Translating Between Nets And Filters

Saitulaa Naranong

February 11, 2010

1
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

1 Introduction
We assume basic knowledge of topology: open and closed sets, neighborhoods1 , closure, continuous
functions, compactness, product spaces. Many comparisons are made between nets and sequences,
so being familiar with the latter will not go amiss. It is also a good idea (but by no means required)
that you be already familiar with one of: nets, or filters.
In metric spaces, properties such as continuity, closure, and compactness can be stated com-
pletely in terms of sequences. This breaks down in general topological spaces, where sequences
can’t even tell whether a set is closed. In 1922, Moore and Smith discovered a generalization of se-
quences, called “nets”, which are adequate to describe those things. This was followed by Cartan’s
discovery of filters in 1937, which, while they look nothing similar to sequences, can also be used
to describe those concepts.
Despite their sheer dissimilarity, nets are equivalent to filters in terms of results (which include
Tychonoff’s Theorem, purported to be one of the hardest in topology). This essay aims to introduce
nets and filters from the perspective of this equivalence. After all, whatever is provable using nets
ought to be provable via filters, and vice versa - so one might as well establish their equivalence
from the start and prove the easier theorem, whichever it may be. This may be especially valuable
to the reader who is familiar with one, but not both, of the concepts. To the person who has not
heard of either, we hope this provides an interesting perspective.
Remark 2.1. Theorems, Definitions, etc are indexed by page. For example, Theorem 10.2 is the
second item on page 10. Because of the way LATEXworks, indexing may be off by at most one page.

2 Nets
A sequence on the space X is secretly nothing more, or less, than a function from the natural
numbers to X. To see this, think of any sequence on X, say, x1 , x2 , x3 , .... This is exactly the
same as a function x : N → X; merely that instead of writing out x(1), x(2), x(3), ..., etc, we abuse
notation and write x1 , x2 , x3 , ....
So, the obvious way to generalize a sequence would be to change its domain. Why does a
sequence, after all, have to be indexed by the natural numbers; why not the reals, or some other
set? In other words, why can’t we have something like x0.31843895... = x(0.31843895...)? In fact,
we can. The idea of the net does generalize the sequence by doing this exact thing, allowing the
sequence to vary its domain. However, the net does not allow just any domain. It turns out the
set of natural numbers is something called a directed set, which is defined as follows:

Definition 2.2. A preordered or quasiordered set I is a set, along with a relation ≥, that
satisfies:

For all α, β, γ ∈ I,

i. α ≤ α (reflexivity)

ii. If α ≤ β and β ≤ γ then α ≤ γ (transitivity).

For those who are familiar with the partially ordered set (poset), a preordered set is just a
partially ordered set without the antisymmetry requirement (α ≤ β and β ≤ α ⇒ α = β).

Definition 2.3. A directed set is a preordered set I such that, for any α, β ∈ I, there exists
γ ∈ I with γ ≥ α and γ ≥ β.
1
We do not consider all neighborhoods to be open; rather, N is a neighborhood of x iff there exists some open
set U such that x ∈ U ⊂ N . This gives us some desirable results, such as that the superset of a neighborhood is a
neighborhood, without which some theorems would need to be stated less elegantly.

2 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

These are nothing new: you should quickly check that the natural numbers, under it’s usual
≥ ordering, satisfies all the definitions of a directed set. After all, if I give you two numbers, you
should easily be able to find me a number larger than both, etc.
The image of a directed set you should have in your head is that of many “lines” α ≤ α1 ≤
α2 ≤ α3 ≤ ... and β ≤ β1 ≤ β2 ≤ β3 ≤ ... etc. While the order ≤ may not work “between” certain
members of the different “lines” (because it’s not a total order, α may not be comparable to β),
the “lines” are eventually being directed toward each other: there has to be a γ upstream such that
α ≤ γ and β ≤ γ where these two “lines” eventually meet, and this is so for any two “lines”.
This is not a perfect analogy. Because there is no antisymmetry, we could have elements in the
set which are “equivalent” to each other, i.e. α ≤ β and β ≤ α but α 6= β. In the above image,
elements between different lines, or even elements within the same line, could be equivalent to
each other. Ultimately, this does not matter, however, as we are only concerned with the eventual
behavior of the directed set. Eventually, every α and β will meet upstream, and that is the point
of the directed set.
So, while a sequence only has the natural numbers as its domain, the net allows for any directed
set:

Definition 3.1. A net in a topological space X is a function Φ : I → X, for some directed set I.
For any α ∈ I, we denote Φα := Φ(α), akin to sequences.

Following the “upstream” analogy to its conclusion, a net is not all that different from a se-
quence. A net is like a bunch of sequences that must eventually meet each other upstream. This
analogy is not perfect (consider the directed set R under the usual ordering), but in general, the
net’s behavior will eventually resemble that of one single sequence. So you can expect familiar
results.

Example 3.2. We give some examples of directed sets. It is easy to check that the power set P (X)
is a directed set under reverse subset inclusion (i.e. U ≥ V iff U ⊃ V ).
Fix any set A ⊂ X. Then the collection of all sets that contain A as a subset is a directed set
under subset inclusion. Similarly, the collection of neighborhoods Nx at a fixed point x ∈ X is a
directed set.
Defining Φ with any of these as a domain gives a net. In particular, one may want to choose
ΦM ∈ M for every M in the domain.

Convergence with nets is a highly similar idea to convergence with sequences. The following
definitions should look identical to the ones you are used to.

