DOCSLIB.ORG

Ed Tymchatyn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ed Tymchatyn Cell Structures E.D. Tymchatyn (with W. Debski) University of Saskatchewan [email protected] July 26, 2013 E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 1 / 20 Theorem X compact metric space =) 9 f : C X (onto). E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 2 / 20 Proof. f0 U0 = fCg −! V0 = fX g " i0;1 " j0;1 f1 U1 = fU1;1;:::; U1;n1 g −! V1 = fV1;1;:::; V1;n1 g; mesh < 1 disjoint clopen cover closed cover " i1;2 " j1;2 f2 U2 = U2;1 [···[U2;n1 −! V2 = V2;1 [···[ V2;n1 ; mesh < 1=2 U2;i disjoint cover V2;i closed cover of V1;i of U1;i by clopen sets " i2;3 " j2;3 :::::::::::::::::: f~=(f ;f ;::: ) C ≈ lim(U ; i ) −!0 1 V = lim(V ; i ) − i j;k 1 − i j;k Define ∼ on V1 by (x0; x1;::: ) ∼ (y0; y1;::: ) iff xi \ yi 6= ? for all i π : V1 !V1= ∼ ≈ X f = π ◦ f~ E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 3 / 20 Cell structures are inverse systems of discrete spaces with combinatorial \nearness" relations. Natural quotients (induced by the nearness relations) of the inverse limits yield topological spaces. \Maps" between cell structures yield mappings between the corresponding quotient spaces. Freudenthal (1937). Every compact metric space X admits a polyhedral inverse sequence with surjective bonding maps whose inverse limit is X . E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 4 / 20 Definition Let Σ be a class of compact, connected polyhedra. Then the class [Σ] of Σ − like continua consists of all continua X such that there exist continuous mappings of X with arbitrarily small fibers onto some members of Σ. Let (Σ) be class of continua X such that X ≈ lim(P ; p 0 ) where − n α,α Pα 2 Σ and pα,α0 are continuous surjections. Note:Σ ⊂ (Σ) ⊂ [Σ]: Mardesic-Segal (1963). Let Σ be a class of compact, connected polyhedra. metric \[Σ] = metric \(Σ) eg. 1)Σ= f[0; 1]g, sin −1=x curve is arc-like i.e. sin −1=x curve 2 [Σ]. 2)Σ= fconnected, finite, polyhedra of dim ≤ ng. Then metric \[Σ] = fmetric continua of dim ≤ ng. 3) Pasynkov, Mardesic (1959) - non-metric case problems - dim 9 X non-metric, X 2 [f[0; 1]g] but X 2= (f[0; 1]g). E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 5 / 20 Mardesic (1963). Let Σ be a class of compact, connected polyhedra. [Σ] = class of lim(X ; p 0 ) − α α,α where Xα are metric Σ-like continua, dim(Xα) ≤ dim(X ) and all pα,α0 are continuous surjections. Corollary Every continuum X in [Σ] is the limit of a double iterated inverse system of polyhedra in Σ with dim ≤ dim(X ). E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 6 / 20 For mappings inverse limits are more problematic. Mioduszewski (1963). If X ; Y metric compacta and f : X = lim(P ; p ) −! Y = lim(Q ; q ) − i i;j − i i;j then for each sequence f"i g of positive numbers i ! 