Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If E is a metric space, I call a subset C of E a cut if E-C is not connected and if C is minimal for this property (which is obviously equivalent to "for every p in C, E-C union p is connected". The empty set is a cut of any disconnected space, so the obvious conjecture is : every space of more than one point possesses a cut (this is almost obviously true for manifolds, for instance)... but this conjecture is in fact probably wrong, as it is not obvious at all to find cuts in convoluted spaces like, for instance, the common boundary of three open sets in the plane ; on the other hand, i was not able to prove it in this case either. Any hint on such a proof ? (by the way, Zorn's lemma dont apply here ; I wonder is there is any interesting example of a situation where the hypothesis of the lemma fail (ie, like here, the intersection of a decreasing family of sets having the property P does not necessarily have it), but the conclusion (the existence of a minimal such set) is still valid ?

share|improve this question
2  
With this definition the space is always a cut of itself. –  Gjergji Zaimi Aug 23 '11 at 3:29
    
I'm not clear on your example, "the common boundary of three open sets in the plane." What is the metric space? –  Will Jagy Aug 23 '11 at 3:30
    
Maybe is the OP referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakes_of_Wada? –  Maxime Bourrigan Aug 23 '11 at 5:28
3  
@Gjergji: Your remark applies only if the whole-space subset is "minimal for this property". However, the whole space does provide an element for the set in which the existence of a minimal element is sought. –  John Bentin Aug 23 '11 at 6:39
    
On the last question: sure, whenever the union of an increasing family of sets having the property always has the property. –  Ricky Demer Aug 23 '11 at 6:46
show 2 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Construction of the BJK continuum

Assume $E$ is what remains after the infinite number of the iterations above. This is an example of indecomposable continuum, so it can not be presented as a union of any two proper subcontinua.

Assume there is a cut $C\subset E$.

Then each connected component of $E\backslash C$ has $C$ as the boundary. In particular, $C$ is closed. Let us present $E\backslash C$ as a union of two disjoint open sets $A$ and $B$. Clearly both $\bar A =C\cup A$ and $\bar B=C\cup B$ are proper subcontinua of $E$, a contradiction.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks ; this is exactly what I asked for. Note that the boundary of the lakes of Wada is an indecomposable continuum, which means I had found my counter-example, but could not see your nice proof... –  Feldmann Denis Aug 24 '11 at 2:55
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.