Definition 3.3. Let Φ : I → X be any net, A ⊂ X any set.

i. Φ is eventually in A iff there exists β ∈ I such that α ≥ β ⇒ Φα ∈ A.

ii. Φ is frequently in A iff for every β ∈ I, there exists α ≥ β such that Φα ∈ A.

Relating this to the analogy, a net is eventually in A iff one of its “lines”, or sequences, is
eventually in A. But this means that all of the lines are eventually in A, because any two lines
must eventually meet at some upstream point γ. A similar argument holds for “frequently”.

Definition 3.4. Let Φ be any net in X, x ∈ X.

i. Φ converges to x iff Φ is eventually in every neighborhood of x.

ii. x is a cluster point of Φ iff Φ is frequently in every neighborhood of x.

3 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

3 Filters
The net has a nice “correspondence” (the likes of which we shall shortly see) with another very
similar construct, called the filter. Filters don’t “look like” generalizations of sequences, but in fact,
they are similar in a very natural way. The reason I bring them up before we have even completed
the topic of nets is that, once the correspondence is established, using filters to prove results about
convergence of nets is sometimes (much) easier. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Definition 4.1. A filter is a nonempty collection F of nonempty subsets of X that satisfy:

1. If F1 , F2 ∈ F, then F1 ∩ F2 ∈ F.

2. If F ∈ F and F ⊂ G, then G ∈ F.

In particular, the intersection of two elements is not allowed to be empty. The basic example
of a filter, and probably the image you should keep in mind when thinking of one, is:

Example 4.2. The collection of neighborhoods Nx at a fixed point x ∈ X is a filter. One can
easily check that the intersection of any two neighborhoods of x is also a (nonempty) neighborhood,
and that if F is a neighborhood of x, then any superset of F is also a (nonempty) neighborhood.

The obvious candidate for a “filter F related to a net Φ” is the filter of all sets which Φ
is eventually in. After all, if we know what these sets are, then we know all that is essentially
important about Φ. You should check that the collection of all such sets satisfies the filter axioms.
To formally construct this filter (and this is important, as doing so will allow us to more easily
prove its properties), we need to know how to construct filters from a collection of sets which
“generate it”. Only certain collections work:

Definition 4.3. A filterbase on X is a nonempty collection C of nonempty subsets of X such

that if U1 , U2 ∈ C, there exists U3 ∈ C such that U3 ⊂ U1 ∩ U2 .

Lemma 4.4. If C is a filterbase on a set X, then

F := {F ⊂ X : F ⊃ U for some U ∈ C}

is a filter, called the filter generated by the filterbase C.

Proof. We check F satisfies the conditions of a filter.

1. Let F1 , F2 ∈ F. Then, F1 ⊃ U1 , F2 ⊃ U2 for some U1 , U2 ∈ C. Since C is a filterbase, there

exists U3 ∈ C with U3 ⊂ U1 ∩ U2 . We have F1 ⊃ U3 and F2 ⊃ U3 so certainly, F1 ∩ F2 ⊃ U3 ,
and therefore F1 ∩ F2 ∈ F, as required.

2. Let F ∈ F, F ⊂ G. Then, F ⊃ U for some U ∈ C, so we also have G ⊃ U and thus G ∈ F,

as required.

4 Generating nets and filters

Now, we are ready to show which filter corresponds to the net Φ.

Definition 4.5. Let Φ : I → X be a net. For each α ∈ I, we define the tail following α to be
the set
Tα := {φβ : β ≥ α}

4 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

Definition 4.6. We leave it as an exercise to show the collection of tails {Tα : α ∈ I} is a filterbase
on x. The filter generated by this filterbase is called the filter generated by the net, Φ, and
denoted Filter(Φ).

This makes sense: the tails are essentially the “smallest” sets that Φ will eventually be in,
and generating a filter from these tails (by taking supersets) will give you all the sets that Φ will
eventually be in. Although this idea is simple, it becomes so essential in the following pages that
we prove it here (and we also preemptively display the corresponding idea for nets):

Theorem 5.1. Let Φ : I → X be any net, F be any filter.

(1.) F ∈ Filter(Φ) iff Φ is eventually in F .

(2.) F ∈ F iff Net(F) is eventually in F . (See definition 5.2)

Proof of (1.) ⇒ Let F ∈ Filter(Φ). Then, F is the superset of some tail, Tβ . Clearly, Φ is eventually
in Tβ , as α ≥ β ⇒ α ∈ Tβ . So, Φ is eventually in F .
⇐ Let Φ be eventually in F . Then, there exists β ∈ I such that α ≥ β ⇒ α ∈ F . So, Tβ ⊂ F
and F ∈ Filter(Φ).

Note that more than one net can generate the same filter (this idea becomes important later),
the most obvious example being any sequence, vs. the subsequence missing only the first term. For
now, we go the other way and show how a filter might generate a net.

Definition 5.2. Let F be a filter on a set X. We define the directed set

I := {(x, F ) : x ∈ F ∈ F}

to be preordered by subset inclusion on the second term, i.e. (x, F ) ≥ (y, G) iff F ⊂ G. We define
Φ(x,F ) := x for each (x, F ) ∈ I. Φ : I → X is the net generated by the filter F, and denoted
Net(F).

Although the latter net is by no means the only net that can be constructed from this filter, it
does satisfy a very useful property:

Lemma 5.3. For any filter F,

(1.) The tails of Net(F) are precisely the members of F.

