Quote:
Originally Posted by Qfwfq
Wait a minute, I protest! A neighborhood is not necessarily open!
|
Well, I grant you 2 things; first my definition was rather imprecise, and second there seems to be no agreement on this in the literature.
Let's go with this compromise, which I copy from Bishop & Goldberg
Tensor analysis on Manifolds
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bishop & Goldberg
A neighborhood of  is any  such that  . In particular, any open set containing is a neighborhood of 
|
(my bolding).
I will happily concede my original definition was wrong iff it can be
shown that, for any pair, say, of closed sets

that

. I doubt it, but I am not completely sure. Someone help me out here!
Quote:
|
In topology, so many roads lead to Rome.
|
How true.
While I am here, I promised this
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
A topological space that cannot be written as the union of 2 non-empty disjoint sets is said to be connected.
Alternatively, in a connected space, the only sets that are both open and closed are the base set and the empty set, say  and  . It is a fun exercise to bring these two definitions into register.
|
So, here it is.
Suppose that

is connected by our second definition. Let

be open. Let

, and let

(recall this is the the definition of disjointness).
Then of necessity,

, therefore

and

are also closed, which by our first definition means that

is
not connected, a contradiction, and therefore our two definitions coincide.
PS Yikes!! I am losing my marbles, this not what I promised at all. Recall I defined the boundary of an arbitrary set

by

.
If

is both open and closed, then

And what if a set is neither open NOR closed?
Exercise for readers.