SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.38 número1La independencia de una versión débil de la conjetura del espacio normal de MooreLa traza de Dixmier y el residuo de Wodzicki para operadores pseudodifferenciales globales sobre variedades compactas índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Revista Integración

versión impresa ISSN 0120-419Xversión On-line ISSN 2145-8472

Integración - UIS vol.38 no.1 Bucaramanga ene./jun. 2020  Epub 27-Feb-2020

https://doi.org/10.18273/revint.v38n1-2020005 

Artículos originales

On the property of Kelley for Hausdorff continua

La propiedad de Kelley para continuos de Hausdorff

Mauricio Chacón-Tirado1 

María de J. López1   

1Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Facultad de Ciencias Físico Matemáticas, Puebla, México.


Abstract

We introduce the concepts Hausdorff maximal limit continuum and Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum, for Hausdorff continua; these definitions extend the concepts of maximal limit continuum and strong maximal limit continuum, respectiveley, introduced by J. J. Charatonik and W. J. Charatonik in 1998 for metric continua [1, Definitions 2.2 and 2.3]. We show that in metric continua, being a maximal limit continuum is equivalent to being a Hausdorff maximal limit continuum. We also show that in metric continua, being a strong maximal limit continuum implies being a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum. Finally, we show an equivalence of having the property of Kelley, in terms of these new definitions, whose analog version for metric continua was given by J. J. Charatonik and W. J. Charatonik.

MSC2010: 54B20, 54F15, 54F65.

Keywords: Continuum; hyperspace; maximal limit continuum; property of Kelley; strong maximal limit continuum.

Resumen.

Introducimos los conceptos de continuo límite maximal de Hausdorff y continuo límite maximal fuerte de Hausdorff, para continuos de Hausdorff; estos conceptos extienden los ya definidos para continuos métricos: continuo límite maximal y continuo límite maximal fuerte, los cuales fueron dados por J. J. Charatonik y W. J. Charatonik en 1998 [1, Definitions 2.2 and 2.3]. Mostramos que en los continuos métricos el ser continuo límite maximal es equivalente a ser continuo límite maximal de Hausdorff. Probamos que en los continuos métricos todo continuo límite maximal fuerte es un continuo límite maximal fuerte de Hausdorff. Por último, mostramos una equivalencia para que un continuo de Huasdorff tenga la propiedad de Kelley en términos de estos nuevos conceptos, cuya versión análoga para continuos métricos fue dada por J. J. Charatonik y W. J. Charatonik.

Palabras clave: Continuo; continuo límite maximal; continuo límite maximal fuerte; hiperespacio; propiedad de Kelley.

1. Introduction

A continuum is a compact, connected Hausdorff space with more than one point. A metric continuum is a continuum with a metric d that generates its topology.

The property of Kelley for metric continua was introduced by J. L. Kelley as property 3.2 in [4, p. 26]; he used it to study the contractibility of hyperspaces (see [13, Chapter XVI] and [3, pp. 167-172]). In 1999, W. J. Charatonik [2, Definition 2.1] and W. Makuchowski [9, p. 124] extended the property of Kelley for continua; in particular, Charatonik shows an example of a homogeneous continuum that does not have the property of Kelley, and Makuchowski uses the property of Kelley to show that several definitions of local connectivity are equivalent in the hyperspace C(X) of a continuum X having the property of Kelley. Concerning the generalization of some properties of metric continua to continua, S. Macías studied the property of Kelley for continua and introduces the uniform Effros property [6, p. 60]. In [7] and [8], the author proved that several properties of Jones’ set function T , valid for metric continua, hold for continua as well.

