A topological space $X$ is totally disconnected if all of its components are singletons, and $X$ is said to be totally separated if all of its quasi-components are singletons. The set of rational numbers as well as the Cantor set are both totally disconnected and totally separated. I need an example of a space which is totally disconnected but not totally separated i.e. a space whose components are singletons, but at least one of its quasi-components consist of more than one element.
Totally disconnected but not totally separated
connectednessgeneral-topology
Related Solutions
Let $X=(\omega\times\mathbb{Z})\cup\{p^-,p^+\}$, where $p^-$ and $p^+$ are distinct points not in $\omega\times\mathbb{Z}$. Let $Z_0=\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$. Points of $\omega\times Z_0$ are isolated. For each $n\in\omega$ and finite $F\subseteq Z_0$ let $$B(n,F)=\{n\}\times(Z_0\setminus F)\;,$$ and take $\{B(n,F):F\subseteq Z_0\text{ is finite}\}$ as a local base at $\langle n,0\rangle$. For $n\in\omega$ let $$B^+(n)=\{p^+\}\cup\{\langle i,k\rangle\in\omega\times Z_0:i>n\land k>0\}$$ and $$B^-(n)=\{p^-\}\cup\{\langle i,k\rangle\in\omega\times Z_0:i>n\land k<0\},$$ and take $\{B^+(n):n\in\omega\}$ and $\{B^-(n):n\in\omega\}$ as local bases at $p^+$ and $p^-$, respectively.
It’s easy to check that $X$ is Hausdorff and totally disconnected. However, $p^-$ and $p^+$ do not have open nbhds with disjoint closures: for any $n,m\in\omega$, $$\operatorname{cl}B^-(n)\cap\operatorname{cl}B^+(m)\supseteq\big\{\langle k,0\rangle:k>\max\{n,m\}\big\}\;.$$ It follows immediately that $X$ is neither totally separated nor zero-dimensional.
This is too long to be a comment and is currently only a partial answer.
Following the idea that the existence of an open, totally disconnected set should relate to the connectedness of the space, I read about ways a space can be connected. A locally connected space is one where every point in a open set has a connected, open neighborhood and felt most relevant. I wasn't able to show that being locally connected was a sufficient condition for the lack of an open, totally disconnected set. So, I ended up adding connected back as a requirement (and T1 ended up being helpful during the proof) which led to,
Let $(X,\tau)$ be a locally connected, connected, T1 space that is not the topology on a one point set. Then, $(X, \tau)$ is not weakly disconnected.
Proof:
The proof strategy will be to use proof by contrapositive. Let $(X, \tau)$ be a weakly disconnected space. Let $U$ be an open, non-empty totally disconnected set. Let $(U, \tau_{U})$ be the subspace topology of $U$. As $U$ is totally disconnected and non-empty, its connected components are singletons. Here, we'll split the proof into two cases. Either all of its connected components are open or they there exists a connected component that is not open.
If there exists a connected component that is not open then its connected components are not all open which means it is not locally connected. As locally connected is hereditary for open subspaces, $(X,\tau)$, can not be locally connected.
If there exists a connected component that is open, call that component $A$. As $U$ is totally disconnected, $A$ must be a singleton. Since $U$ is open, any open set in $U$ is also open in $X$. This means $A$ is an open singleton in $X$. As $X$ is a T1 space, singletons are closed making $A$ a clopen set. Since $X$ is not a one point set, $A$ is non-trivial clopen set. This means $(X,\tau)$ is not connected.
In either case, $(X, \tau)$ can not have the three properties of being locally connected, connected, and T1. This completes the proof.
The issue is I'm not sure if those three properties are a necessary condition, so I still lack a nice way of describing all spaces that lack an open, totally disconnected set. While my current proof strategy uses the fact the space is T1, I'm skeptical that there isn't an alternate way to drop that condition.
Best Answer
The standard example of such a space is Cantor's leaky tent. It has a single quasi-component, which is the whole space.