(2.) F = Filter(Net(F))

Proof. Note that (2.) immediately follows from (1.), as the filterbase of Filter(Net(F)) is precisely
the tails of Net(F). We prove (1.). For notation, we define Φ := Net(F) : I → X.
Let (x, F ) ∈ I. [By construction, F ∈ F.] We show T(x,F ) = F . We have (y, G) ≥ (x, F )
iff G ⊂ F , and Φ(y,G) = y by construction. Clearly, Φ(y,G) ∈ F whenever (y, G) ≥ (x, F ), so
T(x,F ) ⊂ F . Now, for any y ∈ F , we have (y, F ) ≥ (x, F ) and therefore Φ(y,F ) = y ∈ T(x,F ) . So,
T(x,F ) = F , and every tail is a member of F.
To see every member of F is a tail, let x ∈ F ∈ F be arbitrary. Then, (x, F ) ∈ I and, by the
above argument, F = T(x,F ) .

The above Lemma is practically equivalent to Theorem 5.1(2.), and we now use it for a quick
proof:

Proof of Theorem 5.1(2.) From Lemma 5.3(2.), F ∈ F iff F ∈ Filter(Net(F)) iff Net(F) is eventu-
ally in F , the latter equivalence by Theorem 5.1(1.).

5 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

5 Convergence and cluster points

We have established how to generate nets from filters, and filters from nets. But nets (and, as it
turns out, filters) are all about convergence and, in order to get interesting results, we must also
show their convergence results correspond to each other. First, we must define convergence on
filters in the first place.
Recall that Nx is the collection of neighborhoods of x.

Definition 6.1. Let F be a filter on X, and x ∈ X. Then F converges to x iff Nx ⊂ F.

The definition makes sense because, by Theorem 5.1, this is nothing more or less than saying
that the nets “associated with” F, are eventually in each neighborhood of x. It may take a bit of
thinking, but the following Lemma should be clear:

Lemma 6.2. Let Φ be any net, F be any filter. Then,

(1.) Φ → x iff Filter(Φ) → x.

(2.) F → x iff Net(F) → x.

Recall that a space X is Hausdorff iff any two points can be “separated” by disjoint open
neighborhoods. We are ready to prove our first result: the uniqueness of limits in a Hausdorff
space.

Theorem 6.3. Let X be a topological space. The following are equivalent:

1. X is Hausdorff.

2. Any two limits of any convergent net are equal.

3. Any two limits of any convergent filter are equal.

Proof. 2 ⇒ 3 Let F → x, y. By Lemma 6.2(2.), Net(F) → x, y. By 2, x = y.

3 ⇒ 2 Let Φ → x, y. By Lemma 6.2(1.), Filter(Φ) → x, y. By 3, x = y.
1 ⇒ 3 Let F → x, F → y, x 6= y. Then, there exists disjoint open neighborhoods, Ux , Uy ,
respectively. We have Ux , Uy ∈ F by convergence. This is a contradiction, as Ux ∩ Uy = ∅, which
cannot be in F.
3 ⇒ 1 Assume X is not Hausdorff. Then, there exists x, y ∈ X such that any open neighborhood
of x intersects with every open neighborhood of y. Let

B = {U ∩ V : U, V open neighborhoods of x, y respectively}

We claim that B is a filterbase. Clearly, each U ∩ V 6= ∅. For any U1 ∩ V1 , U2 ∩ V2 ∈ B, we have

(U1 ∩ V1 ) ∩ (U2 ∩ V2 ) = (U1 ∩ U2 ) ∩ (V1 ∩ V2 ) ∈ B. So B is a filterbase.
Clearly, every neighborhood of x, U = U ∩ X, is in B, and similarly, every neighborhood of y,
V = X ∩ V , is in B. So, the filter generated by B converges to both x and y, unequal limits, as
required.

Recall the idea of the “cluster point” of a net Φ, which is a point x ∈ X such that Φ is frequently
in every neighborhood of x. There is also a corresponding idea for filters. Recall:
T
Definition 6.4. Let A ⊂ X. Then, A := {F : F closed and A ⊂ F } is called the closure of A.

Note that the closure of A is closed (doh!), and furthermore, it is the smallest closed set which
contains A.
6 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

\
Definition 6.5. Let F be a filter on X. We say x ∈ X is a cluster point of F iff x ∈ F.
F ∈F

We establish similar results for cluster points as we did for convergent points. The uninterested
reader may take the proofs on faith, and refer back later.
The next Lemma is highly useful, as it expresses the cluster points of a net in terms of its tails
(which, if you recall, are used to generate the associated filter). It’s no accident that the two forms
look highly similar.
\
Lemma 7.1. x is a cluster point of Φ : I → X iff x ∈ Tα .
α∈I

Proof. ⇒ Let α ∈ I be arbitrary. Assume, for contradiction x ∈ / Tα . Then, there exists some
neighborhood of x, namely X − Tα , that contains no points in Tα . However, by definition of cluster
point, Φ is frequently in every neighborhood of x, including X − Tα . This implies that there exists
β ≥ α such that Φβ ∈ X − Tα , a contradiction. So, x ∈ Tα for all α ∈ I.
⇐ Let x not be a cluster point of Φ. Then, there exists a neighborhood N of x which Φ is not
frequently in: in other words, there exists neighborhood N and α ∈ I such that β ≥ α ⇒ Φβ ∈ / N.
So, for open neighborhood U ⊂ N of x, we also have β ≥ α ⇒ Φβ ∈ / U . Then, Tα does not contain
any points in U ; if it did, then Tα − U would be a smaller closed set containing Tα , a contradiction.
So, x ∈
/ Tα .

Corollary 7.2. Let Φ be any net, F any filter, x ∈ X.