In 1998, J. J. Charatonik and W. J. Charatonik defined the concepts of maximal limit continuum and strong maximal limit continuum, for metric continua [1, Definitions 3.2 and 3.3]; the authors used those definitions to show several properties of continua having the property of Kelley, and to show that some properties are equivalent to the property of Kelley. In this paper we extend the metric concepts of maximal limit continuum and strong maximal limit continuum, to continua, which we call Hausdorff maximal limit continuum and Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum, respectively. We show that in metric continua, the definition of maximal limit continuum is equivalent to the definition of Hausdorff maximal limit continuum (Theorem 4.8), and the definition of strong maximal limit continuum is stronger that the definition of Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum (Proposition 4.13). To end the paper, we show that the equivalences of [1, Theorem 3.11] still hold under these new extensions (Theorem 4.19).

2. Preliminaries

Given a continuum X, we consider the collection of all nonempty closed subsets of X, which is denoted by 2 X ; in other words,

topologized with the Vietoris topology, which can be described as follows: for each n ∈ N and each finite collection U 1 ,...,U n of open subsets of X, we define

The collection of all sets of the form hU 1 ,...,U n i, is a basis for a topology for 2 X , which is called the Vietoris topology [11, Definition 1.7]. The set 2 X , endowed with the Vietoris topology, is called hyperspace of closed subsets of X. Also, we consider the collection of all subcontinua of X, denoted and defined by

as a subspace of 2 X . The collection C(X) is called the hyperspace of subcontinua of X. It is known that if X is a continuum, then 2 X and C(X) are also continua [11, Theorems

4.9 and 4.10]. In this way, given a continuum X, we have that

and

are also continua.

If X is a topological space, given a subset A of X, the interior of A is denoted by int(A) and the closure of A by cl(A). Given A,BC(X) with AB, we consider the collection

Remark 2.1. If A and B are subcontinua of X and AB, then C(A,B) is a nonempty connected closed subset of C(X); in other words, C(A,B) is an element of C(C(X)).

Proof. Let LC(X)−C(A,B). We have that LB ≠ ∅ or AL ≠ ∅. If LB ≠ ∅, then there exists xLB. Consider an open subset U of X such that xU and UB = ∅. Therefore, L ∈ hU,Xi and hU,Xi ∩ C(A,B) = ∅. Now, if AL ≠ ∅, then there exists aAL. Consider an open subset V of X such that aV and cl(V ) ∩ L = ∅. Notice that L ∈ hXcl(V )i. Let L ∈ hXcl(V )i; then a /L , consequently A * L . It follows that L / C(A,B). Now, the proof that the hyperspace C(X) is arcwise connected, by McWaters [10, Theorem, p. 1209] contains a proof that sets of the form C(A,B) are connected.

Let X be a continuum and A ⊂ 2 X ; we denote SA = {xX: there exists A ∈ A such that xA}.

Now, if X is a metric continuum, the hyperspace 2 X is also considered with the Hausdorff metric, which we denote by H. It is known that the Hausdorff metric of 2 X generates the Vietoris topology [13, (0.13) Theorem]. Given r > 0, xX and A ∈ 2 X , let B(r,x) be the open ball in X with center x and radius r and let B H (r,A) be the open ball in 2 X with center A and radius r; also, let N d (r,A) = S{B(r,x) : xA}.

Given a function between spaces X and Y , f: XY , AX, and BY , let f[A] = {f(a) : aA} the image of A under f, and f −1[B] = {xX: f(x) ∈ B}, the inverse image of B under f.

3. Limit superior of nets in 2 X

A directed set is a pair (D,≤), where D is a nonempty set and ≤ is a partial order in D, such that for each a,bD, there exists cD such that ac and bc. A net in X is a function f: DX, where D is a directed set; we also denote a net f by {x d } d D , where x d = f(d), for each dD.

We recall that a net {x d } d D in X converges to a point xX, if for each open subset U of X with xU, there exists nD such that if mD and nm, then x m U.

Given a continuum X, if {A d } d D is a net in 2 X , we define the limit superior of {A d } d D as follows:

limsup{A d } d D = {xX: for each open subset U of X with xU and for each dD, there exists mD such that md and UA m ≠ ∅}.