0 there exists p pm1;m2 pm2;m3 mk ;mk+1 Pm1 −−−− Pm2 −−−− Pm3 −−−− ::: −−−− Pmk −−−−− ::: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? f1y f2y f3y ::: fk y ::: q qn1;n2 qn2;n3 nk ;nk+1 Qn1 −−−− Qn2 −−−− Qn3 −−−− ::: −−−− Qnk −−−−− ::: where m1 < m2 < m3 < : : : , n1 < n2 < n3 < : : : and each diagram Pmk −−−− Pmr ? ? ? ? y y Qni −−−− Qnk −−−− Qnr is "k commutative for i < k < r. E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 7 / 20 Mardesic (1963). Let Σ and J be classes of connected polyhedra. Given X 2 [Σ] , Y 2 [J] and f : X ! Y a continuous surjection, then there exist 0 0 inverse systems X = lim(X ; p 0 ) and Y = lim(Y ; p 0 ) of metric − α α,α − β β,β continua in [Σ] (resp. [J]) with surjective bonding maps and homeomorphisms h and k so X −!f Y ≈ h # ,! ≈ k # 0 fβ 0 X = lim(X ; p 0 ) −! Y = lim(Y ; p 0 ) − α α,α − β β,β Note : Xα and Yβ can not be taken to be polyhedra even if X and Y are metric. Mardesic (1981). Resolutions - inverse systems with additional conditions to study noncompact cases. Mardesic - Watanabe (1989). Approximate inverse systems and approximate resolutions to obtain rather arbitrary spaces and mappings and filling in the deficiencies indicated above. E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 8 / 20 Definition Graph is ordered pair (G; r). G is discrete set and r is reflexive and symmetric relation on G. Cells are points of G. a; b are adjacent if (a; b) 2 r. st(a) = fb 2 G j (a; b) 2 rg. E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 9 / 20 Let f(Gi ; ri ) j i = 1; 2;::: g be graphs and gi;j : Gj ! Gi be functions for j ≥ i satisfying i) gi;i = identity on Gi ii) gi;k = gi;j ◦ gj;k for i < j < k and iii)( a; b) 2 ri+1 =) (gi;i+1(a); gi;i+1(b)) 2 ri g1;2 g2;3 g3;4 G1 −−−− G2 −−−− G3 −−−− ::: If a 2 Gi , say deg(a) = i. Let Π = ΠGi topological product. Π is complete, 0-dimensional, metric space. G = lim(G ; g ): 1 − i i;j If x = (x(1); x(2);::: ) 2 Π then x 2 G1 iff gi;i+1(x(i + 1)) = x(i) for each i. G1 is set of threads. E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 10 / 20 Let gi : G1 ! Gi be ith coordinate projection. −1 If a 2 Gi let < a >= fx 2 G1 j x(i) = ag = gi (a). f< x(i) >: x 2 G1; i = 1; 2;::: g is basis of open and closed sets for G1. Proposition G1 is closed in Π hence G1 is topologically complete 0-dimensional metric space eg. if each Gi is countable, G1 is closed subset of irrationals. Definition Set x ∼ y in G1 if (x(i); y(i)) 2 ri for each i. ∼ is reflexive and symmetric relation on G1. Proposition ∼ is closed in G1 × G1 . Proof. T ∼= Ri where Ri = f(x; y) 2 G1 × G1 j (x(i); y(i)) 2 ri g. Ri is closed since ri is closed in discrete space Gi × Gi . E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 11 / 20 Definition Cells a 2 Gm and b 2 Gn are close if (gk;m(a); gk;n(b)) 2 rk for k = minfm; ng. Cauchy Sequence is a sequence of cells fu(j)g in [Gi such that iv) lim deg(u(j)) = 1 and v) u(i) and u(j) are close for all i and j sufficiently large. Cauchy sequence fu(i)g converges to thread x 2 G1 if x(i) and u(j) are close for all i and sufficiently large j. Note. A Cauchy sequence may converge to different threads. E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 12 / 20 Definition A cell structure is an inverse sequence of graphs satisfying vi) 8 thread x 2 G , 8i, 9j ≥ i s.t. g (st2 (x(j))) ⊂ st (x(i)) 1 i;j rj rj vii) 8 thread x, 8i, 9j ≥ i s.t gi;j (strj (x(j))) is finite. viii) each Cauchy sequence of cells converges eg. Gi = f1; 2;::: g, ri = ∆ [ f(k; l) j k; l ≥ ig and gi;j = identity. f((Gi ; ri ); gi;j )g satisfies vi) and vii) but not viii). x = fx(i) = ig is Cauchy but does not converge. Note. In general if vi) and vii) are satisfied and each set of mutually adjacent cells is finite then