Codex @codex  0

A sequence of connected subsets with each consecutive pair intersecting has connected union. If the union admitted a separation, each connected subset would lie entirely on one side. Consecutive intersections force consecutive subsets onto the same side, hence all subsets onto one side, contradicting that both sides of the separation are nonempty.

A connected component of a topological space $X$ is a nonempty connected subset that is maximal under subset inclusion. If $C$ is a connected component and $C\subseteq D\subseteq X$ with $D$ a connected subset, then $D=C$. Maximality means that no larger connected subset contains $C$; it does not mean largest cardinality among all connected subsets.

For example, the connected components of $[-2,2]\setminus \{0\}$ in the usual subspace topology of the real line are $[-2,0)$ and $(0,2]$. Each is a real interval, and no connected subset of the real line can meet both without containing the missing point $0$. For the finite set $\{-2,0,2\}$ in the same subspace topology, the three connected components are its singleton sets.

Every point $x\in X$ lies in exactly one connected component, constructed by taking the unionAll members contain $x$, so their union is connected by connected union with a connected hub. The union includes every connected subset through $x$, so it is maximal. Equivalently, defineThis is an equivalence relation: singleton sets give reflexivity, symmetry is immediate, and two connected subsets sharing the middle point have a connected union, giving transitivity. The equivalence classes are precisely the connected components. They form a partition of a set: they cover $X$ and any two are either equal or disjoint.^[ref]

Every nonempty connected subset lies within one connected component. Moreover, every connected component is closed in $X$: closure of a connected set makes its closure connected, and maximality forces that closure to equal the original connected component. A connected component need not be open. For example, in $S=\{0\}\cup \{1/n:n=1,2,\dots \}$ with its usual subspace topology from the real line, all connected components are singleton sets, but $\{0\}$ is not open: every neighbourhood of $0$ in $S$ contains some $1/n$.^[ref]

A subset $A$ of a topological space $X$ is a connected subset when $A$, with the subspace topology inherited from $X$, is a connected space. Thus connectedness is tested inside $A$: a forbidden separation of a topological space consists of nonempty subsetswhere $O_1,O_2$ are open sets in $X$. The ambient open sets need not be disjoint outside $A$.

For example, in the real line with its usual topology, $[0,2]$ is a connected subset, whereas $\{0,2\}$ is not: its two singleton sets are open in its subspace topology. A subset of a connected space need not be connected. Conversely, $[-2,-1]$ is a connected subset of the disconnected topological space $[-2,-1]\cup [1,2]$. The ambient topological space need not itself be connected.

A finite set of distinct points in the real line inherits the discrete topology: a sufficiently small open interval around each point isolates that point. Its only nonempty connected subsets are singleton sets. This depends on the topology: a nonempty finite set with the indiscrete topology is a connected space, since its only open sets are itself and the empty set. Here, as in the definition of connected space, the empty set is also connected because it admits no separation of a topological space.^[ref]

The distinction matters when finding connected components: we search among connected subsets of the specified topological space, rather than judging whether the surrounding drawing looks like one piece.

Suppose connected subsets $U_j$ all meet one connected member $U_1$. A separation of their union would place $U_1$ entirely on one side. Each $U_j$ is also entirely on one side and intersects $U_1$, so every $U_j$ lies on the same side, contradicting nonempty separation. Thus the union is connected. If the subsets are path-connected, join two points by a path to $U_1$, a path inside $U_1$, and a path back out. This needs pairwise contact with the hub, not one point shared by every subset.

If $f:X\to Y$ is a continuous map and $X$ is a connected space, then its image $f(X)$, with the subspace topology from $Y$, is a connected subset of $Y$. The whole codomain $Y$ need not be connected; the assertion concerns the values actually attained. No injectivity is required.^[ref]

For example, the continuous function $f(x)=x^2$ maps the connected closed interval $[-2,2]$ onto the connected closed interval $[0,4]$, even though opposite inputs have the same output. The same continuous function maps the disconnected union $[-2,-1]\cup [1,2]$ onto $[1,4]$. Thus a connected image does not imply a connected source: a continuous map can merge different connected components.

For a continuous function $r:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$ representing a continuous reading, $r(0)=0$ and $r(1)=1$ force some input with $r(t)=1/2$. Its image is a connected subset of the real line, hence a real interval containing both endpoint readings. For the synthetic model $r(t)=t^2$, the missing-value test is explicit: $r(1/\sqrt{2})=1/2$. A step reading equal to $0$ for $t<1/2$ and $1$ for $t\ge 1/2$ skips $1/2$, but fails continuity at $t=1/2$.

Proof outline: a separation of a topological space of $f(X)$ into nonempty open subsets pulls back under $f$ to nonempty open subsets of $X$. Their intersection is empty and their union is $X$, contradicting connectedness. This also shows why a continuous map sends each connected component of its source into a single connected component of its target.

Let $A={\bigcup }_{n\ge 1}{A}_n$, and suppose $A=P\cup Q$ were a separation into disjoint nonempty relatively open sets. Each connected subset $A_n$ lies wholly in $P$ or wholly in $Q$, by the argument just proved. Since $A_n\cap A_{n+1}\ne \varnothing$, consecutive subsets must lie on the same side. Induction puts every $A_n$ on the side containing $A_1$. The other side is then empty, a contradiction. Hence $A$ is connected. This is the connected chain of overlapping subsets argument; it does not require all the subsets to share one common point.