The limit superior of a net in 2 X was first considered by Mrówka [12, p. 237]. We present two properties of the limit superior that will be used in this paper.

Lemma 3.1 ([12, 4., p. 238]). Let X be a continuum and let {A d } d D be a net in 2 X . Then limsup{A d } d D is an element of 2 X .

Lemma 3.2. Let X be a continuum and let {A d } d D be a net in C(X) converging to AC(X). Then A ∈ limsup{C(A d ,X)} d D .

Proof. Let U be an open subset of C(X) such that A ∈ U. Since {A d } d D converges to A, there exists nD such that for each mD, if nm, then A m ∈ U. Let sD and choose mD such that sm and nm; then A m ∈ U and A m C(A m ,X), hence U ∩ C(A m ,X) ≠ ∅. We have proved that A ∈ limsup{C(A d ,X)} d D .

4. Main results

In 1942, J. L. Kelley introduced the concept of property of Kelley for metric continua, originally called property 3.2 [4, p. 26]:

Definition 4.1. Let X be a metric continuum with metric d. We say that X has the property of Kelley if for each ε > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that for any p,qX, if d(p,q) < δ, then for each KC({p},X), there exists LC({q},X) such that H(K,L) < ε.

Let us recall that H is the Hausdorff metric of the hyperspaces 2 X and C(X); for A ∈ 2 X and r > 0, B H (r,A) is the open ball in 2 X of radius r and center A.

In 1999, W. J. Charatonik [2, Definition 2.1] and W. Makuchowski [9, p. 124] introduced independently the concept of property of Kelley for continua, as follows:

Definition 4.2. Let X be a continuum and pX. We say that X has the property of Kelley at p, if for each KC({p},X) and for each open subset U of C(X) with K ∈ U, there exists an open subset U of X with pU such that if qU, then there exists LC({q},X) ∩ U. We say that X has the property of Kelley if it has the property of Kelley at each of its points.

In [14, p. 292] the author says that the property of Kelley and the pointwise version of property of Kelley are equivalent for metric continua. Since it is clear that the pointwise version of the property of Kelley on [14, p. 292] is equivalent to the pointwise version of the property of Kelley given in Definition 4.2, we have that Definition 4.2 is equivalent to Definition 4.1.

In the following theorem we summarize two characterizations of continua having the property of Kelley. The equivalence of (1) and (3) was proved by Wardle for metric continua in [14, (2.2) THEOREM], and Charatonik mentions without proof that the result is valid for continua [2, Proposition 2.3]; Makuchowski proved the equivalence of (1) and (2) [9, Theorem 11]. For the convenience of the reader, we prove (2) ⇒ (3) and (3) ⇒ (1) .

Theorem 4.3. Let X be a continuum. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

(1) X has the property of Kelley.

(2) For each open subset U of C(X), it holds that SU is an open subset of X.

(3) The function f: X → 2 C(X) , defined by f(p) = C({p},X) for each pX, is continuous.

Proof. In this proof, since we consider the hyperspaces 2 X and 2 C(X) , we will use the notation h·i2 C (X) to denote the basic open sets of the Vietoris topology in 2 C(X) .

We prove that (2)⇒(3). Let U be an open subset of 2 C(X) and let pf −1[U]. Notice that C({p},X) = f(p) ∈ U. Thus there are open subsets, U1 ,...,U n , of C(X) such that C({p},X) ∈ hU1 ,...,U n i2 C (X) ⊂ U. By (2), for each i ∈ {1,...,n} we have that SU i is an open subset of X. Since C({p},X) ∩ U i ≠ ∅, for each i ∈ {1,...,n}, there exists AC({p},X) ∩ U i ; since pA ∈ U i , we have that p ∈ SU i , for each i ∈ {1,...,n}.

