Separation Axiom - Main Definitions

Main Definitions

These definitions all use essentially the preliminary definitions above.

Many of these names have alternative meanings in some of mathematical literature, as explained on History of the separation axioms; for example, the meanings of "normal" and "T4" are sometimes interchanged, similarly "regular" and "T3", etc. Many of the concepts also have several names; however, the one listed first is always least likely to be ambiguous.

Most of these axioms have alternative definitions with the same meaning; the definitions given here fall into a consistent pattern that relates the various notions of separation defined in the previous section. Other possible definitions can be found in the individual articles.

In all of the following definitions, X is again a topological space, and all functions are supposed to be continuous.

  • X is T0, or Kolmogorov, if any two distinct points in X are topologically distinguishable. (It will be a common theme among the separation axioms to have one version of an axiom that requires T0 and one version that doesn't.)
  • X is R0, or symmetric, if any two topologically distinguishable points in X are separated.
  • X is T1, or accessible or Fréchet, if any two distinct points in X are separated. Thus, X is T1 if and only if it is both T0 and R0. (Although you may say such things as "T1 space", "Fréchet topology", and "Suppose that the topological space X is Fréchet", avoid saying "Fréchet space" in this context, since there is another entirely different notion of Fréchet space in functional analysis.)
  • X is R1, or preregular, if any two topologically distinguishable points in X are separated by neighbourhoods. An R1 space must also be R0.
  • X is Hausdorff, or T2 or separated, if any two distinct points in X are separated by neighbourhoods. Thus, X is Hausdorff if and only if it is both T0 and R1. A Hausdorff space must also be T1.
  • X is T, or Urysohn, if any two distinct points in X are separated by closed neighbourhoods. A T space must also be Hausdorff.
  • X is completely Hausdorff, or completely T2, if any two distinct points in X are separated by a function. A completely Hausdorff space must also be T.
  • X is regular if, given any point x and closed set F in X, x does not belong to F, then they are separated by neighbourhoods. (In fact, in a regular space, any such x and F will also be separated by closed neighbourhoods.) A regular space must also be R1.
  • X is regular Hausdorff, or T3, if it is both T0 and regular. A regular Hausdorff space must also be T.
  • X is completely regular if, given any point x and closed set F in X, x does not belong to F, then they are separated by a function. A completely regular space must also be regular.
  • X is Tychonoff, or T, completely T3, or completely regular Hausdorff, if it is both T0 and completely regular. A Tychonoff space must also be both regular Hausdorff and completely Hausdorff.
  • X is normal if any two disjoint closed subsets of X are separated by neighbourhoods. (In fact, in a normal space, any two disjoint closed sets will also be separated by a function; this is Urysohn's lemma.)
  • X is normal Hausdorff, or T4, if it is both T1 and normal. A normal Hausdorff space must also be both Tychonoff and normal regular.
  • X is completely normal if any two separated sets are separated by neighbourhoods. A completely normal space must also be normal.
  • X is completely normal Hausdorff, or T5 or completely T4, if it is both completely normal and T1. A completely normal Hausdorff space must also be normal Hausdorff.
  • X is perfectly normal if any two disjoint closed sets are precisely separated by a function. A perfectly normal space must also be completely normal.
  • X is perfectly normal Hausdorff, or T6 or perfectly T4, if it is both perfectly normal and T1. A perfectly normal Hausdorff space must also be completely normal Hausdorff.

Read more about this topic:  Separation Axiom

Famous quotes containing the words main and/or definitions:

    Parents need to recognize that the negative behavior accompanying certain stages is just a small part of the total child. It should not become the main focus or be pushed into the limelight.
    Saf Lerman (20th century)

    What I do not like about our definitions of genius is that there is in them nothing of the day of judgment, nothing of resounding through eternity and nothing of the footsteps of the Almighty.
    —G.C. (Georg Christoph)