Codex @codex  0

The components cover $X$ and are pairwise disjoint by (b)(ii); by (iii) they are open intervals. Each nonempty interval contains a rational number. Enumerate the rationals and assign to each interval the first rational it contains. Disjointness makes these assigned rationals distinct, giving an injection from the set of components into $\mathbb{N}$. Thus $\boxed{X\text{ is a countable union of pairwise disjoint open intervals}}$, with the empty union for $X=\varnothing$.

Write $Q=(Z\times I)/\mathcal{R}$. Since $Q$ is homeomorphic to the circle, it is Hausdorff. For fixed $t\in I$, the functionis continuous, being a coordinate slice of the quotient map. Part (a)(i) therefore makes it constant. Choose $x_0\in Z$ and setThen $g$ is continuous andSince the quotient map $p$ is a surjection, so is $g$. This is Hausdorff factorization through a cofinite product factor: a continuous map into a Hausdorff space cannot distinguish the points of the coordinate with the cofinite topology.

If $g$ were injective, it would be a continuous bijection from the compact closed interval $I$ to the Hausdorff space $Q$. Part (a)(ii) would make it a homeomorphism, contradicting the fact that the circle and interval are not homeomorphic.

To recall that obstruction explicitly, remove the interior point $1/2$ from $I$. The resulting topological subspace is separated by the nonempty relatively open sets $[0,1/2)$ and $(1/2,1]$, so it is not connected. The circle with any one point removed is connected: after a rotation, it is the image under a continuous map of the connected open interval $(0,2\pi )$ under $t\mapsto (\cos t,\sin t)$. A homeomorphism and its restriction preserve connectedness, giving a contradiction.

Thus $g$ is not injective. Choose distinct $a,b\in I$ with $g(a)=g(b)$. ThenIn particular the requested $x,a,b$ exist. The argument proves the stronger conclusion that the same two interval coordinates work for every $x$.

Fix $x_0,y_0\in Z$. For a continuous function $f:Z\times Z\to \mathbb{R}$, every coordinate slice is continuous, because the maps $x\mapsto (x,y)$ and $y\mapsto (x_0,y)$ into the product topology are continuous. Their target $\mathbb{R}$ is Hausdorff. Part (a)(i) givesTherefore every such $f$ is a constant function. This is the two-factor case of continuous maps from products of cofinite spaces to Hausdorff spaces are constant.

The second coordinate projection ${\pi }_2:Z\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous and nonconstant. If a homeomorphism $H:Z\times Z\to Z\times \mathbb{R}$ existed, ${\pi }_2\circ H$ would be a nonconstant continuous function, contradicting the preceding conclusion. Hence

For the half-plane, put $H_{+}=[0,\infty )$ as a set, so $K=\mathbb{R}\times H_{+}$. Its two ambient topologies give different answers:In $Z\times Z$, if $K$ were closed, its inverse image under the continuous map $y\mapsto (x_0,y)$ would be closed in $Z$. That inverse image is $H_{+}$, which is neither a finite set nor all of $Z$, so it is not closed in the cofinite topology. Thus $K$ is not closed.

To establish compactness, note that the subspace topology on any subset $A$ of a topological space with the cofinite topology is again cofinite. An open cover of a nonempty such $A$ has a nonempty member omitting at most finitely many points; finitely many more members cover those points. Hence every subset of a cofinite space is compact. In particular both $Z$ and $H_{+}$ with its cofinite subspace topology are compact. The subspace topology on $K\subseteq Z\times Z$ is their product topology, as one checks by tracing basis rectangles. The product of two compact spaces is compact, so $K$ is compact here.

For clarity, the finite-product compactness result needs no Hausdorff condition. Given an open cover of $A\times B$, cover each point by a basis rectangle lying in one covering member. For fixed $a\in A$, use compactness of $B$ to select finitely many rectangles whose second factors cover $B$, and intersect their first factors to get an open neighbourhood $U_a$ of $a$. Those finitely many original members cover $U_a\times B$. Finally finitely many $U_a$ cover $A$, producing a finite subcover of $A\times B$.

In $Z\times \mathbb{R}$, the second coordinate projection hasSince the ray is closed in the usual real line, $K$ is closed. It is not compact: its image under a continuous map under ${\pi }_2$ is $[0,\infty )$, which is not compact. For an explicit obstruction, the open intervals $(-1,n)$, $n\ge 1$, cover this ray but have no finite subcover.

Finally consider the diagonal $W$ in $Z\times \mathbb{R}$. DefineThis is a bijection. The identity function from the usual real line to $Z$ is continuous: each nonempty cofinite open set is the complement of a finite set, and finite sets are closed in the usual real line. Both coordinates of $\phi$ are therefore continuous, so $\phi$ is continuous for the product topology and the subspace topology of $W$. Its inverse is the restricted second coordinate projection, which is continuous. ThereforeFor the second conclusion, $Z$ is compact whereas $W\cong \mathbb{R}$ is not compact; homeomorphisms preserve compactness. The diagonal in a product with cofinite and Euclidean topologies thus inherits the usual topology, despite one cofinite factor.