Let W = U1 ∪···∪U n and define V = {vX: C({v},X) ⊂ W}. We will show that V is a neighborhood of p in X. In order to prove this assertion, first we prove that

Notice that C({p},X) ⊂ W. If AC(X) and A /C({p},X), then we choose two disjoint nonempty open subsets U and V of X such that AU and pV . Then A ∈ hUi ∩ C(X) and pVint(XU), and thus (1) follows.

On the other hand, by compactness of C(X), there exist k ∈ ℕ and U 1 ,...,U k open subsets of X such that pint(XU i ) for each i ∈ {1,...,k} and

Notice that . Let ; notice that if B ∈ hU i i, then vU i ; therefore , and B ∈ W. We have proved that C({v},X) ⊂ W for each , then V is a neighborhood of p.

Now, let . We have that V is a neighborhood of p. We consider a point vV , and we will prove that f(v) ∈ hU1 ,...,U n i2 C (X) . Notice that vVV , therefore, , then . Hence, there exists D ∈ U i such that v ∈ D ∈ U i . This implies that DC({v},X) ∩ U i ≠ ∅. Thus, f(v) = C({v},X) ∈ (U1 ,...,U n )2 C(X) ⊂ 𝔘, therefore f(v) ∈ 𝔘. We obtained that f −1[𝔘] is an open subset of X, and this ends the implication (2)⇒(3).

We see that (3)⇒(1). Let pX, let KC({p},X) and let U be an open subset of C(X) such that K ∈ U. Notice that C({p},X) ∈ (U,C(X))2 C(X) , because C({p},X) ⊂ U ∪ C(X) = C(X), C({p},X) ∩ U ≠ ∅ and C({p},X) ∩ C(X) = C({p},X) ≠ ∅. Let U = f −1[hU,C(X)i2 C (X) ]; we have that U is an open subset of X and pU. Let qU, then f(q) ∈ hU,C(X)i2 C (X) , hence f(q) = C({q},X) and C({q},X)∩U ≠ ∅. Let LC({q},X)∩ U, then qL and L ∈ U. Therefore, X has the property of Kelley.

In 1998, J. J. Charatonik and W. J. Charatonik introduced the following definition for metric continua [1, Definition 3.2.]:

Definition 4.4. Let K be a subcontinuum of a metric continuum X. A subcontinuum MK is called a maximal limit continuum in K provided that there is a sequence {M n } n N of subcontinua of X, converging to M, such that for each sequence {M n } n N of subcontinua of X with M n M n for each n ∈ N, if {M n } n N converges to some M C(K), then M = M.

For U ⊂ C(X), we define the collection

We extend the concept maximal limit continuum for continua as follows:

Definition 4.5. Let K be a subcontinuum of a continuum X. A subcontinuum MK is called Hausdorff maximal limit continuum in K provided that for each subcontinuum LX with M ( LK there is an open subset U of C(X) such that L ∈ U and the collection F(U) is not neighborhood of M.

Remark 4.6. Let K be a subcontinuum of a continuum X. If MK is a Hausdorff maximal limit continuum in K, then for each subcontinuum LX with M ( LK there exists an open subset U of C(X) such that L ∈ U, and for each neighborhood V ⊂ C(X) of M there exists B ∈ V such that C(B,X) ∩ U = ∅.

Proof. Let L be a subcontinuum of X such that . By hypothesis, there is an open subset U of C(X) such that L ∈ U and the collection F(U) is not a neighborhood of M. Now, let V ⊂ C(X) be a neighborhood of M. Since F(U) is not neighborhood of M, we obtain that . Hence, there exists B ∈ V such that C(B,X)∩U = ∅.

The following lemma follows from the definition.

Lemma 4.7. Let K be a subcontinuum of a continuum X. Then K is a Hausdorff maximal limit continuum in K.

We are going to prove that in metric continua Definitions 4.4 and 4.5 are equivalent:

Theorem 4.8. Let X be a metric continuum, KC(X) and MC(K). Then the following statements are equivalent:

(1) M is a maximal limit continuum in K.