(1.) x is a cluster point of Φ iff x is a cluster point of Filter(Φ).

(2.) x is a cluster point of F iff x is a cluster point of Net(F).

Proof. (1.) It suffices to show x is a cluster point of Φ iff x is in F for every filterbase element F of
Filter(Φ). (As, for any other element G ∈ F, we will have F ⊂ G for some filterbase element
F and thus F ⊂ G.)
This is already done above, as the filterbase elements are precisely the tails Tα .

(2.) By Part (1.), x is a cluster point of Net(F) iff it is a cluster point of Filter(Net(F)). But the
latter equals F by Lemma 5.3(2.).

The fact that limits and cluster points are preserved by filter/net generation should not be
forgotten. We will apply this many times, starting with the following Lemma:

Lemma 7.3. Let Φ be any net, F any filter, x ∈ X.

(1.) If Φ → x, then x is a cluster point of Φ.

(2.) If F → x, then x is a cluster point of F.

Proof. (1.) If Φ is eventually in every neighborhood of x, clearly Φ is frequently in every neighbor-

hood of x.

(2.) By Lemma 6.2(2.), Net(F) → x, so by part (1.) x is a cluster point of Net(F), whence it is a
cluster point of F by Lemma 7.2(2.)

7 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

6 Closure and continuity

Before the reader is bored out of his or her mind, it’s time to achieve some real results. As promised,
we will describe closure and continuity in terms of nets and filters.

Theorem 7.4. Let A ⊂ X be any subset. The following are equivalent:

1. x ∈ A

2. For every neighborhood N of x, N ∩ A 6= ∅.

3. There exists a filter F on X with A ∈ F and F → x.

4. There exists a net Φ on X with Φ eventually in A and Φ → x.

5. There exists a net Φ on A with Φ → x.

Proof. 2 ⇒ 1 Let x ∈/ A. Then, x ∈ X − A, and this is a neighborhood of x whose intersection with

A is empty.
3 ⇒ 2 If F → x, then Nx ⊂ F. Since A ∈ F, it follows that for any neighborhood N ∈ Nx ,
N ∩ A is nonempty, as required.
4 ⇒ 3 Filter(Φ) satisfies the properties of 3.
5 ⇒ 4 Φ can be taken as a net on X, and clearly it is eventually in A.
1 ⇒ 5 If x ∈ A, any constant net Φ(α) = x will satisfy. So, assume x ∈ / A. We construct
Φ : Nx → A, where Nx is preordered by subset inclusion. For each N ∈ Nx , choose Φ(N ) ∈ A ∩ N .
(If A ∩ N is empty, then let U ⊂ N be an open neighborhood of x. Then, A − U is a closed set
containing A but not x, which contradicts the minimality of A.)
Clearly, Φ → x, because for any neighborhood N of x, we have M ≥ N ⇒ M ⊂ N ⇒ Φ(M ) ∈
M ⊂ N , as required.

Corollary 8.1. For any set A ⊂ X, A is the set of all limits of:

(1.) Filters F on X with A ∈ F .

(2.) Nets Φ on X with Φ eventually in A.

(3.) Nets Φ on A

Notice the immediate analogue to the role sequences play for closed sets of metric spaces. These
objects also play a similar role with determining whether functions are continuous. We first need
a brief definition on how functions “push” these objects forward, however.

Definition 8.2. Let f : X → Y be a function, Φ : I → X be a net, F be a filter on X. Then,

i. f (Φ) is defined as the net f ◦ Φ : I → Y .

ii. f (F) is the filter generated by the filterbase {f (F ) : F ∈ F}

The above can be checked to be a filterbase, as f (F ∩ G) ⊂ f (F ) ∩ f (G) for any F, G ∈ F.

We first have a Lemma which will allow us to translate results about “push-forwards” of filters
to “push-forwards” of nets, and vice versa.

Lemma 8.3. Let Φ : I → X be any net, F be any filter on X, f : X → Y be any function. Then,

(1.) f (Filter(Φ)) = Filter(f (Φ))

(2.) Filter(f (Net(F))) = f (F)

8 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

Proof. For both parts, we show the filterbases for the left-hand side and right-hand side are equal.

(1.) LHS: Note that it suffices to only consider the filterbasic sets of Filter(Φ), as any other element
G ∈ Filter(Φ) would be the superset of some filterbasic set F ∈ Filter(Φ), whence f (F ) ⊂ f (G),
and f (G) ∈ f (Filter(Φ)) automatically by the superset property. So, we push forward the
filterbasic sets of Filter(Φ): {f (Tα ) : α ∈ I}
RHS: The tails of the net f ◦ Φ are the same as {f (Tα ) : α ∈ I}.

(2.) LHS: Denoting Net(F) : I → X, this is {f (Tα ) : α ∈ I}. By Lemma 5.3(1.), this is {f (F ) :
F ∈ F}.
RHS: {f (F ) : F ∈ F}

You may have noticed that both this Lemma and Lemma 5.3 talk about generated filters, rather
than generated nets. This is simply a matter of convenience. Given any equality that starts with
a net Φ on both sides, at least two layers of filter/net generation must be employed on both sides
of the equation, to bring us back to nets (keeping the original net on one side of the equality is out
of the question, unlike with filters). Stopping at one filter generation, on the other hand, leaves us
at filters, which are able to convey the important information about nets anyway.

Definition 9.1. A function f : X → Y is continuous at x ∈ X iff one of these two equivalent

conditions hold:

(i.) For any neighborhood N of f (x), there exists a neighborhood M of x such that f (M ) ⊂ N .