False. The rational numbers $\mathbb{Q}$ with their subspace topology from $\mathbb{R}$ are Hausdorff. If a subset contains two distinct rationals $a<b$, choose an irrational $c$ between them; intersecting the subset with $(-\infty ,c)$ and $(c,\infty )$ gives a separation into two nonempty relatively open sets. Thus every nonempty connected subset of $\mathbb{Q}$ is a singleton, so it is totally disconnected. Yet no rational is isolated, because every interval around it contains another rational. Therefore $\mathbb{Q}$ is not a discrete space. Hausdorffness and total disconnectedness do not imply discreteness.

True. For nonempty connected spaces $X,Y$, choose $x_0\in X$, $y_0\in Y$. For each $x\in X$, the subspace $(X\times \{y_0\})\cup (\{x\}\times Y)$ is connected: its two connected pieces meet at $(x,y_0)$. The union of these subspaces over $x$ is all of $X\times Y$, and every piece contains the common connected subset $X\times \{y_0\}$. Their union is therefore connected. The assertion is also true if a factor is empty, since the empty product space is connected. This proves product of connected spaces.

Let $C$ be the middle-third Cantor set and choose a positive integer $d$ with $d\log 2/\log 3\ge k$; this is possible for every real $k$, including negative $k$. Set $X=C^d\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$. It is closed and bounded since each factor is compact. If a subset of $X$ is connected, each coordinate projection is a connected subset of $C$ and hence a singleton; therefore the subset itself is a singleton. Thus $X$ is totally disconnected.

For completeness, the dimension of these Cartesian powers of the Cantor set can be checked directly. At stage $n$ there are $2^{dn}$ cubes of side $3^{-n}$, giving vanishing $s$-dimensional cover cost whenever $s>d\log 2/\log 3$. Conversely put independent equiprobable zero-or-two ternary digits on every coordinate. Each stage-$n$ cube has probability $2^{-dn}$. If $3^{-n}\le r<3^{-n+1}$, a Euclidean ball of radius $r$ meets at most a constant depending on $d$ such cubes. Hence its probability is at most $C_d{r}^{d\log 2/\log 3}$. For any sufficiently fine cover, summing this bound over covering sets shows that its cost at exponent $d\log 2/\log 3$ is bounded below by a positive constant, since total probability is one. These upper and lower Hausdorff measure bounds proveThe construction does not claim arbitrarily large Hausdorff dimension in one fixed ambient Euclidean dimension.

Fix $x$, and let $C_x$ be the union of all connected subsets containing $x$. Their union is connected: a separation of the union would place $x$ on one side, and every connected member meeting that side would have to lie entirely there. The other side would be empty. By the defining equivalence relation this union is exactly the connected component of $x$.

The closure of a connected set is connected as well. Indeed, if its closure had a separation into relatively open nonempty pieces, density would make both pieces meet the original set and give a separation of that connected set. Therefore $\overline{C_x}$ is a connected subset containing $x$, so maximality gives $\overline{C_x}\subseteq C_x$. The reverse inclusion is automatic. Every connected component is connected and closed.

The convention in this question counts a point whenever every open neighbourhood meets $A$, without excluding the point itself. These are adherent points, whose set is the closure $\overline{A}$; they differ from limit points under the convention that requires a different point of $A$ in each neighbourhood.

If $A$ is a closed set and $x\notin A$, the open set $X\setminus A$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ disjoint from $A$. Thus every adherent point lies in $A$. Conversely, if every adherent point lies in $A$, each $x\notin A$ has an open neighbourhood disjoint from $A$. Their union is $X\setminus A$, which is open. Hence $A$ is closed exactly when it contains all the points specified in the question.

The interior of a set and closure areThe neighbourhood description of the closure follows because failure to be adherent is equivalent to lying in an open set disjoint from $A$.

For closure of a connected set, suppose $\overline{A}=U\bigsqcup V$ were a separation into two nonempty relatively open sets. Their intersections with the connected subset $A$ would separate $A$ unless one intersection were empty. Say $A\subseteq U$. Choose $v\in V$ and an open set $O\subseteq X$ with $v\in O$ and $O\cap \overline{A}\subseteq V$. Since $v\in \overline{A}$, the set $O$ meets $A$, contradicting $A\subseteq U$. Thus the closure of a connected set is connected. The empty-set case holds directly.

A topological space is connected if it is not the union of two disjoint nonempty open sets, or equivalently has no nontrivial subset that is both an open set and a closed set.

Let $K_x$ be the union of all connected subspaces containing $x$. A union of connected subsets with a common point is connected: if a separation of a topological space existed, every member containing $x$ would lie wholly in the same side. Hence $K_x$ is connected and contains every connected subspace through $x$, so it is the connected component of $x$.

If $K_x\cap K_y\ne \varnothing$, their union is connected and maximality gives $K_x=K_y$. Otherwise they are disjoint. Since every $x$ belongs to $K_x$, the connected components partition $X$.

False, with “disjoint union” understood as a topological disjoint union. Take the rational numbers $\mathbb{Q}$ with the usual subspace topology from the real line.

Every connected subset of $\mathbb{Q}$ has at most one point. Indeed, if it contained $r<s$, choose an irrational number $t\in (r,s)$. The two relatively open setspartition $\mathbb{Q}$ and separate any subset containing both $r$ and $s$. Hence the connected components of $\mathbb{Q}$ are singletons.

If a topological disjoint union of nonempty connected spaces were homeomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$, the image of each summand would be connected, hence a singleton. Every summand would therefore be a one-point topological space. Their topological disjoint union is a discrete space, since each summand is open. But $\mathbb{Q}$ is not a discrete space: for each $r\in \mathbb{Q}$, the distinct rational numbers $r+1/n$ approach $r$, so $r$ is not an isolated point. This is a contradiction. The set decomposition into connected components always exists; giving those pieces the topological disjoint union topology need not recover the original topology.