M is a Hausdorff maximal limit continuum in K.

Proof. We prove that (1)⇒(2). Assume that X is a metric continuum that satisfies (1) but does not satisfy (2). Let {M n } n N be the sequence converging to M, given by (1). Since X does not satisfy (2), there exists LC(X) such that M ( LK and for each k ∈ ℕ, we have that the set is a neighborhood of M. Since {M n } n converges to M, for each k ∈ ℕ there exists n k ∈ N such that for every nn k , we have that . We can assume that the sequence {n k } k N is strictly increasing. Let n ∈ N with nn 1, let k ∈ N such that n k n < n k+1 ; thus we obtain that , therefore ; choose M n C(M n ,X) ∩ B H ( k 1 ,L). Then the sequence converges to LK and LM, which is a contradiction.

We prove that (2)⇒(1). For each LC(M,K) − {M}, let U L be an open subset of C(X) such that L ∈ U L and F(U L ) is not neighborhood of M. Since C(M,K) is a compact metric space, let {U i : i ∈ ℕ} be a countable subcover of the cover {U L : LC(M,K) − {M}} of the space C(M,K) − {M}. We can choose a sequence {M n } n N in C(X) such that H(M,M n ) ≤ 1 n , for each n ∈ ℕ, and satisfying the following properties: M1 ∉ F(U1), M2 ∉ F(U2), M3 ∉ F(U1), M4 ∉ F(U2), M5 ∉F(U3), M6 ∉ F(U1), M7 ∉ F(U2), M8 ∉F(U3), M9 ∉ F(U4), and so on inductively. We consider a sequence {M n } n in C(X) convergent to some M ∈ C(K) and such that M n ⊂ M n , for each n ∈ N; hence, M ⊂ M. Assume that M ≠ M , then there exists k ∈ N such that M ∈ U k , and choose a subsequence of the sequence {M n } n such that M nj ∈/ F(U k ), for each j ∈ ℕ. So, for each j ∈ ℕ, we have that C(M nj ,X) ∩ U k = ∅, then . Since C(X) − U k is a closed subset of C(X), we have that M ∈ C(X) − U k , which is a contradiction. We conclude that M = M′ ‘.

In 1998, J. J. Charatonik and W. J. Charatonik introduced the following definition for metric continua [1, Definition 3.3.]:

Definition 4.9. Let K be a subcontinuum of a metric continuum X. A continuum M ⊂ K is called a strong maximal limit continuum in K provided that there is a sequence {M n } n N of subcontinua of X converging to M, such that for each subsequence {M nk } k N of {M n } n and for each sequence {M k } k N of subcontinua of X with M nk ⊂ M k for each k ∈ ℕ, if {M k } k converges to some M′’ ∈ C(K), then M′´’ = M.

For M,U ⊂ C(X), we define the collection

Concerning the definition of strong maximal limit continuum, we propose the following concept:

Definition 4.10. Let K be a subcontinuum of a continuum X. A subcontinuum M ⊂ K is called Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K provided that for each open subset M of C(X) such that M ∈ M, there exists an open subset U of C(X) such that C(M,K) ⊂ U and the collection G(M,U) is not neighborhood of M.

Remark 4.11. Let K be a subcontinuum of a continuum X. If M ⊂ K is a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K, then for each open subset M of C(X) such that M ∈ M, there exists an open subset U of C(X) such that C(M,K) ⊂ U, and for each neighborhood V of M in C(X) there exists B ∈ V such that C(B,X)∩U∩(C(X)−M) = ∅, equivalently C(B,X) ∩ U ⊂ M.

