Do we really need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?












4












$begingroup$


Let $R= C(X,mathbb{R})$ be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on a topological space $X$, where $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology. Suppose $|X|>1$ and $X$ is connected and compact Hausdorff. Then the only idempotents in $R$ are the functions $0$ and $1$. Prove also that if $R$ is Von Neumann regular then $R$ is a field.



Proof:



We clearly have that $0^2=0$ and $1^2=1$. Now take $f in R$ such that $f$ is idempotent. Then, for all $x in X$, we have that $f^2(x)-f(x)=0$. This equation has only two solutions in $mathbb{R}$, namely $f(x)=0$ or $f(x)=1$. Now define
begin{align*}
A:=lbrace x in X mid f(x)=0 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 0 rbrace) \
B:= lbrace x in X mid f(x)=1 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 1 rbrace)end{align*}

Since $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology, we know that all the singletons are closed subsets of $mathbb{R}$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of $X$. Furthermore, we have that $A cap B = emptyset$ and $A cup B =X$. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non-empty (which is possible since $|X|>1$), then connectedness of $X$ gives us a contradiction. So we must have that $A=X$ and $B= emptyset$ (and thus $f=0$), or $A= emptyset$ and $B=X$ (and thus $f=1$).



Assume that $R$ is Von Neumann regular. Then, for every non-zero $f in R$, we have that $(f)=(e)$, where $e in R$ is idempotent. It follows that $(f)=R$ and thus $f$ is invertible. Hence, $R$ is a field.



Now, my question is the following: why did we need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 17 at 8:28
















4












$begingroup$


Let $R= C(X,mathbb{R})$ be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on a topological space $X$, where $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology. Suppose $|X|>1$ and $X$ is connected and compact Hausdorff. Then the only idempotents in $R$ are the functions $0$ and $1$. Prove also that if $R$ is Von Neumann regular then $R$ is a field.



Proof:



We clearly have that $0^2=0$ and $1^2=1$. Now take $f in R$ such that $f$ is idempotent. Then, for all $x in X$, we have that $f^2(x)-f(x)=0$. This equation has only two solutions in $mathbb{R}$, namely $f(x)=0$ or $f(x)=1$. Now define
begin{align*}
A:=lbrace x in X mid f(x)=0 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 0 rbrace) \
B:= lbrace x in X mid f(x)=1 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 1 rbrace)end{align*}

Since $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology, we know that all the singletons are closed subsets of $mathbb{R}$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of $X$. Furthermore, we have that $A cap B = emptyset$ and $A cup B =X$. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non-empty (which is possible since $|X|>1$), then connectedness of $X$ gives us a contradiction. So we must have that $A=X$ and $B= emptyset$ (and thus $f=0$), or $A= emptyset$ and $B=X$ (and thus $f=1$).



Assume that $R$ is Von Neumann regular. Then, for every non-zero $f in R$, we have that $(f)=(e)$, where $e in R$ is idempotent. It follows that $(f)=R$ and thus $f$ is invertible. Hence, $R$ is a field.



Now, my question is the following: why did we need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 17 at 8:28














4












4








4


2



$begingroup$


Let $R= C(X,mathbb{R})$ be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on a topological space $X$, where $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology. Suppose $|X|>1$ and $X$ is connected and compact Hausdorff. Then the only idempotents in $R$ are the functions $0$ and $1$. Prove also that if $R$ is Von Neumann regular then $R$ is a field.



Proof:



We clearly have that $0^2=0$ and $1^2=1$. Now take $f in R$ such that $f$ is idempotent. Then, for all $x in X$, we have that $f^2(x)-f(x)=0$. This equation has only two solutions in $mathbb{R}$, namely $f(x)=0$ or $f(x)=1$. Now define
begin{align*}
A:=lbrace x in X mid f(x)=0 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 0 rbrace) \
B:= lbrace x in X mid f(x)=1 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 1 rbrace)end{align*}

Since $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology, we know that all the singletons are closed subsets of $mathbb{R}$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of $X$. Furthermore, we have that $A cap B = emptyset$ and $A cup B =X$. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non-empty (which is possible since $|X|>1$), then connectedness of $X$ gives us a contradiction. So we must have that $A=X$ and $B= emptyset$ (and thus $f=0$), or $A= emptyset$ and $B=X$ (and thus $f=1$).



Assume that $R$ is Von Neumann regular. Then, for every non-zero $f in R$, we have that $(f)=(e)$, where $e in R$ is idempotent. It follows that $(f)=R$ and thus $f$ is invertible. Hence, $R$ is a field.



Now, my question is the following: why did we need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let $R= C(X,mathbb{R})$ be the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on a topological space $X$, where $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology. Suppose $|X|>1$ and $X$ is connected and compact Hausdorff. Then the only idempotents in $R$ are the functions $0$ and $1$. Prove also that if $R$ is Von Neumann regular then $R$ is a field.



Proof:



We clearly have that $0^2=0$ and $1^2=1$. Now take $f in R$ such that $f$ is idempotent. Then, for all $x in X$, we have that $f^2(x)-f(x)=0$. This equation has only two solutions in $mathbb{R}$, namely $f(x)=0$ or $f(x)=1$. Now define
begin{align*}
A:=lbrace x in X mid f(x)=0 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 0 rbrace) \
B:= lbrace x in X mid f(x)=1 rbrace=f^{-1}(lbrace 1 rbrace)end{align*}

Since $mathbb{R}$ is equipped with the standard Euclidean topology, we know that all the singletons are closed subsets of $mathbb{R}$. The continuity of $f$ implies that $A$ and $B$ are closed subsets of $X$. Furthermore, we have that $A cap B = emptyset$ and $A cup B =X$. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are non-empty (which is possible since $|X|>1$), then connectedness of $X$ gives us a contradiction. So we must have that $A=X$ and $B= emptyset$ (and thus $f=0$), or $A= emptyset$ and $B=X$ (and thus $f=1$).



