I Is this generalization equivalent to usual Aposyndetic

kmitza
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
TL;DR Summary
I want to check if this "new" notion is equivalent to a well known one and I feel like I am missing an obvious counterexample
For some basic definitions we call connected, metric space a continuum and we say that continuum is aposyndetic if for every pair of points p,q exists a subcontinuum W such that $p \in int(W) \subset W \subset X \setminus \{q\}$ similarly I introduce a notion of "zero set aposyndetic" as:
X is aposyndetic if for every two empty interior connected subsets U,V exist W such that $U \subset int(W) \subset W \subset X\setminusV$
I want to check if the two are equivalent as it is obvious that "zero set aposyndetic" implies aposyndetic but I feel intuitively that the other direction might not be true, however I can't see the counterexample nor the proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If we could find two dense, connected subsets, that should serve as a counterexample, since the only open set containing either of them will be the whole space X, so it must overlap the other subset.

Taking ##\mathbb A## to represent the algebraic numbers, I think if we take ##X=\mathbb R^2, U = X - \mathbb A^2, V = \mathbb A^2 - \mathbb Q^2## it might work.

Certainly U and V are dense in X. I think they may also both be connected (not path-connected, but that doesn't matter). This doesn't work with ##X=\mathbb R## but I think it works in two dimensions.
 
Hi, first of all thank you for your answer :)
Secondly I now notice I made a wrong definition of continuum... It should also be compact.
Anyways your approach works if I work a dense set and any other set to go along with it.
Also just for clarification zero set aposyndetic can only work with non intersecting sets I didn't state that in the definition as I made it up so I was being careless.
 
I posted this question on math-stackexchange but apparently I asked something stupid and I was downvoted. I still don't have an answer to my question so I hope someone in here can help me or at least explain me why I am asking something stupid. I started studying Complex Analysis and came upon the following theorem which is a direct consequence of the Cauchy-Goursat theorem: Let ##f:D\to\mathbb{C}## be an anlytic function over a simply connected region ##D##. If ##a## and ##z## are part of...
Back
Top