viii) is satisfied. Let (∗) = f((Gi ; ri ); gi;j )g be a cell structure. ∼ is transitive by vi). E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 13 / 20 Definition For x 2 G1 let [x] = fy 2 G1 j x ∼ yg. By vii) [x] is compact. Define ∗ π : G1 ! G1= ∼= G : π is perfect mapping. G ∗, the space determined by the cell structure, is topologically complete metrizable space. Proposition If (∗) is cell structure then ∗ ∗ fG n π(Gi n < A >) j A ⊂ Gi ; i = 1; 2;::: g is basis for topology on G . −i eg. Gi = fp10 j p integer g −i (x; y) 2 ri iff jx − yj ≤ 10 : gi;j an order preserving retraction. G∗ ≡ R: E.D.Tymchatyn (University of Saskatchewan) Cell Structures July 26, 2013 14 / 20 Theorem (1) Each complete metric space is homeomorphic to a space determined by some cell structure. Proof. X paracompact −! 9fUi g sequence of locally finite open covers with mesh Ui < 1=i and Ui+1 closed star refines Ui . Define gi;i+1 : Ui+1 !Ui by gi;i+1(U) ⊃ cl(st(U; Ui+1)): Define ri = fU × V j U; V 2 Ui and U \ V 6= ?g. f((Ui ; ri ); gi;j )g is a cell structure. vi) follows from closed star refinement of Ui+1 in Ui . vii) is local finiteness of covers S viii) if fu(i)g is Cauchy sequence in Ui , most pairs (u(i); u(j)) intersect so form a Cauchy sequence in X converging to a point x in X . Choose inductively v(i) in Ui so x 2 v(i) and v = (v(1); v(2);::: ) ⊂ G1. Then fu(i)g converges to v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pg**- Compact Spaces
    International Journal of Mathematics Research. ISSN 0976-5840 Volume 9, Number 1 (2017), pp. 27-43 © International Research Publication House http://www.irphouse.com pg**- compact spaces Mrs. G. Priscilla Pacifica Assistant Professor, St.Mary’s College, Thoothukudi – 628001, Tamil Nadu, India. Dr. A. Punitha Tharani Associate Professor, St.Mary’s College, Thoothukudi –628001, Tamil Nadu, India. Abstract The concepts of pg**-compact, pg**-countably compact, sequentially pg**- compact, pg**-locally compact and pg**- paracompact are introduced, and several properties are investigated. Also the concept of pg**-compact modulo I and pg**-countably compact modulo I spaces are introduced and the relation between these concepts are discussed. Keywords: pg**-compact, pg**-countably compact, sequentially pg**- compact, pg**-locally compact, pg**- paracompact, pg**-compact modulo I, pg**-countably compact modulo I. 1. Introduction Levine [3] introduced the class of g-closed sets in 1970. Veerakumar [7] introduced g*- closed sets. P M Helen[5] introduced g**-closed sets. A.S.Mashhour, M.E Abd El. Monsef [4] introduced a new class of pre-open sets in 1982. Ideal topological spaces have been first introduced by K.Kuratowski [2] in 1930. In this paper we introduce 28 Mrs. G. Priscilla Pacifica and Dr. A. Punitha Tharani pg**-compact, pg**-countably compact, sequentially pg**-compact, pg**-locally compact, pg**-paracompact, pg**-compact modulo I and pg**-countably compact modulo I spaces and investigate their properties. 2. Preliminaries Throughout this paper(푋, 휏) and (푌, 휎) represent non-empty topological spaces of which no separation axioms are assumed unless otherwise stated. Definition 2.1 A subset 퐴 of a topological space(푋, 휏) is called a pre-open set [4] if 퐴 ⊆ 푖푛푡(푐푙(퐴) and a pre-closed set if 푐푙(푖푛푡(퐴)) ⊆ 퐴.