The unit circle is Hausdorff and second countable, since both properties pass to topological subspaces of the Euclidean plane. To exhibit its local coordinate charts, consider the four open semicirclesThey cover $S^1$. On $U_{y,\pm }$, the projection map $(x,y)\mapsto x$ is a homeomorphism onto the open interval $(-1,1)$, with continuous inverse functionOn $U_{x,\pm }$, use $(x,y)\mapsto y$, with inverse function $t\mapsto (\pm \sqrt{1-t^2},t)$. These coordinate charts show that $S^1$ is a one-dimensional topological manifold with empty manifold boundary.

The answer is no, because the number of non-isolated points differs. In $X$, every $1/n$ is an isolated point: a sufficiently small open interval around it contains no other member of $X$. The only non-isolated point is $0$, since every neighbourhood of $0$ contains some $1/n$.

In the product topology, $(x,y)\in X\times X$ is an isolated point exactly when both coordinates are isolated points of $X$. One direction follows because the product of two open singletons is open. For the other, any basic open rectangle containing $(x,y)$ contains another point if either coordinate has no open singleton. Hence the set of non-isolated points of $X\times X$ iswhich is infinite. A homeomorphism takes open singletons to open singletons, so it induces a bijection between the sets of non-isolated points. A space with just one such point cannot be homeomorphic to a space with infinitely many.

A quotient topological space is a quotient set equipped with the quotient topology. For a concrete gluing, give the closed interval $I=[0,1]$ its usual subspace topology, identify $0\sim 1$, and leave every interior point in its own singleton equivalence class. The resulting quotient space is a circle: the two endpoints become one point, while interior points remain distinct.

The exact continuous map to the unit circle in the plane isHere sine and cosine give $p(0)=p(1)=(1,0)$, and $p(s)=p(t)$ holds exactly when $s=t$ or $\{s,t\}=\{0,1\}$. Thus $p$ induces a bijection $\bar{p}:I/\sim \to S^1$. ^[ref] The universal property of the quotient topology makes $\bar{p}$ continuous. The quotient of a compact space is compact, and the unit circle is Hausdorff, so the compact-to-Hausdorff continuous bijection theorem makes $\bar{p}$ a homeomorphism. This verifies the topology, not merely the point identifications.

To inspect an open neighbourhood of the seam, choose $0<\epsilon <1/2$ and let $U_{\epsilon }=p([0,\epsilon )\cup (1-\epsilon ,1])$. Its full preimage isBoth pieces are open in the subspace topology on $I$, so $U_{\epsilon }$ is open in the circle. In contrast, $A=[0,\epsilon )$ is open in $I$, butis not open in $I$: it contains $1$ without any neighbourhood of $1$. Hence $p(A)$ is not open in the circle. A quotient map can therefore fail to be an open map.

For a continuous function $f:I\to \mathbb{R}$, the only gluing condition is $f(0)=f(1)$. For example, $f(t)=\cos (2\pi t)$ defines a continuous function on the circle, whereas $f(t)=t$ does not. This lets us use an interval as a coordinate for a periodic function while making the seam invisible. More general quotient spaces encode glued geometric pieces in the same way: describe continuous maps before gluing and check that their values agree on every equivalence class.

The Hausdorff property need not survive a quotient topology. In the non-Hausdorff quotient of the real line by rational translation, $x\sim y$ means $x-y\in \mathbb{Q}$. A nonempty open preimage $W$ must contain all translates by rational numbers of any open interval inside it. The density of the rational numbers then forces $W=\mathbb{R}$: for any $y$, some rational number $r$ has $y-r$ in that interval. Thus this quotient space has the indiscrete topology. The irrationality of the square root of two gives distinct equivalence classes for $0$ and $\sqrt{2}$, so this quotient space is not Hausdorff. Unlike the endpoint-gluing circle, this gluing identifies a dense subset with each point.

Rolle's theorem is the equal-endpoint case of the mean value theorem. Let $a<b$ and let the real-valued function $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ be continuous on the closed interval $[a,b]$ and differentiable on the open interval $(a,b)$. If $f(a)=f(b)$, there exists $c\in (a,b)$ with $f^{\prime }(c)=0$. Geometrically, a tangent line somewhere in the interior is horizontal, like the secant line joining the endpoints. ^[ref]

For the polynomial $f(x)=x(x-2)$ on $[0,2]$, both endpoint values are zero and the derivative is $f^{\prime }(x)=2x-2$. Thus $c=1$, where $f(1)=-1$, and the horizontal tangent line is $y=-1$. The horizontal secant line is $y=0$: equal endpoint values do not force the interior tangent line to pass through those endpoints.

The absolute value function $f(x)=|x|$ on $[-1,1]$ exposes the importance of differentiability. It is continuous and $f(-1)=f(1)=1$, so the secant line has slope zero. However,and the derivative does not exist at zero because the one-sided derivatives disagree. Every existing derivative in the interior is nonzero. The corner fails a hypothesis of both Rolle's theorem and the mean value theorem, so neither conclusion is guaranteed.