(ii.) For any neighborhood N of f (x), there exists an open neighborhood M of x such that
f (M ) ⊂ N .

Theorem 9.2. Let f : X → Y be a function, x ∈ X. The following are equivalent:

1. f is continuous at x.

2. For all filters F on X, F → x ⇒ f (F) → f (x)

3. For all nets Φ : I → X, Φ → x ⇒ f (Φ) → f (x).

Proof. 1 ⇒ 3 Let Φ : I → X be any net, Φ → x. For any neighborhood N around f (x), there
exists neighborhood M of x such that f (M ) ⊂ N . Since Φ → x, Φ is eventually in M , whence
f ◦ Φ is eventually in f (M ) ⊂ N . It follows f (Φ) → f (x), as required.
3 ⇒ 2 Let F be any filter on X, with F → x. Then, Net(F) → x, so f (Net(F)) → f (x) by
3. Thus, Filter(f (Net(F))) → f (x). By Lemma 8.3(2.), we have Filter(f (Net(F))) = f (F), so the
latter converges to f (x), as required.
2 ⇒ 1 Note that Nx is a filter converging to x, so f (Nx ) → f (x) by hypothesis. So, for
any neighborhood N of f (x), N ∈ Nf (x) ⊂ f (Nx ), which implies there exists M ∈ Nx such that
f (M ) ⊂ N . So, f is continuous at x.

So, the results about local continuity hold. These naturally translate into global results:

Definition 9.3. A function f : X → Y is continuous iff, for every open V ⊂ Y , f −1 (V ) is open.

Corollary 9.4. Let f : X → Y be a function. The following are equivalent:

1. f is continuous.

2. f is continuous at all x ∈ X.
9 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

3. For all filters F on X, F → x ⇒ f (F) → f (x)

4. For all nets Φ : I → X, Φ → x ⇒ f (Φ) → f (x).

Proof. 2 ⇔ 3 ⇔ 4 is obvious, given Theorem 9.2.

1 ⇒ 2 Let N be any neighborhood of f (x). There exists open neighborhood U ⊂ N of f (x),
whence f −1 (U ) is an open neighborhood of x with f (f −1 (U )) ⊂ U , as required.
2 ⇒ 1 Let V ⊂ Y be open. Then, for each x ∈ f −1 (V ), there is an open [ neighborhood Ux of x
−1 −1
such that f (Ux ) ⊂ V . Necessarily, Ux ⊂ f (V ). We have f (V ) = Ux , so it is a union
x∈f −1 (V )
of open sets, and therefore open.

The above “push-forward” also gives us the machinery necessary to describe nets and filters
in product Y
spaces. Recall that the product topology is the coarsest Y
one such that the projection
maps πα : Xα → Xα are continuous. Namely, a set U is open in Xα iff Uα = Xα in all but
α∈A α∈A
finitely many coordinates, and Uα is open in Xα for those finite coordinates.
We prove one primary result for product spaces (until this is used for Tychondoff’s Theorem).
Y
Theorem 10.1. Let Φ be a net, F be a filter on Xα .
α∈A

(1.) Φ → x = (..., xα , ...) iff πα (Φ) → xα for all α ∈ A.

(2.) F → x = (..., xα , ...) iff πα (F) → xα for all α ∈ A.

Proof. (1.) ⇒ Since πα is continuous, Φ → x ⇒ πα (Φ) → πα (x) = xα by Corollary 9.4.

⇐ Let N be a neighborhood of x, U ⊂ N be any open neighborhood. Then Uα = Xα for all
but finitely many U1 , U2 , ..., Un . Each Ui is an open neighborhood of xi in Xi . By hypothesis,
πi (Φ) → xi , so πi (Φ) is eventually in Ui , which means that there exists ψi ∈ I such that
ψ ≥ ψi ⇒ πi ◦ Φ(ψ) ∈ Ui . Applying directedness n − 1 times, there exists γ ≥ ψ1 , ..., ψn . So,
ψ ≥ γ ⇒ Φ(ψ) ∈ U , and Φ → x.

(2.) ⇒ Since πα is continuous, F → x ⇒ πα (F) → πα (x) = xα by Corollary 9.4.

⇐ For each α ∈ A, we have πα (F) → xα by hypothesis. By Lemma 8.3(2.), we have πα (F) =
Filter(πα (Net(F))) → xα , hence πα (Net(F)) → xα for all α ∈ A. Thus, by part (1.), Net(F) →
x and hence F → x, as required.

7 Subnets and Superfilters

We come upon a somewhat contentious subject in establishing the equivalences of nets and filters;
contentious because, under the most common definitions, the equivalences actually don’t work. It
turns out that the subnet has to be more general than we usually imagine in order to give the
desired correspondence between the two theories.
We follow Aarnes and Andenaes (1972) in referring to the usual definition of “subnet” as the
“M-subnet”.2 The M-subnet is missing a few properties that relate nets to filters, and so we do not
use it. Instead, we use the following definition, which gives more elegant results:
2
A M-subnet of a net Φ : I → X is a composition Φ ◦ Ψ, where Ψ : J → I is an increasing and cofinal mapping
from directed set J. In other words,
1. If ψ1 ≤ ψ2 , then Ψ(ψ1 ) ≤ Ψ(ψ2 ) [Ψ is increasing.]
2. If α ∈ I, then there exists ψ ∈ J with α ≤ Ψ(ψ) [Ψ is cofinal.]

