## Urysohn's Lemma section in Munkres

### Urysohn's Lemma section in Munkres

I'm going over Munkres's Topology again. Is it just me or are the problems in the Urysohn's Lemma section exceptionally hard? I've gotten less than half on my own while I've been able to get 90% of the other problems otherwise!

### Re: Urysohn's Lemma section in Munkres

I remember the problems getting much more difficult at a certain point in that text, I think it may have been around Urysohn's lemma. I think the problem where you have to prove that R^J is not normal when J is uncountable was tricky for me

### Re: Urysohn's Lemma section in Munkres

Ha. I actually thought that was the easy problem in the chapter! For myself, the questions on G delta sets and perfect normality were particularly painful.

### Re: Urysohn's Lemma section in Munkres

Interesting. I can't remember what I thought was tricky for me about the R^J problem, it is one where they walk you through the proof step by step, right? I think I was confused how he wanted you to do one of the steps. What is the G delta sets problem? Been a year or so since I've looked at that book

### Re: Urysohn's Lemma section in Munkres

For the 1st G delta step problem they want you to show that, in a normal space, for a closed set C there exists a continuous, real-valued function f s.t. f(C)={0} and f(x)>0 when x doesn't belong to C iff C is G delta.l0019 wrote:Interesting. I can't remember what I thought was tricky for me about the R^J problem, it is one where they walk you through the proof step by step, right? I think I was confused how he wanted you to do one of the steps. What is the G delta sets problem? Been a year or so since I've looked at that book

The second one wants you to show that for disjoint closed sets C and D in normal space there exists a continuous, real-valued function f s.t. f(C)={0}, f(D)=1, and 1>f(x)>0 when x doesn't belong to C or D iff C and D are G delta.

The => direction is obviously pretty easy, but the <= is damn hard in my opinion. I had to look online.

Basically, for the first problem, you follow the proof of Urysohn's Lemma but you include an extra trick to control how you build the sets about C that define f. I don't think I could have come up with such a trick on my own without hints! I'm pretty sure you can make a similar argument for the second one, but there's a really easy trick to get by that complex construction. Using the "metric like" properties of the first problem's sorta, kinda pseudo-premetric function you can build the necessary function for sets C and D.

### Re: Urysohn's Lemma section in Munkres

Is this included in the GRE? :O I studied so far only up to Ch3 and am not planning to do the exercises of Sections 28 and 29...

l0019 wrote:I remember the problems getting much more difficult at a certain point in that text, I think it may have been around Urysohn's lemma. I think the problem where you have to prove that R^J is not normal when J is uncountable was tricky for me

### Re: Urysohn's Lemma section in Munkres

There is essentially no topology on the GRE. 2 definitional questions at most.BCLC wrote:Is this included in the GRE? :O I studied so far only up to Ch3 and am not planning to do the exercises of Sections 28 and 29...

l0019 wrote:I remember the problems getting much more difficult at a certain point in that text, I think it may have been around Urysohn's lemma. I think the problem where you have to prove that R^J is not normal when J is uncountable was tricky for me