In a general topology exercise the following question is asked:
Is it true that if the topological space $(X,\tau)$ is such that every subset is saturated, then $(X,\tau)$ is a $T_1$- space?
My approach to answering this:
If "every subset is saturated", then $\forall A \subseteq X, \exists B_j \in \tau: A = \bigcap \limits_{j \in J}B_j$, where $J$ is some index set.
A topological space is an $T_1$ - space if every singleton $\{x\}$ with $x \in X$ is closed.
So, because $X\setminus\{x\} \subseteq X$, then we have that $\exists B_j \in \tau: X\setminus\{x\} = \bigcap \limits_{j \in J}B_j$.
Because $\tau$ is a topology on $X$, $\bigcap \limits_{j \in J}B_j \in \tau$, and therefore $X\setminus\{x\} \in \tau$. This means that $\forall x \in X$, $\{x\}$ is closed, this meaning that $(X, \tau)$ is a $T_1$ - space.
I think that this proof only applies to cases where $X$ is a finite set right? Because I used the property that if $B_j \in \tau$, then $\bigcap \limits_{j=1}^nB_j \in \tau$. So $\bigcap \limits_{j \in J}B_j \in \tau$ is only necessarily true if this is a finite intersection. How can I show that the statement is true or false for infinite sets where $\bigcap \limits_{j \in J}B_j$ can represent an infinite intersection?
Equality $ X\setminus\{x\} = \bigcap \limits_{j \in J}B_j$ implies that $B_j= X\setminus\{x\}$ or $B_j=X$ for every $j\in J$ because these are the only subsets of $X$ that contain $ X\setminus\{x\}$ as a subset.
However it cannot be that $B_j=X$ for every $j\in J$ because that would lead to the statement that $ X = \bigcap \limits_{j \in J}B_j$ which contradicts that $ X\setminus\{x\} = \bigcap \limits_{j \in J}B_j$.
So we conclude that $B_{j_0}=X\setminus\{x\}$ for some $j_0\in J$.
Here $B_{j_0}$ is open so $X\setminus\{x\}$ must be open, hence $\{x\}$ must be closed.