Assume that $R$ is Von Neumann regular. Then, for every non-zero $f in R$, we have that $(f)=(e)$, where $e in R$ is idempotent. It follows that $(f)=R$ and thus $f$ is invertible. Hence, $R$ is a field.



Now, my question is the following: why did we need $X$ to be compact Hausdorff?







general-topology proof-verification ring-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 14 at 17:38









J.BosserJ.Bosser

363210




363210












  • $begingroup$
    My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 17 at 8:28


















  • $begingroup$
    My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 17 at 8:28
















$begingroup$
My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 17 at 8:28




$begingroup$
My bad, I'm not familiar with the reputation system on Stackexchange so I thought it was possible to accept both answers. Apparently not...
$endgroup$
– J.Bosser
Jan 17 at 8:28










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.



As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.



And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.





Added:



Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory



enter image description here



As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.



It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)



Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:35










  • $begingroup$
    @J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 18:50












  • $begingroup$
    No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:52










  • $begingroup$
    @J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:54



















2












$begingroup$

It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073504%2fdo-we-really-need-x-to-be-compact-hausdorff%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.



    As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.



    And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.





    Added:



    Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory



    enter image description here



    As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.



    It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)



    Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:35










    • $begingroup$
      @J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 18:50












    • $begingroup$
      No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:52










    • $begingroup$
      @J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 18:53










    • $begingroup$
      Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:54
















    3












    $begingroup$

    I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.



    As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.



    And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.





    Added:



    Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory



    enter image description here



    As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.



    It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)



    Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:35










    • $begingroup$
      @J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 18:50












    • $begingroup$
      No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:52










    • $begingroup$
      @J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 18:53










    • $begingroup$
      Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:54














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.



    As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.



    And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.





    Added:



    Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory



    enter image description here



    As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.



    It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)



    Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    I think you're right that the assumption $X$ is Hausdorff is unnecessary... all that matters is that the topology on $mathbb R$ is enough to make points closed.



    As for compactness, I think you are also right that it is unnecessary. Connectedness, the fact that $mathbb R$ with the usual topology is $T_2$ (or even just $T_1$) and the continuity of the maps is all that's necessary to conclude there are only trivial idempotents.



    And a VNR ring with trivial idempotents is a division ring, for exactly the reasons you gave.





    Added:



    Here's a screenshot of the solution from the companion book Exercises in classical ring theory



    enter image description here



    As you can see, the additional hypothesis that $X$ be compact and Hausdorff was used in the proof to appeal to the classification of maximal ideals of $C(X,mathbb R)$. The theorem in question says that the maximal ideals are exactly of the form $M_c={fmid f(c)=0}$.



    It looks like in this case, the author simply did not notice the elementary proof you have given above (that Hausdorff+connected+VNR implies field.)



    Not sure exactly what the precise wording of the edition you're looking at is, but my guess is that it is aimed at using this same path to a solution.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jan 14 at 19:05

























    answered Jan 14 at 18:25









    rschwiebrschwieb

    108k12105253




    108k12105253












    • $begingroup$
      No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:35










    • $begingroup$
      @J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 18:50












    • $begingroup$
      No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:52










    • $begingroup$
      @J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 18:53










    • $begingroup$
      Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:54


















    • $begingroup$
      No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:35










    • $begingroup$
      @J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 18:50












    • $begingroup$
      No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:52










    • $begingroup$
      @J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 18:53










    • $begingroup$
      Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
      $endgroup$
      – J.Bosser
      Jan 14 at 18:54
















    $begingroup$
    No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:35




    $begingroup$
    No, not really. It was an exercise from the book 'A first course in non-commutative ring theory' by T.Y. Lam.
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:35












    $begingroup$
    @J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 18:50






    $begingroup$
    @J.Bosser Is it part of a family of exercises? It really does seem to be this elementary to prove this particular part of the statement.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 18:50














    $begingroup$
    No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:52




    $begingroup$
    No, the exercise was independent from the other exercises
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:52












    $begingroup$
    @J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 18:53




    $begingroup$
    @J.Bosser Can you tell me the section/problem number actually?
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 18:53












    $begingroup$
    Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:54




    $begingroup$
    Chapter 4 on the Jacobson Radical, exercise 13.
    $endgroup$
    – J.Bosser
    Jan 14 at 18:54











    2












    $begingroup$

    It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        It is indeed a standard topological fact that $X$ connected implies that $C(X)$ only has two-idempotents, and you've basically given the standard proof for it. It's part of exercise 1B in Gilman and Jerrison's classic "Rings of continuous functions". Compactness nor Hausdorffness are needed. Nor is $|X|>1$ needed: if $X$ is a singleton, then $C(X) simeq mathbb{R}$ and it's also true. Only connectedness matters.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 15 at 6:00

























        answered Jan 14 at 22:58









        Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma

        117k350128




        117k350128






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073504%2fdo-we-really-need-x-to-be-compact-hausdorff%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bressuire

            Cabo Verde

            Gyllenstierna