 , 3) . Since (2 , 3) = [2 , 3] , the strong condition [0 , 1] (2 , 3) = holds, which implies that the two subsets A = [0 , 1] and B = (2 , 3) form a separation of E . Hence E is not connected. Example 3. Again in R , consider the set E = [0 , 1) (1 , 2] . This set is also disconnected: setting A = [0 , 1) and B = (1 , 2] we have A = [0 , 1] which does not intersect (1 , 2] = B , while (1 , 2] = [1 , 2] does not intersect [0 , 1) = A . Thus, E is disconnected. In this case, A B is not empty (it contains the point 1 ). We might say that A and B are adjacent . But they are not connected. A person living in A cannot communicate with a person living in B without sending a message outside the universe E = A B . Example 4. Once more in R , take E = [0 , 2] . We can express E as a union of two non intersecting pieces, for example E = [0 , 1) [1 , 2] . (Indeed, any set with at least two points can be divided into two nonempty pieces.) But in this case, [0 , 1) [1 , 2] is nonempty (it consists of the single point 1 ), and hence this does not constitute a separation of E . The point of Definition 1 is that, to be disconnected, a set must consist of (at least) two pieces that do not touch . In fact, the set [0 , 2] is connected, as proved in Theorem 2.47 in [1]: the connected subsets of R are precisely the intervals. The concept of connectedness can be used to naturally divide any metric space into a collection of pieces, called its components . To see how to do this, we need the following lemma. Lemma 5. Let G be any collection of connected subsets of a metric space ( X,d ) . Suppose that T G is not empty. Then S G is connected. Remark 6 . The assumptions of Lemma 5 are stronger than needed to deduce the conclu sion. For example, all we really need to assume is that, for any two sets U,V G either U V or U V is nonempty (i.e. any two sets in G touch). It will then following that the union of all sets in G is connected. The proof of this stronger theorem (i.e. with a weaker hypothesis) is only slightly more complicated than the proof below; but we only need the statement of Lemma 5 in what follows, so well stick with what we need. Proof. To produce a contradiction, let us suppose that S G is disconnected. That is, let A,B be two nonempty sets so that S G = A B , and A B = A B = . Let U be any set in G . Note that U A A and U B B (you should work out why this is true). Hence, since A B = , it follows that U A ( U B ) A B = , and similarly ( U A ) U...
View
Full
Document
This note was uploaded on 05/06/2010 for the course MATH Math2009 taught by Professor Koskesh during the Spring '09 term at SUNY Empire State.
 Spring '09
 Koskesh

Click to edit the document details