10 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

Definition 10.2. Let Φ : I → X, Ψ : J → X be nets. Ψ is a subnet of Φ iff for all A ⊂ X,

Ψ is eventually in A ⇒ Φ is eventually in A.

Definition 11.1. A subnet Ψ of Φ is called a proper subnet iff Φ is not also a subnet of Ψ.

In other words, Ψ is a subnet of Φ iff it is eventually in all the same sets as Φ, as well as possibly
others.
This definition is, in some sense counterintuitive, because consider any sequence Φ : N → X.
We can create a “supersequence”, Ψ by adding 0 to the index: Ψ : N ∪ {0} → X, with arbitrary
Ψ0 ∈ X, but making the sequences equal otherwise: Ψn := Φn . So Ψ is a strictly bigger sequence
than Φ, yet Ψ is a subnet of Φ by our definition! (They differ at only the first point, and so are
eventually in the same sets.) This is bizarre—and yet, at the same time, it makes perfect sense,
because after all, when looking at nets or sequences, we don’t care what the first term is, or even
what the first million terms are. All that matters is where the sequence is eventually going. If two
sequences differ only at the first term, why shouldn’t they be subsequences of each other? —their
behaviors are exactly the same. The key distinguishing point for the subsequence was always that
the subsequences ended up in the same sets and possibly more. Maybe you ought to put in a word
to your professor!
The first observation we make is that subnets generate superfilters. After all, Filter(Φ) consists
of precisely those sets Φ is eventually in, and since any subnet is eventually in those same sets (and
possibly others) by definition, the filter generated by the subnet must be a superfilter of Filter(Φ).
Firstly, the term is not “superfilter”, although that is exactly what it is.

Definition 11.2. Let F and G be filters. We say F is coarser than G iff F ⊂ G. We say F is
finer than G iff F ⊃ G.

Theorem 11.3. Let Φ : I → X, Ψ : J → X be nets, F, G be filters on X.

1. Ψ is a subnet of Φ iff Filter(Φ) ⊂ Filter(Ψ)

2. F ⊂ G iff Net(G) is a subnet of Net(F)

Proof. 1. Obvious; see above paragraph.

2. By Lemma 5.3(2.), we have F ⊂ G iff Filter(Net(F)) ⊂ Filter(Net(G)) iff Net(G) is a subnet

of Net(F) (by 1).

This is where our theory diverges from the usual theory of M-subnets, and becomes more
elegant. M-subnets do not satisfy that Filter(Φ) ⊂ Filter(Ψ) ⇒ Ψ is a subnet of Φ. The simplest
counterexample is the sequence with added additional point, in the above discussion. We do have
(as an exercise), however, that every M-subnet of Φ is a subnet of Φ (so that the reason the above
directions are not satisfied is, in some sense, that there are “not enough” M-subnets.3 ).
In theory, this implies that theorems about M-subnets automatically apply to subnets in one
direction, and require proving in another. For example, if it is known that “X is compact iff every
net has a convergent M-subnet”, then the ⇒ direction is immediate for subnets, but the ⇐ requires
work.
In practice, at this level, results about M-subnets carry over completely to results about subnets
[1] (aside from theorems relating filters to subnets). The former are merely harder to prove, as you
are missing the correspondence to filters that might occasionally allow for easier proof.

3
This is also apparent from the above discussion. M-subnets don’t include those which are ill-behaved at the
first, or first trillion terms. The filter, of course, does not care about these first terms, so that M-subnets become
inadequate for describing filters.

11 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

If needed (this might be easier to use practically), the criterion for whether Ψ is a subnet of
Φ can be stated entirely using the tails of the nets, as the tails determine which sets the nets are
eventually in.

Theorem 12.1. Ψ : J → X is a subnet of Φ : I → X iff for any φ ∈ I, there exists ψ ∈ J such

that TψΨ ⊂ TφΦ (where TψΨ denotes the tail of Ψ following ψ, and likewise T Φ the tail of Φ).

Proof. ⇒ Let φ ∈ I be arbitrary. Clearly, Φ is eventually in the set TφΦ . Since Ψ is a subnet, it has
to eventually be in that set as well. So there must exist ψ ∈ J such that TψΨ ⊂ TφΦ .
⇐ Let Φ be eventually in some set A ⊂ X. Then, there exists φ ∈ I such that TφΦ ⊂ A. But by
the hypothesis, there exists ψ ∈ J such that TψΨ ⊂ TφΦ ⊂ A, so Ψ is eventually in A as well. Since
this is true for arbitrary A, Ψ is a subnet of Φ.

Finally, results about convergence and cluster points, for subsequences, have analogs for subnets
and finer filters.

Lemma 12.2. Let F be any filter, Φ be any net, x ∈ X.

(1.) If F → x and G is any finer filter, then G → x.

(2.) If Φ → x and Ψ is a subnet of Φ, then Ψ → x.

Proof. (1.) Nx ⊂ F ⊂ G, whence G → x.

(2.) If Φ is eventually in every neighborhood of x, so is the subnet Ψ by definition.

Lemma 12.3. Let F be any filter, Φ : I → X be any net, x ∈ X.

(1.) x is a cluster point of F iff a finer filter G converges to x.

(2.) x is a cluster point of Φ iff a subnet converges to x.

