Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Topology, Chapter 2 , Section 19

Mason Keller
1.(Theorem 19.2) In order to prove Theorem 19.2, one can use the results of Lemma 13.3
to show that the topology generated by the basis given in Theorem 19.2 (called the basis-
basis B
b
) is the same as the topology generated by the basis given in Theorem 19.1 (called
the open set-basis B
U
).
Now, let x be a point in

J
X

with the box topology. Let B


b
be some element of B
b
that
contains x. We desire to construct B
U
in B
U
that contains x and is a subset of B
b
. Note
that B
b
and B
U
are products over , so for the subset relation to hold, it must hold in each
coordinate. That is to say, that it must be that

(B
U
)

(B
b
) for all J. Further,
recall that both

(B
U
) and

(B
b
) are sets in the same topology (X

). Since basis elements


are open in the topology they generate and since

(B
b
) is a basis for X

, a valid choice for

(B
U
) is

(B
b
), which as per the previous argument makes the relation x B
U
B
b
hold
for any B
b
containing some x.
To prove the other inclusion, one proceeds as before but instead of choosing

(B
U
) =

(B
b
),
one chooses

(B
b
) to be one of the basis elements that makes up

(B
U
) and contains x.
Such a basis element is guaranteed to exist, since the topology on X

is generated by the
basis of which

(B
b
) is an element of. This choice, then, satises the relation x B
b
B
U
for any B
U
containing some x.
Because these two relations hold, the bases generate equivalent topologies.
Now, to prove Theorem 19.2s results for the product topology, one can realize that all
the sets in these two bases are also elements of the basis for the box topology, and so the
construction proceeds in the exact same way. If one is not so clever, one can write out some
extraneous proof as such:
Let us use the notation of the previous argument and show that the relation x B
U
B
b
holds for any B
b
containing some x. As stated, the argument above holds for nitely many

. Let us consider for which it does not. This means that

(B
b
) = X

, which sug-
gests that a suitable choice for

(B
U
) is X

itself. To proceed in the other direction (the


x B
b
B
U
direction), for any non-special , one notes that

(B
U
) = X

. Conse-
quently a choice for

(B
b
) is any basis element in X

that contains x.
2. (Theorem 19.3) It should be clear that the box topology on just

diers at most
from the subspace topology it inherits from

in that, in the subspace topology, U

has to be open for all U T. However, each U can be written as the union of products
of open sets in each . This implies that the subspace topology inherited from

has
that ( J)(

(U) A

is open in A

. A

, however, has the subspace topology put on


it in either instance, so this set is open in both cases. Since what could dier does not, the
topologies on

are equivalent in the box topology. Because the box topology is ner
than the product, the theorem also holds for the product topology.
1
3.(Theorem 19.4) Let X

be a set of Hausdor topologies for J. Then, let

J
X

have the box topology put on it. Next, let x


1
and x
2
be arbitrary distinct points in this
product. This implies that

(x
1
)! =

(x
2
) for at least one J. Let choose on of these
particular for which they dier, and denote it as i. Now,
i
(x
1
) and
i
(x
2
) are distinct
points in X
i
, which is by hypothesis Hausdor. This means there are disjoint neighborhoods
of each point. Now, basis elements in the product space, which are indeed open sets in the
product space, have the form

J
U

. Note that two of these products are disjoint if any


two U

are disjoint. I choose as a neighborhood of x


1

J<i
X

D
1


J>i
X

where
D
1
is the disjoint neighborhood of
i
(x
1
) that exists by hypothesis. Similarly, i choose as a
neighborhood of x
2

J<i
X

D
2


J>i
X

where D
2
is the neighborhood of
i
(x
2
)
that is disjoint to
i
(x
1
). These two neighborhoods are disjoint, and have been constructed
for arbitrary distinct points x
1
and x
2
. This proves that the box topological product space is
Hausdor if the coordinate spaces are Hausdor. The result holds in the product topology
because it is coarser than the box topology.
5. (Theorem 19.6) (metaproof) In example two, Munkres gives an example of a function
for which each coordinate-function is continuous, but the function itself is not. This means
that coordinate-function continuity does not imply function continuity in the box topology.
By the language of problem ve, this implies that the other implication, namely that func-
tion continuity implies coordinate-function continuity, must hold in the box topology.
6.(Coordinate convergence is logically equivalent to point convergence) First, I choose to
answer the question in the box topology rst. Let us consider R

. Let
n
R

(
n
) = 1/n
for all Z
+
. Clearly each coordinate of this series converges to 0. However, note that

iZ
+
U
i
, U
i
= (

i
,

i
) is a neighborhood of the 0 vector that the coordinates would imply

n
converges to. If it were that
n
did converge to this point, then we would have some n
such that
1
n
(

i
,

i
)i, however, as i approaches innity, the set is 0, and there is no n
such that
1
n
{0}.
Let us consider the product topology on

J
X

, and the statement that point convergence


implies coordinatewise convergence. Let
n
be a series of points that converges. Let
end
be
an element of the set of convergence points. Now, for any neighborhood U of
end
, there is
some N such that (n > N)(
n
U). This neighborhood U, however, can be expressed in
the form of a basis element from the basis given in theorem 19.2 (due to the denition of ba-
sis). Let this suitable basis element be denoted by B, and recall that its form is

J
B

such
that B

is a basis element from X

, and that nitely many of these B


i
are dierent from X
i
.
For the point
n
to be an element of this set means that

(
n
)

J
B

) = B

. Now, all

n
after some arbitrary N, by hypothesis, lay in this basis element (it is a neighborhood about
the supposed convergence point
end
). This implies that ( J)(n > N)(

(
n
) B

).
2
Each (

(
n
) is a series of points in the topology X

. Because of how we came to B

(that
is, by U), a dierent choice of U could generate any and all B

, each with an N such that


(n > N)(

(
n
) B

). Open sets in X

can be composed of basis elements, so that the


truth of the above proposition is a sucient proof that each coordinate series converges
in the same way that that the entire series does.
Now, for all J, let
,n
denote some series in

J
X

). Further, let each of these

,n
converge to at least some
,end
. We desire to show that

,end
=
end
is a conver-
gence point of

,n
=
n
. Equivalently, we wish to construct some N for an arbitrary
open set U about
end
in the product space such that for all (n > N)
n
U. Any U can
be expressed as the union of basis elements of the form

J
U

where U

and only for


nitely many does U

dier from X

. Any N that works for this basis element works for


U, since it is, by denition, a subset of U. Now, let I be the necessarily nite set (product
topology) of J such that U

! = X

. However, these U

are still neighborhoods about

,end
. This coordinate series, by denition has some N

for which it does not escape this


particular U

. For each coordinate in I, we have a particular N


i
. I assert that N = max(N
i
)
is a valid choice for the entire series
n
. Further, I assert that this maximum must exist
because the set of N
i
is nite. Clearly it works for all I. For the other coordinates
though, since they are the whole X

, N = 0 is a choice. Note that the if N works, any


integer greater than N also works. So N = max(N
i
) is a valid choice for all J, which
completes the proof that coordinate-wise convergence implies series convergence.
Because these two implications hold in the product topology, it true that a series converges
if and only if its coordinate series converge.
3