    [Show full text]
  • General Topology
    General Topology Tom Leinster 2014{15 Contents A Topological spaces2 A1 Review of metric spaces.......................2 A2 The definition of topological space.................8 A3 Metrics versus topologies....................... 13 A4 Continuous maps........................... 17 A5 When are two spaces homeomorphic?................ 22 A6 Topological properties........................ 26 A7 Bases................................. 28 A8 Closure and interior......................... 31 A9 Subspaces (new spaces from old, 1)................. 35 A10 Products (new spaces from old, 2)................. 39 A11 Quotients (new spaces from old, 3)................. 43 A12 Review of ChapterA......................... 48 B Compactness 51 B1 The definition of compactness.................... 51 B2 Closed bounded intervals are compact............... 55 B3 Compactness and subspaces..................... 56 B4 Compactness and products..................... 58 B5 The compact subsets of Rn ..................... 59 B6 Compactness and quotients (and images)............. 61 B7 Compact metric spaces........................ 64 C Connectedness 68 C1 The definition of connectedness................... 68 C2 Connected subsets of the real line.................. 72 C3 Path-connectedness.......................... 76 C4 Connected-components and path-components........... 80 1 Chapter A Topological spaces A1 Review of metric spaces For the lecture of Thursday, 18 September 2014 Almost everything in this section should have been covered in Honours Analysis, with the possible exception of some of the examples. For that reason, this lecture is longer than usual. Definition A1.1 Let X be a set. A metric on X is a function d: X × X ! [0; 1) with the following three properties: • d(x; y) = 0 () x = y, for x; y 2 X; • d(x; y) + d(y; z) ≥ d(x; z) for all x; y; z 2 X (triangle inequality); • d(x; y) = d(y; x) for all x; y 2 X (symmetry).
    [Show full text]
  • Discrete Subspaces of Topological Spaces 1)
    MATHEMATICS DISCRETE SUBSPACES OF TOPOLOGICAL SPACES 1) BY A. HAJNAL AND I. JUHASZ (Communicated by Prof. J. POPKEN at the meeting of October 29, 1966) §. l. Introduction Recently several papers appeared in the literature proving theorems of the following type. A topological space with "very many points" contains a discrete subspace with "many points". J. DE GROOT and B. A. EFIMOV proved in [2] and [4] that a Hausdorff space of power > exp exp exp m contains a discrete subspace of power >m. J. ISBELL proved in [3] a similar result for completely regular spaces. J. de Groot proved as well that for regular spaces R the assumption IRI > exp exp m is sufficient to imply the existence of a discrete subspace of potency > m. One of our main issues will be to improve this result and show that the same holds for Hausdorff spaces (see Theorems 2 and 3). Our Theorem 1 states that a Hausdorff space of density > exp m contains a discrete subspace of power >m. We give two different proofs for the main result already mentioned. The proof outlined for Theorem 3 is a slight improvement of de Groot's proof. The proof given for Theorem 2 is of purely combinatorial character. We make use of the ideas and some theorems of the so called set-theoretical partition calculus developed by P. ERDOS and R. RADO (see [5], [ 11 ]). Almost all the other results we prove are based on combinatorial theorems. For the convenience of the reader we always state these theorems in full detail. Our Theorem 4 states that if m is a strong limit cardinal which is the sum of No smaller cardinals, then every Hausdorff space of power m contains a discrete subspace of power m.
    [Show full text]
  • REVERSIBLE FILTERS 1. Introduction a Topological Space X Is Reversible
    REVERSIBLE FILTERS ALAN DOW AND RODRIGO HERNANDEZ-GUTI´ ERREZ´ Abstract. A space is reversible if every continuous bijection of the space onto itself is a homeomorphism. In this paper we study the question of which countable spaces with a unique non-isolated point are reversible. By Stone duality, these spaces correspond to closed subsets in the Cech-Stoneˇ compact- ification of the natural numbers β!. From this, the following natural problem arises: given a space X that is embeddable in β!, is it possible to embed X in such a way that the associated filter of neighborhoods defines a reversible (or non-reversible) space? We give the solution to this problem in some cases. It is especially interesting whether the image of the required embedding is a weak P -set. 1. Introduction A topological space X is reversible if every time that f : X ! X is a continuous bijection, then f is a homeomorphism. This class of spaces was defined in [10], where some examples of reversible spaces were given. These include compact spaces, Euclidean spaces Rn (by the Brouwer invariance of domain theorem) and the space ! [ fpg, where p is an ultrafilter, as a subset of β!. This last example is of interest to us. Given a filter F ⊂ P(!), consider the space ξ(F) = ! [ fFg, where every point of ! is isolated and every neighborhood of F is of the form fFg [ A with A 2 F. Spaces of the form ξ(F) have been studied before, for example by Garc´ıa-Ferreira and Uzc´ategi([6] and [7]).