Proof. Let M be an open subset of C(X) such that M ∈ M. By hypothesis, there is an open subset U of C(X) such that C(M,K) ⊂ U and the collection G(M,U) is not a neighborhood of M. Let V be a neighborhood of M in C(X). Since G(M,U) is not a neighborhood of M, we obtain that V * G(M,U). Hence, there exists B ∈ V such that C(B,X) ∩ U ⊂ M.

Lemma 4.12. Let K be a subcontinuum of a continuum X. Then K is a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K.

Proof. Let M be an open subset of C(X) such that K ∈ M. Since C(K,K) = {K} ⊂ M, we consider U = M. Notice that G(M,U) = {B ∈ C(X) : C(B,X)∩U ∩(C(X)−M) ≠ ∅} = ∅, which is not a neighborhood of K.

We show that a strong maximal limit continuum is also a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum.

Proposition 4.13. Let X be a metric continuum, K ∈ C(X) and M ∈ C(K). If M is a strong maximal limit continuum in K, then M is a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K.

Proof. Let d be a metric on X, and let H be the Hausdorff metric on C(X). Let {M n } n N be a sequence that witnesses that M is a strong maximal limit continuum in K. We consider an open subset M of C(X) such that M ∈ M. Suppose that for each open subset U of C(X) such that C(M,K) ⊂ U, we have that the collection G(M,U) is a neighborhood of M. Now, for each . k ∈ ℕ, let Uk = NH( 1 𝑘 , C(M,K)) Notice that C(M,K) ⊂ U k , then the collection G(M,U k ) is a neighborhood of M. Inductively we can define a subsequence {M nk } k such that M nk ∈ G(M,U k ), for each k ∈ N, hence C(M nk ,X) ∩ U k ∩ (C(X) − M) ≠ ∅. Consider an element M k ∈ C(M nk ,X) ∩ U k ∩ (C(X) − M), for each k ∈ N. Taking a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that {M k } k N converges to an element M ∈ C(X). For each k ∈ N, notice that M k ∈ U k and M k ∈ C(X)−M, then M ∈ C(M,K) and M ∈ C(X)−M, therefore M’ ≠ M, which contradicts the choice of the sequence {M n } n N.

Question 4.14. Let X be a metric continuum, K ∈ C(X) and M ∈ C(K), such that M is a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K. Is it true that M is a strong maximal limit continuum in K?

Proposition 4.15. Let X be a continuum, let K be a subcontinuum of X, let {A d } d D be a net in C(X) converging to A ∈ C(K) and let M be a maximal element in C(K)∩limsup{C(A d ,X)} d D (with respect to inclusion). Then M is a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K.

Proof. Assume that M is not a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K. Then there exists an open subset M of C(X) with M ∈ M such that for each open subset U of C(X) with C(M,K) ⊂ U, the collection G(M,U) is a neighborhood of M. For each L ∈ C(M,K) − M we have that M ( L, and by maximality of M, we obtain that L /∈ limsup{C(A d ,X)} d D . Thus there exists an open subset V L of C(X) such that L ∈ V L , and exists d L ∈ D such that if m ≥ d L , then V L ∩ C(A m ,X) = ∅. By compactness of C(M,K) − M we obtain a finite subcover, {V1,V2,...,V i }, for some i ∈ N, of {V L : L ∈ C(M,K) − M} which covers C(M,K) − M, and for each V j , there exists an element d j ∈ D such that if m ≥ d j , then V dj ∩ C(A m ,X) = ∅. We consider

