DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 7 Separation Properties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 7 Separation Properties Chapter VII Separation Properties 1. Introduction “Separation” refers here to whether objects such as points or disjoint closed sets can be enclosed in disjoint open sets. In spite of the similarity of terminology, “separation properties” have no direct connection to the idea of “separated sets” that appeared in Chapter 5 in the context of connected spaces. We have already met some simple separation properties of spaces: the XßX! "and X # (Hausdorff) properties. In this chapter, we look at these and others in more depth. As hypotheses for “more separation” are added, spaces generally become nicer and nicer especially when “separation” is combined with other properties. For example, we will see that “enough separation” and “a nice base” guarantees that a space is metrizable. “Separation axioms” translates the German term Trennungsaxiome used in the original literature. Therefore the standard separation axioms were historically named XXXX!"#$, , , ,and X % , each one stronger than its predecessor in the list. Once these had become common terminology, another separation axiom was discovered to be useful and “interpolated” into the list: X" Þ It turns out that the $ # X " spaces (also called Tychonoff spaces) are an extremely well-behaved class of spaces with some $ # very nice properties. 2. The Basics Definition 2.1 A topological space \ is called a 1) X!-space if, whenever BÁC−\, there either exists an open set YB−YCÂY with , or there exists an open set Zwith C−ZBÂZ, 2) X"-space if, whenever BÁC−\, there exists an open set Ywith B−YßCÂZ and there exists an open set Zwith BÂYßC−Z 3) X#-space (or, Hausdorff space) if, whenever BÁC−\, there exist disjoint open sets Y and Z in \ such that B−Y and C−Z . It is immediately clear from the definitions that X# ÊX " ÊXÞ ! Example 2.2 1) \X is a !-space if and only if: whenever BÁC, then aB Á a C that is, different points in \ have different neighborhood systems. 283 2) If \ has the trivial topology and l\l"\, then is not a X !-space. 3) A pseudometric space Ð\ß.Ñ is a metric space in and only if Ð\ß.Ñ is a X !-space. Clearly, a metric space is X!. On the other hand, suppose Ð\ß.ÑX is ! and that BÁCÞ Then for some % ! either BÂFÐCÑ% or CÂFÐBÑ % . Either way, .ÐBßCÑ % , so . is a metric. 4) In any topological space \ we candefine an equivalence relation BµCiffaB œ a C . Let 1À\Ä\εœ] by 1ÐBÑœÒBÓÞGive ] the quotient topology. Then 1 is continuous, onto, open (not automatic for a quotient map!) and the quotient is a X! space: If S is open in \, we want to show that 1ÒSÓ is open in ], and because ] has the quotient topology this is true iff 1" Ò1ÒSÓÓ is open in \. But 1 " Ò1ÒSÓÓ œÖB−\À1ÐBÑ−1ÒSÓלÖB−\Àfor some C−S, 1ÐBÑœ1ÐCÑ× œÖB−\ÀB is equivalent to some point CSלS in . If ÒBÓÁÒCÓ−], then B is not equivalent to C, so there is an open set S©\ with (say) B−S and CÂS. Since 1 is open, 1ÒSÓ is open in ] and ÒBÓ−1ÒSÓ . Moreover, ÒCÓÂ1ÒSÓ or else C would be equivalent to some point of Simplying C−SÞ ] is called the X!-identification of \ . This identification turns any space into a X ! -spaceby identifying points that have identical neighborhoods. If \ is a X!-space to begin with, then 1 is one- to-one and 1 is a homeomorphism. Applied to a X! space, the X ! -identification accomplishes nothing. If Ð\ß.Ñis a pseudometric space, the X !-identification is the same as the metric identification discussed in Example VI.5.6 because, in that case,aBœ a C if and only if .ÐBßCÑœ!Þ w w 5) For 3œ!ß"ß#ÀÐ\ßÑif g is a X3 space and gg ª is a new topology on \, then Ð\ßÑ g is also a X3 space. Example 2.3 1) (Exercise) It is easy to check that a space \is a X " space iff for each B − \, ÖB× is closed iff for each B−\ÖBל, + ÖSÀSis open and B−S× 2) A finite X" space is discrete. 3) Sierpinski space \œÖ!ß"× with topology g œÖgßÖ"×ßÖ!ß"××Ñ is X! but not X " : Ö"× is an open set that contains " and not !; but there is no open set containing ! and not 1. 4) ‘, with the right-ray topology, is X! but not X " : if B+C−‘ , then SœÐBß∞Ñ is an open set that contains CB and not ; but there is no open set that contains BC and not . 5) With the cofinite topology, is X" but not X # because, in an infinite cofinite space, any two nonempty open sets have nonempty intersection. 284 These separation properties are very well-behaved with respect to subspaces and products. Theorem 2.4 For 3 œ !