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Let X Be a Non-Empty Set. Let T1 and T2 Be Two Topologies on X Such That T1 Is
    A 1 1. Let X be a non-empty set. Let T1 and T2 be two topologies on X such that T1 is strictly contained in T2. If I : (X,T1) o(X, T2) is identity map, then: (1) both I and I–1 are continuous (2) both I and I–1 are not continuous (3) I is continuous but I–1 is not continuous (4) I is not continuous but I–1 is continuous 2. The connected subset of real line with usual topology are --: (1) all intervals (2) only bounded intervals (3) only compact intervals (4) only semi-infinite intervals 3. Topological space X is locally path connected space- (1) if X is locally connected at each xX (2) if X is locally connected at some xX (3) if X is locally connected at each xX (4) None of these 4. The topology on real line R generated by left-open right closed intervals (a,b) is: (1) strictly coarser then usual topology (2) strictly finer than usual topology (3) not comparable with usual topology (4) same as the usual topology 60581/A P.T.O. A 2 5. Which of the following is not first countable? (1) discrete space (2) indiscrete space (3) cofinite topological space on R (4) metric space 6. Let X = {a,b,c} and T1= {I, {a}, {b,c}, X} X* = {x, y, z} and T2 = {I, {x}, {y,z}, X*} Then which of the following mapping from X to X* are continuous? (1) f(a) = x, f(b) = y, f(c) = z (2) g(a) = x, g(b) = y, g(c) = z (3) h(a) = z, h(b) = x, h(c) = y (4) both (1) and (2) 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Discrete Topology and Geometry Algorithms for Quantitative Human Airway Trees Analysis Based on Computed Tomography Images Michal Postolski
    Discrete topology and geometry algorithms for quantitative human airway trees analysis based on computed tomography images Michal Postolski To cite this version: Michal Postolski. Discrete topology and geometry algorithms for quantitative human airway trees analysis based on computed tomography images. Other. Université Paris-Est, 2013. English. NNT : 2013PEST1094. pastel-00977514 HAL Id: pastel-00977514 https://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/pastel-00977514 Submitted on 11 Apr 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. PARIS-EST UNIVERSITY DOCTORAL SCHOOL MSTIC A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science Presented by Michal Postolski Supervised by Michel Couprie and Dominik Sankowski Discrete Topology and Geometry Algorithms for Quantitative Human Airway Trees Analysis Based on Computed Tomography Images December 18, 2013 Committee in charge: Piotr Kulczycki (reviewer) Nicolas Normand (reviewer) Nicolas Passat (reviewer) Jan Sikora (reviewer) Michel Couprie Yukiko Kenmochi Andrzej Napieralski Dominik Sankowski To my brilliant wife. ii Title: Discrete Topology and Geometry Algorithms for Quantitative Human Airway Trees Analysis Based on Computed Tomography Images. Abstract: Computed tomography is a very useful technique which allow non-invasive diagnosis in many applications for example is used with success in industry and medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • DISCRETE SPACETIME QUANTUM FIELD THEORY Arxiv:1704.01639V1
    DISCRETE SPACETIME QUANTUM FIELD THEORY S. Gudder Department of Mathematics University of Denver Denver, Colorado 80208, U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract This paper begins with a theoretical explanation of why space- time is discrete. The derivation shows that there exists an elementary length which is essentially Planck's length. We then show how the ex- istence of this length affects time dilation in special relativity. We next consider the symmetry group for discrete spacetime. This symmetry group gives a discrete version of the usual Lorentz group. However, it is much simpler and is actually a discrete version of the rotation group. From the form of the symmetry group we deduce a possible explanation for the structure of elementary particle classes. Energy- momentum space is introduced and mass operators are defined. Dis- crete versions of the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations are derived. The final section concerns discrete quantum field theory. Interaction Hamiltonians and scattering operators are considered. In particular, we study the scalar spin 0 and spin 1 bosons as well as the spin 1=2 fermion cases arXiv:1704.01639v1 [physics.gen-ph] 5 Apr 2017 1 1 Why Is Spacetime Discrete? Discreteness of spacetime would follow from the existence of an elementary length. Such a length, which we call a hodon [2] would be the smallest nonzero measurable length and all measurable lengths would be integer mul- tiplies of a hodon [1, 2]. Applying dimensional analysis, Max Planck discov- ered a fundamental length r G ` = ~ ≈ 1:616 × 10−33cm p c3 that is the only combination of the three universal physical constants ~, G and c with the dimension of length.