Proof. (1.) ⇒ Let

B := {N ∩ F : N ∈ Nx , F ∈ F}

Each of the N ∩ F are nonempty by Theorem 7.4(2.), since x ∈ F . Let N1 ∩ F1 , N2 ∩ F2 be

any two elements of B. Then, (N1 ∩ F1 ) ∩ (N2 ∩ F2 ) = (N1 ∩ N2 ) ∩ (F1 ∩ F2 ) ∈ B. So, B is
a filterbase which contains all neighborhoods of x (and so its generated filter converges to x).
Since the filterbase contains all elements of F (it contains F = X ∩ F for any F ∈ F), the
generated filter is finer than F, as required.
⇐ Let x not be a cluster point of F. Then, there exists F ∈ F such that x ∈ / F . Let G ⊃ F
be any finer filter. Then, the neighborhood X − F of x cannot be in G, or else the intersection
of the elements F and X − F would be empty, and G would not be a filter. So, G 6→ x.

(2.) ⇒ x is a cluster point of Φ implies x is a cluster point of Filter(Φ). By part (1.), some finer
filter G → x, so Net(G) → x. Finally, we have Filter(Φ) ⊂ G = Filter(Net(G)), so Net(G) is a
subnet of Φ by Theorem 11.3(2).
⇐ Let Ψ → x be a subnet of Φ. Then, Filter(Φ) ⊂ Filter(Ψ) and Filter(Ψ) → x. By part (1.),
x is a cluster point of Filter(Φ), hence a cluster point of Φ.

12 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

8 Universal Nets and Ultrafilters

In the last section, we found that subnets generate finer filters, and vice versa. We now introduce
the logical (or perhaps artistic) follow-up of that result.

Definition 12.4. Let F be a filter. F is an ultrafilter iff there is no strictly finer filter. In other
words, F is an ultrafilter iff for any filter G, F ⊂ G ⇒ F = G.

The set of all supersets of a single point is clearly an ultrafilter. Of course, we want to know
whether there are other, less trivial ones. Before we prove a major theorem concerning that, we
will first establish a result which will allow us to define the corresponding concept for nets.

Theorem 13.1. A filter F on a set X is an ultrafilter iff for every A ⊂ X, either A ∈ F or

X − A ∈ F.

Proof. ⇒ Let F be a filter, and let there exist A ⊂ X such that A, X − A ∈

/ F. If there exists
F ∈ F such that A ∩ F = ∅, then F ⊂ X − A, whence X − A ∈ F, a contradiction. So, A ∩ F 6= ∅
for all F ∈ F. Let
B := {A ∩ F : F ∈ F}
We show B is a filterbase. By above, no element of B is empty. Clearly, B is not empty, as it
contains A = A ∩ X. Finally, given any two elements A ∩ F1 , A ∩ F2 , we have (A ∩ F1 ) ∩ (A ∩ F2 ) =
A ∩ (F1 ∩ F2 ) ∈ B. So, let G be the filter generated by B. Now, given any F ∈ F, we have
A ∩ F ∈ B, whence F ∈ G. So, F ⊂ G. However, A is in G and not F, so G is a strictly finer filter,
and F is not an ultrafilter.
⇐ Let G be a strictly finer filter, A ∈ G − F. Since A ∈
/ F, it follows X − A ∈ F. So, X − A ∈ G.
However, then A ∩ (X − A) = ∅, contradicting that G is a filter. So, there is no strictly finer filter,
and F is an ultrafilter.

So, F is an ultrafilter iff its “associated” nets are eventually in either A or X − A for all subsets
A ⊂ X. This is, in fact, the way we shall define the corresponding net concept:

Definition 13.2. A net Φ on X is a universal net or ultranet iff for all A ⊂ X, Φ is eventually
in either A or X − A.

By now, the reader has seen enough filter/net equivalences that the following Lemma should
be trivial, and its proof is left as an exercise.

Lemma 13.3. Let Φ be a net, F be a filter.

(1.) The following are equivalent:

(i.) Φ is a universal net.

(ii.) Filter(Φ) is an ultrafilter.
(iii.) Φ has no proper subnets (Definition 11.1).

(2.) The following are equivalent:

(i.) F is an ultrafilter.
(ii.) Net(F) is a universal net.
(iii.) Some net generating F is a universal net.
(iv.) Every net generating F is a universal net.

(3.) Every subnet of a universal net is universal.

13 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

(4.) Let F be an ultrafilter. Then, x is a cluster point of F iff F → x. (See Lemma 12.3.)
(5.) Let Φ be a universal net. Then, x is a cluster point of Φ iff Φ → x.

We now prove a major existence theorem.

Theorem 14.0. (1.) Every filter is contained in an ultrafilter.
(2.) Every net has a universal subnet.
Proof. (2.) follows directly from (1.), as given any net Φ, Filter(Φ) is contained within an ultrafilter
F, and Net(F) is a universal subnet of Φ.
So, we prove (1.), using Zorn’s Lemma. Let F be any filter on X. Define
P := {G : G is a filter on X and F ⊂ G}
This is a partially ordered set by reverse inclusion (G ≤ S
H iff G ⊂ H). P isSnonempty, as F ∈ P .
Now, let Q be any totally ordered subset of P . We claim Q ∈ P (whence Q is clearly an upper
bound for all elements
S of Q).
We check that Q satisfies the definition of a filter. Since it is the union of filters, it is a
nonempty collection of nonempty elements.
S
1. Let G, H ∈ Q. Then, G ∈ G ∈ Q, H ∈ H ∈ Q for some G, H ∈ Q. Since Q is totally
ordered by reverse inclusion, either G ⊂ H or H ⊂ G;Swithout loss of generality, assume the
former. Then, G, H ∈ H and it follows G ∩ H ∈ H ⊂ Q, as required.
S S
2. Let G ∈ Q, G ⊂ H. We have G ∈ G ∈ Q for some G ∈ Q, and thus H ∈ G and H ∈ Q,
as required.
S
So, Q is indeed a filter, and we may apply Zorn’s Lemma to conclude P has a maximal
element, an ultrafilter containing F.
Note that, because we used Zorn’s Lemma to prove existence, the ultrafilters and universal nets
which we invoke are not generally constructive.
Finally, this last result shows that push-forwards of these objects still preserve their essential
properties.
Lemma 14.1. Let f : X → Y be any function, Φ be a universal net on X, F be an ultrafilter on
X.