which is an open subset of C(X) and C(M,K) ⊂ U. Therefore, G(M,U) is a neighborhood of M. Since M ∈ limsup{C(A d ,X)} d D , for each d ∈ D there exists m ∈ D such that m ≥ d and G(M,U) ∩ C(A m ,X) ≠ ∅. Choose n ∈ D such that n ≥ d j , for each j ∈ {1,2,...,i}, and m ≥ n such that G(M,U) ∩ C(A m ,X) ≠ ∅. Consider B ∈ G(M,U) ∩ C(A m ,X). Notice that A m ⊂ B and C(B,X) ∩ U ∩ (C(X) − M) ≠ ∅. Since C(B,X) ⊂ C(A m ,X), then C(A m ,X) ∩ U ∩ (C(X) − M) ≠ ∅. Notice that C(A m ,X)∩V j = ∅, for each j ∈ {1,2,...,i}, thus C(A m ,X)∩U = C(A m ,X)∩M, and ∅ ≠ C(A m ,X)∩ U ∩ (C(X) − M) = C(A m ,X) ∩ M ∩ (C(X) − M) = ∅, which is a contradiction. This ends the proof that M is a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K.

We will prove that Theorem 3.11 of [1] is still valid under these new definitions. We start with two lemmas.

Lemma 4.16. Let X be a continuum with the property of Kelley, K ∈ C(X) and M ∈ C(K). If M ≠ K, then M is not a Hausdorff maximal limit continuum in K.

Proof. Suppose that a continuum X has the property of Kelley, K ∈ C(X) and M ∈ C(K) such that M is a Hausdorff maximal limit continuum in K and M ≠ K. For L = K, by Remark 4.6 there exists an open subset U of C(X) with L ∈ U such that for each neighborhood V of M in C(X) there exists B ∈ V such that C(B,X) ∩ U = ∅. Consider U1,...,U n open subsets of X such that L ∈ hU1,...,U n i ∩ C(X) ⊂ U. Let

By Theorem 4.3, we have that U is an open subset of X; consequently L ∈ hUi ∩ C(X), since M ⊂ L; then M ⊂ U. Let V = hUi ∩ C(X); then there exists B ∈ V such that C(B,X) ∩ U = ∅. Let D ∈ V, choose a point d ∈ D ⊂ U, then there exists J ∈ hU1,...,U n i∩C(X) such that d ∈ J. Since D∪J ⊂ U1∪···∪U n and (D∪J)∩U i ≠ ∅, for each i ∈ {1,...,n}. It follows that D ∪ J ∈ hU1,...,U n i ∩ C(X) ⊂ U. Notice that D ∪ J ∈ C(D,X). Therefore, C(D,X) ∩ U ≠ ∅, which is a contradiction.

Lemma 4.17. Let K be a subcontinuum of a continuum X and let M be a subcontinuum of K. If M is a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K, then M is a Hausdorff maximal limit continuum in K.

Proof. Let L ∈ C(M,K) with L ≠ M. Consider disjoint nonempty open subsets M1 and M2 of C(X) such that M ∈ M1 and L ∈ M2. By hypothesis, there exists an open subset U of C(X) such that C(M,K) ⊂ U and the set G(M1,U) is not a neighborhood of M.

Let U = U ∩ M2. We will show that the set F(U) is not a neighborhood of M, first we prove that:

Indeed, let B ∈ F(U); then B ∈ C(X) and C(B,X)∩U ≠ ∅, equivalently C(B,X)∩U ∩ M2 ≠ ∅, hence C(B,X)∩U ∩(C(X)−M1) ≠ ∅. We have proved that B ∈ G(M1,U). Thus (2) follows. Since G(M1,U) is not a neighborhood of M, then F(U) is not a neighborhood of M.

Corollary 4.18. Let X be a continuum with the property of Kelley, K ∈ C(X) and M ∈ C(K). If M ≠ K, then M is not a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K.

To conclude this paper, we prove that Theorem 3.11 of [1] is still valid under these new definitions.

Theorem 4.19. Let X be a continuum; then, the following statements are equivalent:

(1) X has the property of Kelley.

(2) For each subcontinuum K of X, the only Hausdorff maximal limit continuum in K is K itself.

(3) For each subcontinuum K of X, the only Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K is K itself.

Proof. By Lemma 4.7 and Lemma 4.16, we have that (1)⇒(2).

By Lemma 4.12 and Lemma 4.17, we have that (2)⇒(3).

