MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\mathrm{r}\mathscr{O}$ be the family of open domains (regular open sets) of a topological space $\langle X,\mathscr{O}\rangle$, that is: $$A\in\mathrm{r}\mathscr{O}\iff A=\mathrm{int(\mathrm{cl(A)})}.$$

A space $\langle X,\mathscr{O}\rangle$ is normal iff for any disjoint closed sets $A$ and $B$ there are $O_1,O_2\in\mathscr{O}$ such that: $$ A\subseteq O_1\quad\text{and}\quad B\subseteq O_2 \quad\text{and}\quad O_1\cap O_2=\emptyset. $$

Define: $$\tag{df $\Subset$} A\Subset B\iff \mathrm{cl}(A)\subseteq B, $$ and consider the following property: $$\tag{$\dagger$} (\forall{A,B\in \mathrm{r}\mathscr{O}})\bigl(A\Subset B\Rightarrow(\exists{C\in \mathrm{r}\mathscr{O}}) (A\Subset C\Subset B)\bigr) $$ It is easy to prove that if $\langle X,\mathscr{O}\rangle$ is normal, then it satisfies ($\dagger$). What I am interested in is whether the following is true:

If $\langle X,\mathscr{O}\rangle$ is a Hausdorff space ($T_2$-space) which satisfies ($\dagger$), then it is normal.

EDIT: Ramiro de la Vega pointed to a very nice counterexample. I have one more question: what if we require that $\langle X,\mathscr{O}\rangle$ is semiregular, that is the regular open sets form a basis for the topology? Thus what I am now asking is whether the following (weaker) statement is true:

If $\langle X,\mathscr{O}\rangle$ is a semiregular Hausdorff space which satisfies ($\dagger$), then it is normal.

EDIT: The answer to the question above is negative as well. A counterexample is relatively prime integer topology, L.A. Steen, J.A. Seebach, Jr. Counterexamples in topology, number 60.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted


For example let $X=\{(x,y): x,y \in \mathbb{Q}, y \geq 0 \}$ with the irrational slope topology. The clousure of any two non-empty open subsets of $X$ have non-empty intersection. This implies that $X$ satisfies ($\dagger$) trivially but it also implies that $X$ is not even $T_{2\frac{1}{2}}$ (so it is not $T_4$).

share|cite|improve this answer
I must say, this is a spectacularly ingenious construction in the book by Steen and Seebach; I wonder who first thought of it? However, the description given on the linked page is slightly garbled; where they say "on the $X$", it should say "on the intersection of $X$ with the $x$-axis" or words to that effect. Great example! – Todd Trimble Aug 30 '12 at 17:37
@Todd: R. H. Bing, A connected countable Hausdorff space, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1953), 474, available here: – Theo Buehler Aug 30 '12 at 17:51
Wow, thanks Theo! – Todd Trimble Aug 30 '12 at 18:07
@Ramiro: Thanks a lot! The counterexample is beautiful indeed. I have one more question which I included below my original one. – Mad Hatter Aug 30 '12 at 21:35
Relatively prime integer topology (Steen and Seebach, 60) is Hausdorff and semiregular but closures of any disjoint open sets have non-empty intersection. So the answer to the expanded version of my question is negative as well. – Mad Hatter Sep 3 '12 at 22:59

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.