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 we’ll 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
∩
B
=
∅
. But
U
∈
G
so
U
⊆
S
G
=
A
∪
B
; this means that
(
U
∩
A
)
∪
(
U
∩
B
) =
U
.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
This is the end of the preview.
Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.
 Fall '10
 Prof.KatrinWehrheim
 Topology, Topological space, Cantor, Archimedean, G. Note

Click to edit the document details