We prove (3)⇒(1). Consider U an open subset of C(X). By Theorem 4.3, it is sufficient to show that SU is an open subset of X. Asumme that SU is not open, and choose a point p ∈ SU − int(SU). Let

be a directed set, where V1 ≤ V2 if V2 ⊂ V1, for each V1,V2 ∈ D. For each V ∈ D, choose Notice that the net {p V } V ∈D converges p in X and p V ∈/ SU, for each V ∈ D. Let K ∈ U such that p ∈ K. Since the net {{p V }} V ∈D converges to {p} in C(X), by Lemma 3.2 we have that {p} ∈ limsup{C({p V },X)} V ∈D. Therefore C(K)∩ limsup{C({p V },X)} V ∈D ≠ ∅. By the Kuratowski-Zorn Lemma [5, p. 33], there exists M ∈ C(K) ∩ limsup{C({p V },X)} V ∈D maximal with respect to inclusion. By Proposition 4.15, we have that M is a Hausdorff strong maximal limit continuum in K. By (3), we have that M = K. It follows that K ∈ limsup{C({p V },X)} V ∈D; since U is an open subset of C(X) and K ∈ U, then for each R ∈ D, there exists S ∈ D such that S ≥ R and U ∩ C({p S },X) ≠ ∅. Choose B ∈ U ∩ C({p S },X), then p S ∈ B ∈ U. Hence p S ∈ SU, which is a contradiction. We have proved that SU is an open subset of X. This ends the proof of the theorem.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the referees for their valuable observations and comments, which helped improve greatly this paper.

References

1. Charatonik J.J. and Charatonik W. J., "A weaker form of the property of Kelley", Topology Proc. 23 (1998), 69-99. [ Links ]

2. Charatonik W.J., "A homogeneous continuum without the property of Kelley", Topology Appl. 96 (1999), No. 3, 209-216. [ Links ]

3. Illanes A. and Nadler, Jr. S. B., Hyperspaces Fundamentals and Recent Advances. Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Math., Vol. 216, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1999. [ Links ]

4. Kelley J. L., "Hyperspaces of a continuum", Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 52 (1942), 22-36. [ Links ]

5. Kelley J. L., General Topology. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1960. [ Links ]

6. Macías S., "On Jones' set function T and the property of Kelley for Hausdorff continua", Topology Appl. 226 (2017), 51-65. [ Links ]

7. Macías S., "Hausdorff continua and the uniform property of Effros", Topology Appl. 230 (2017), 338-352. [ Links ]

8. Macías S., "The property of Kelley and continua", Rev. Integr. temas mat. 37 (2019), No. 1, 17-29. [ Links ]

9. Makuchowski W., "On local connectedness in hyperspaces", Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. 47 (1999), No. 2, 119-126. [ Links ]

10. McWaters M., "Arcs, semigroups, and hyperspaces", Canadian J. Math. 20 (1968), 1207- 1210. [ Links ]

11. Michael E., "Topologies on spaces of subsets", Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 71 (1951), 152-182. [ Links ]

12. Mrówka S., "On the convergence of nets of sets", Fund. Math. 45 (1958), 237-246. [ Links ]

13. Nadler, Jr. S. B., Hyperspaces of sets. Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Math. Vol. 49, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, Basel, 1978. Reprinted in: Aportaciones Matemáticas de la Sociedad Matemática Mexicana, Serie Textos # 33, 2006. [ Links ]

14. Wardle R., "On a property of J. L. Kelley", Houston J. Math. 3 (1977), No. 2, 291-299. [ Links ]

To cite this article: M. Chacón-Tirado, M. de J. López, On the property of Kelley for Hausdorff continua, Rev. Integr. temas mat. 38 (2020), No. 1, 55-66. doi: 10.18273/revint.v38n1-2020005.

Licencia Creative Commons:

Received: April 19, 2019; Accepted: November 15, 2019

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License