    [Show full text]
  • Metric Spaces
    Chapter 1. Metric Spaces Definitions. A metric on a set M is a function d : M M R × → such that for all x, y, z M, Metric Spaces ∈ d(x, y) 0; and d(x, y)=0 if and only if x = y (d is positive) MA222 • ≥ d(x, y)=d(y, x) (d is symmetric) • d(x, z) d(x, y)+d(y, z) (d satisfies the triangle inequality) • ≤ David Preiss The pair (M, d) is called a metric space. [email protected] If there is no danger of confusion we speak about the metric space M and, if necessary, denote the distance by, for example, dM . The open ball centred at a M with radius r is the set Warwick University, Spring 2008/2009 ∈ B(a, r)= x M : d(x, a) < r { ∈ } the closed ball centred at a M with radius r is ∈ x M : d(x, a) r . { ∈ ≤ } A subset S of a metric space M is bounded if there are a M and ∈ r (0, ) so that S B(a, r). ∈ ∞ ⊂ MA222 – 2008/2009 – page 1.1 Normed linear spaces Examples Definition. A norm on a linear (vector) space V (over real or Example (Euclidean n spaces). Rn (or Cn) with the norm complex numbers) is a function : V R such that for all · → n n , x y V , x = x 2 so with metric d(x, y)= x y 2 ∈ | i | | i − i | x 0; and x = 0 if and only if x = 0(positive) i=1 i=1 • ≥ cx = c x for every c R (or c C)(homogeneous) • | | ∈ ∈ n n x + y x + y (satisfies the triangle inequality) Example (n spaces with p norm, p 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Ultrafilters and Tychonoff's Theorem
    Ultrafilters and Tychonoff's Theorem (October, 2015 version) G. Eric Moorhouse, University of Wyoming Tychonoff's Theorem, often cited as one of the cornerstone results in general topol- ogy, states that an arbitrary product of compact topological spaces is compact. In the 1930's, Tychonoff published a proof of this result in the special case of [0; 1]A, also stating that the general case could be proved by similar methods. The first proof in the gen- eral case was published by Cechˇ in 1937. All proofs rely on the Axiom of Choice in one of its equivalent forms (such as Zorn's Lemma or the Well-Ordering Principle). In fact there are several proofs available of the equiv- alence of Tychonoff's Theorem and the Axiom of Choice|from either one we can obtain the other. Here we provide one of the most popular proofs available for Ty- chonoff's Theorem, using ultrafilters. We see this approach as an opportunity to learn also about the larger role of ultra- filters in topology and in the foundations of mathematics, including non-standard analysis. As an appendix, we also include an outline of an alternative proof of Tychonoff's Theorem using a transfinite induction, using the two-factor case X × Y (previously done in class) for the inductive step. This approach is found in the exercises of the Munkres textbook. The proof of existence of nonprincipal ultrafilters was first published by Tarski in 1930; but the concept of ultrafilters is attributed to H. Cartan. 1. Compactness and the Finite Intersection Property Before proceeding, let us recall that a collection of sets S has the finite intersection property if S1 \···\ Sn 6= ? for all S1;:::;Sn 2 S, n > 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Discrete Geometry and Projections
    Chapter 1 Discrete Geometry and Projections 1.1. Introduction This book is devoted to a discrete Radon transform named the Mojette transform. The Radon transform specificity is to mix Cartesian and radial views of the plane. However, it is straightforward to obtain a discrete lattice from a Cartesian grid while it is impossible from a standard equiangular radial grid. The only mathematical tool is to use discrete geometry that replaces the equiangular radial line by discrete lines aligned with a pixel grid. This chapter presents and investigates these precious tools. After having examined the structure of the discrete space in section 1.2, we will focus on topological (section 1.3) and arithmetic (section 1.4) principles that guide the definition of discrete geometry elements (section 1.5). 