(1.) f (F) is an ultrafilter on Y .

(2.) f (Φ) is a universal net on Y .

Proof. (1.) Let A ⊂ Y . Then, either f −1 (A) ∈ F, or X − f −1 (A) ∈ F. If the former is the case,
A ∈ f (F). If the latter is the case, then f (X − f −1 (A)) ⊂ Y − A, whence Y − A ∈ f (F). By
Theorem 13.1, f (F) is an ultrafilter.
(2.) Filter(Φ) is an ultrafilter on X, whence f (Filter(Φ)) is an ultrafilter on Y by part (1.). By
Lemma 8.3(1), f (Filter(Φ)) = Filter(f (Φ)), and f (Φ) is a universal net on Y , as required.

Y
Corollary 14.2. Let X = Xα be a product space, Φ a universal net on X, F an ultrafilter on
α∈A
X. Then, for any α ∈ A,

(1.) πα (F) is an ultrafilter on Xα .

(2.) πα (Φ) is a universal net on Xα .

14 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

9 Compactness
We come to several Big Theorems relating compactness of a space to nets and filters. Recall:
Definition 15.0. A cover of a space X is a collection C of subsets of X such that, for all x ∈ X,
there exists C ∈ C such that x ∈ C. Any subcollection that also covers X is a subcover. An open
cover is a cover whose elements are open.
Definition 15.1. A space X is compact iff every open cover has a finite subcover.
A metric space is compact iff every sequence has a convergent subsequence. The corresponding
results will be true for nets and filters, although the universal net and ultrafilter will also allow us
to state even cleaner results.
Definition 15.2. A collection E of sets is said to have the finite intersection property (FIP)
iff the intersection of any finite subcollection of E is nonempty.
Theorem 15.3. Let X be a topological space. The following are equivalent:

1. X is compact.
T
2. If E is a collection of closed subsets with the finite intersection property, then E 6= ∅.

3. Every filter has a cluster point.

4. Every filter is contained in a convergent finer filter.

5. Every ultrafilter converges.

6. Every net has a cluster point.

7. Every net has a convergent subnet.

8. Every universal net converges.

Proof. 1 ⇔ 2 X is compact iff every open cover has a finite subcover iff for every collection of
closed sets with empty intersection, there exists a finite subcollection with empty intersection iff
every collection of closed sets with the FIP has nonempty intersection.
T 2 ⇒ 3 Clearly, any filter F has the FIP. Therefore, so does the set {F : F ∈ F}. By 2,
{F : F ∈ F} is nonempty, so F has a cluster point.
3 ⇒ 4 Lemma 12.3.
4 ⇒ 5 The only finer filter than an ultrafilter is itself,Tso it must converge.
5 ⇒ 2 Assume there exists E with the FIP such that E = ∅. Let
(n )
\
B := Ei : n ∈ N, E1 , ..., En ∈ E
i=1
T
be the collection of all finite intersections of E. Note that B = ∅. We claim B is a filterbase.
\n n+m
\
Clearly, none of the elements in B are empty. Now, let Ei , Ei ∈ B (by relabeling indicies).
i=1 i=n+1
n n+m n+m
! !
\ \ \
Then, Ei ∩ Ei = Ei ∈ B, as required.
i=1 i=n+1 i=1
F be the \
\ So, let \ filter generated by B. F is contained in an ultrafilter, G. Now, we have
E ⊂ E = E = ∅. So, G has no cluster points. By Lemma 13.3(4.), G does not
E∈G E∈B E∈B
converge, as required.
15 of 17
Translating Between Nets And Filters Saitulaa Naranong

3 ⇒ 6 Let Φ be any net. Then, Filter(Φ) has a cluster point, so Φ has a cluster point.
6 ⇒ 7 Lemma 12.3.
7 ⇒ 8 Let Φ be a universal net. By 7, there exists a convergent subnet, Ψ → x ∈ X. By Lemma
13.3.1(iii.), Φ is also a subnet of Ψ. Therefore, Φ → x.
8 ⇒ 5 Let F be any ultrafilter. Then, Net(F) is a universal net, so Net(F) → x ∈ X and
F → x.

Corollary 16.1 (Tychonoff). The arbitrary product of compact spaces is compact.

Y
Proof. Let F be any ultrafilter on Xα , with each Xα compact. For each α ∈ A, πα (F) is an
α∈A
to some xα ∈ Xα by Theorem 15.3(5).
ultrafilter on Xα by Lemma 14.2(1.), so πα (F) converges Y
Finally, F → x = (xα )α∈A by Theorem 10.1. We conclude Xα is compact by Theorem 15.3(5).
α∈A

16 of 17
Bibliography

[1] J.F. Aarnes and P.R. Andenaes On Nets and Filters. http://www.mscand.dk/article.php?
id=2106 Math, 1972

[2] Glen. E. Bredon. Topology and Geometry. Springer, 1993

[3] Sheldon W. Davis. Topology. McGraw Hill, 2005

[4] Mangesh Ganesh Murdeshwar General Topology. New Age International, 1990

17