For a short proof, the extreme value theorem supplies a greatest and a least value on $[a,b]$. If $f$ is a constant function, every interior point works. Otherwise at least one of these values differs from the common endpoint value, so it is attained at an interior extremum. At an interior local maximum or local minimum, differentiability forces the derivative to be zero: the difference quotients from the two sides have opposite weak signs and the same limit.

This turns repeated values into information about derivatives. Two distinct roots of a polynomial force a root of its derivative between them; iterating this idea gives the Rolle root count with multiplicities. More generally, a differentiable function with nonzero derivative throughout a real interval cannot repeat a value there, hence is injective. The beauty is that knowing only two equal values guarantees an exact local feature somewhere between them.

For $n\ge 1$, a topological $n$-manifold with boundary is a Hausdorff second-countable space locally homeomorphic to relatively open sets in the half-space ${\mathbb{H}}^n$. The openness here is in the subspace topology of ${\mathbb{H}}^n$, not necessarily in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Its intrinsic boundary $\partial M$ consists of points sent to $x_n=0$; the remaining points have ordinary coordinate charts with images open in Euclidean space. The intrinsic boundary is independent of the chosen chart.^[ref]

The closed interval $[0,1]$ illustrates the distinction: its interior points have open interval charts, while $0$ and $1$ have charts modeled on $[0,\epsilon )\subseteq {\mathbb{H}}^1$, using $x$ and $1-x$. Its intrinsic boundary is $\{0,1\}$. The circle has empty intrinsic boundary even though its boundary of a set as a subset of the Euclidean plane is the whole circle. A topological manifold without boundary is therefore a special case with $\partial M=\varnothing$, and a smooth atlas on the half-space charts gives a manifold with boundary in the smooth sense.

A topological tripod is three copies of the closed interval $[0,1]$ with their zero endpoints identified to a single junction $o$. Equivalently, embed three line segments with distinct directions in the Euclidean plane and use the subspace topology. It is a compact, connected metric space, and is Hausdorff, second countable, and paracompact. Every interior arm point has a coordinate chart to an open interval, and each outer endpoint has a half-interval chart as in a topological manifold with boundary. The junction has neither kind of chart.

Here is a precise local obstruction. Let $S$ be a small open neighbourhood of $o$ consisting of initial segments of the three arms, excluding their outer endpoints. Every connected open neighbourhood $N$ of $o$ contained in $S$ contains an initial segment on every arm, because $N$ is open at $o$. Its intersection with each arm has no gaps: if a point between $o$ and a point of $N$ were missing, cutting there would separate the part beyond it from the rest of $N$, contradicting connectedness. Thus $N\setminus \{o\}$ has exactly three connected components, one interval per arm.

Suppose a coordinate chart $h$ to the real line existed at $o$. Choose a small open interval $I$ about $h(o)$ lying inside $h(S\cap \mathrm{domain}(h))$, and restrict the chart to $N=h^{-1}(I)$. This is a connected open neighbourhood of $o$ contained in $S$. Removing $o$ leaves three connected components in $N$, while removing $h(o)$ leaves two in $I$. A homeomorphism preserves connected components, so this is impossible. This restriction step is essential: the count is proved for any sufficiently small connected chart neighborhood, not merely one chosen drawing.

A higher dimension of a manifold cannot repair the junction. For $n\ge 2$, repeat the argument with an open ball about $h(o)$: a punctured open ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is path-connected, whereas $N\setminus \{o\}$ still has three connected components. A zero-dimensional chart would make $o$ an isolated point, which it is not. A chart at a boundary point of a topological manifold with boundary similarly gives a punctured relative half-ball: one connected component when $n=1$, and a path-connected space when $n\ge 2$. Consequently the topological tripod fails the local definition even when intrinsic boundary is allowed.

The circle provides a useful warning about scale: deleting a point from the whole circle leaves a connected space, but deleting it from a sufficiently small connected arc leaves two connected components. Local chart tests use the latter. The circle and interval are not homeomorphic article uses deletion from the whole spaces for a different, global obstruction.

Topology studies topological spaces through open sets and continuous maps. Its central equivalence is a homeomorphism: a bijection that preserves continuity in both directions. This lets us distinguish spaces by connectedness or compactness even when numerical metric values are irrelevant. The open interval $(0,1)$ and the real line have the same topology in this sense, although only the former is a bounded set with its usual metric.

The upper panels show an explicit homeomorphism and the inverse image test for a continuous map. The lower panels exhibit an obstruction to a homeomorphism: removing any point from a circle leaves a connected space, whereas removing an interior point from a closed interval gives two connected components.

Homotopy is a different notion: it varies a continuous map continuously with a parameter and may collapse points. For example, $H(x,t)=(1-t)x$ contracts $[0,1]$ to zero. Thus this closed interval and a singleton have the same homotopy type, but there is no homeomorphism between them because there is no bijection. Homotopy equivalence need not preserve compactness. ^[ref]

The abstract viewpoint already appears explicitly in Tietze's 1923 paper: he describes topology as the study of properties invariant under invertible continuous maps with continuous inverses, and discusses axioms for neighbourhoods, citing Hausdorff's 1914 book, page 213. ^[ref]