1.2. Discrete pavings and discrete grids First of all, let us define the underlying domain: without loss of generality, we can define the discrete space as a tiling P of the plane (or the space in higher dimensions) with non-overlapping enumerable open cells. Hence, a 2 discrete representation of a continuous function f : R I is a set of valued ! Chapter written by David COEURJOLLY and Nicolas NORMAND. 3 4 The Mojette Transform Figure 1.1. Regular grids and regular tilings in two dimensions 2 cells of P . The function that associates points in R with cells of P and defines a transfer function for the values I is called a digitization process. Instead of considering the tiling of cells, we may also consider the dual representation, referred to as the discrete grid.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in the Theory of Convergence Spaces
    Syracuse University SURFACE Dissertations - ALL SURFACE 8-2014 Problems in the Theory of Convergence Spaces Daniel R. Patten Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons, and the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Patten, Daniel R., "Problems in the Theory of Convergence Spaces" (2014). Dissertations - ALL. 152. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/152 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract. We investigate several problems in the theory of convergence spaces: generaliza- tion of Kolmogorov separation from topological spaces to convergence spaces, representation of reflexive digraphs as convergence spaces, construction of differential calculi on convergence spaces, mereology on convergence spaces, and construction of a universal homogeneous pre- topological space. First, we generalize Kolmogorov separation from topological spaces to convergence spaces; we then study properties of Kolmogorov spaces. Second, we develop a theory of reflexive digraphs as convergence spaces, which we then specialize to Cayley graphs. Third, we conservatively extend the concept of differential from the spaces of classi- cal analysis to arbitrary convergence spaces; we then use this extension to obtain differential calculi for finite convergence spaces, finite Kolmogorov spaces, finite groups, Boolean hyper- cubes, labeled graphs, the Cantor tree, and real and binary sequences. Fourth, we show that a standard axiomatization of mereology is equivalent to the condition that a topological space is discrete, and consequently, any model of general extensional mereology is indis- tinguishable from a model of set theory; we then generalize these results to the cartesian closed category of convergence spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Compactness in Metric Spaces
    MATHEMATICS 3103 (Functional Analysis) YEAR 2012–2013, TERM 2 HANDOUT #2: COMPACTNESS OF METRIC SPACES Compactness in metric spaces The closed intervals [a, b] of the real line, and more generally the closed bounded subsets of Rn, have some remarkable properties, which I believe you have studied in your course in real analysis. For instance: Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem. Every bounded sequence of real numbers has a convergent subsequence. This can be rephrased as: Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem (rephrased). Let X be any closed bounded subset of the real line. Then any sequence (xn) of points in X has a subsequence converging to a point of X. (Why is this rephrasing valid? Note that this property does not hold if X fails to be closed or fails to be bounded — why?) And here is another example: Heine–Borel theorem. Every covering of a closed interval [a, b] — or more generally of a closed bounded set X R — by a collection of open sets has a ⊂ finite subcovering. These theorems are not only interesting — they are also extremely useful in applications, as we shall see. So our goal now is to investigate the generalizations of these concepts to metric spaces. We begin with some definitions: Let (X,d) be a metric space. A covering of X is a collection of sets whose union is X. An open covering of X is a collection of open sets whose union is X. The metric space X is said to be compact if every open covering has a finite subcovering.1 This abstracts the Heine–Borel property; indeed, the Heine–Borel theorem states that closed bounded subsets of the real line are compact.
    [Show full text]