1

This is exercise 15G.3 in Willard's General Topology, 1970. The writer has a suggestion: Suppose $x_n\rightarrow p$ but $x_n$ is not ultimately constant. Construct sequence $U_1, U_2,...$ of disjoint open sets in $X$ such that $x_{n_{k}} \in U_k$ for some subsequence $x_{n_{k}}$ of $x_n$ and such that $p\in \overline{U_k}$ for every $k$. Let $G=\cup _{k=1}^{\infty} U_{2k}$. Then $\overline{G}$ is open containing $p$ but $x_{n_{k}}$ dont belong to $\overline{G}$ for odd $k$. This is the contradiction.

I remark here the suggestion is wrong :since the space is extremally disconnected the sets $\overline{U_k}$ are also disjoint (15G.1), so it's not possible $p\in \overline{U_k}$ for every $k$. My first question: is there something i cannot see here and my comment is wrong?

My second question is to check please the following proof i provide:

Suppose $x_n\rightarrow p$ but $x_n$ is not ultimately constant. Using T2 we construct sequence $U_1, U_2,...$ of disjoint open sets in $X$ such that $x_{n_{k}} \in U_k$ for some subsequence $x_{n_{k}}$ of $x_n$. We set $G=\cup_{k=1}^{\infty} \overline{U_k}$ which is open, since $\overline{U_k}$ are open. We consider the function $f:G\rightarrow R$ with $f(\overline{U_k})=k$, $k=1,2,...$ It is continuous on $G$: Let $ε>0$ small enough and $(k-ε,k+ε)$ an open nbhood of $k$ in $R$. Then $f^{-1}(k-ε,k+ε)=f^{-1}(k)=\overline{U_k}$ open. But the space $G$ is open in $X$, so by 15G.1, it is $C^{*}$-embedded to $X$, see 15E. That gives there exists a continuous extension $F:X\rightarrow R$, $F|_G=f$. By continuity, $F(x_{n_{k}})\rightarrow F(p)\in R$. But $F(x_{n_{k}})=k\rightarrow +\infty$. We arrived at a contradiction.

Allotrios
  • 175

1 Answers1

1

The suggestion is towards a proof by contradiction, so there is nothing wrong with claiming that a contradiction occurs.

As for you proof, it seems incomplete. What are the $U_k$? You are only given the sequence of points, no open sets.

tomasz
  • 37,896
  • The sets $U_k$ are defined in the first part as Willard suggests (meaning open and disjoint by Hausdorfness). Also in willard suggestion, these sets are open disjoint and since the space is exremally discontinuous their closures are disjoint too (by 15G.1 of willard). So we cannot assume these closures have common point point $p$. This is my argument on willard suggestion. – Allotrios Jul 24 '19 at 14:53
  • I wrote the whole willard suggestion in my post to clarify any misconceptions. – Allotrios Jul 24 '19 at 15:05
  • @Allotrios: You cannot assume that, so if you prove that this is the case, then you have a contradiction. The fact that his suggestion suggests you go further to find a different contradiction from the one you had in mind is of no consequence. When arguing by contradiction, you can prove literally anything you want (including any contradiction). – tomasz Jul 25 '19 at 16:15