ß"ß# : a) A subspace of a X3-space is a X 3 -space b) If \œ#α−E \Ágα , then \X is a 3-space iff each \α is a X 3 -space. Proof All of the proofs are easy. We consider here only the case 3 œ " , leaving the other cases as an exercise. w a) Suppose +Á,−E©\, where \X is a " space. If Y is an open set in \ containing B but not C , then YœY∩Ew is an open set in E containing BC but not . Similarly we can find an open set ZE in containing C but not BÞ Therefore EXis a "-space. b) Suppose \œ\#α−E α is a nonempty X"-space. Each \α is homeomorphic to a subspace of \ , so, by part a), each \XÞα is " Conversely, suppose each \Xα is " and that BÁC−\. Then BÁCα α for some α. Pick an open set Y\αα in containing B αα but not C. Then Yœ+Y α is an open set in \BCcontaining but not . Similarly, we find an open set Z\CBin containing but not . Therefore \ is a X"-space. ñ Exercise 2.5 Is a continuous image of a X3-space necessarily a X 3 -space? How about a quotient? A continuous open image? We now consider a slightly different kind of separation axiom for a space \ À formally, the definition is “just like” the definition of X#, but with a closed set replacing one of the points. Definition 2.6 A topological space \ is called regular if whenever J is a closed set and BÂJß there exist disjoint open sets Y and Z such that B−Y and J©Z . 285 There are some easy equivalents of the definition of “regular” that are useful to recognize. Theorem 2.7 The following are equivalent for any space \: i) \ is regular ii) if S is an open set containing B, then there exists an open set Y©\ such that B−Y©cl Y©S iii) at each point B − \ there exists a neighborhood base consisting of closed neighborhoods. Proof i)Ê ii) Suppose \ is regular and S is an open set with B−SÞLetting Jœ\S , we use regularity to get disjoint open sets YßZ with B−Y and J©Z as illustrated below: Then B−Y©cl Y©S (since cl Y©\Z ). ii)ÊR− iii) If aB, then B−SœRint . By ii), we can find an open set Y so that B−Y©Y©S©RÞcl Since cl Y is a neighborhood of B, the closed neighborhoods of B form a neighborhood base at B. iii)Ê i) Suppose J is closed and BÂJ. By ii), there is a closed neighborhood OB of such that B−O©\J. We can choose YœOint and Zœ\O to complete the proof that \ is regular. ñ Example 2.8 Every pseudometric space Ð\ß.Ñ is regular. Suppose +ÂJand J is closed. We have a continuous function 0ÐBÑœ.ÐBßJÑ for which 0Ð+Ñœ-! and 0lJœ!Þ This gives us disjoint "- " - open sets with +−Yœ0 ÒÐß∞ÑÓ# and J©Zœ0 ÒÐ∞ßÑÓ# . Therefore \ is regular. At first glance, one might think that regularity is a stronger condition than X#. But this is false: if Ð\ß .Ñ is a pseudometric space but not a metric space, then \ is regular but not even X !. 286 To bring things into line, we make the following definition. Definition A topological space \ is called a X\$-space if is regular and X " . It is easy to show that XÊX$#"! ( ÊXÊX ): suppose \ is X $ and BÁC−\. Then JœÖC× is closed so, by regularity, there are disjoint open sets YZ, with B−Y and C−ÖCשZ . Caution Terminology varies from book to book. For some authors, the definition of “regular” includes XÀ" for them, “regular” means what we have called “X $ .” Check the definitions when reading other books. Exercise 2.10 Show that a regular X! space must be X $ ( so it would have been equivalent to use “X! ” instead of “ X " ” in the definition of “ X $ ” ). # Example 2.11 XÊX#Î $ . We will put a new topology on the set \œ‘ . At each point :−\ , let a neighborhood base U: consist of all sets R of the form RœFÐ:ÑÐ% a finite number of straight lines through :Ñ∪Ö:× for some % !Þ (Check that the conditions in the Neighborhood Base Theorem III.5.2 are satisfied. ) With the resulting topology, \ is called the slotted plane . Note that F% Ð:Ñ − U: ( because “! ” is a finite # number ), so each F% Ð:Ñ is among the basic neighborhoods in U: so the slotted plane topology on ‘ contains the usual Euclidean topology. It follows that \ is X #. The set JœÖÐBß!ÑÀBÁ!ל“the B-axis with the origin deleted” is a closed set in \ (why? ).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 7 Separation Properties
    Chapter VII Separation Axioms 1. Introduction “Separation” refers here to whether or not objects like points or disjoint closed sets can be enclosed in disjoint open sets; “separation properties” have nothing to do with the idea of “separated sets” that appeared in our discussion of connectedness in Chapter 5 in spite of the similarity of terminology.. We have already met some simple separation properties of spaces: the XßX!"and X # (Hausdorff) properties. In this chapter, we look at these and others in more depth. As “more separation” is added to spaces, they generally become nicer and nicer especially when “separation” is combined with other properties. For example, we will see that “enough separation” and “a nice base” guarantees that a space is metrizable. “Separation axioms” translates the German term Trennungsaxiome used in the older literature. Therefore the standard separation axioms were historically named XXXX!"#$, , , , and X %, each stronger than its predecessors in the list. Once these were common terminology, another separation axiom was discovered to be useful and “interpolated” into the list: XÞ"" It turns out that the X spaces (also called $$## Tychonoff spaces) are an extremely well-behaved class of spaces with some very nice properties. 2. The Basics Definition 2.1 A topological space \ is called a 1) X! space if, whenever BÁC−\, there either exists an open set Y with B−Y, CÂY or there exists an open set ZC−ZBÂZwith , 2) X" space if, whenever BÁC−\, there exists an open set Ywith B−YßCÂZ and there exists an open set ZBÂYßC−Zwith 3) XBÁC−\Y# space (or, Hausdorff space) if, whenever , there exist disjoint open sets and Z\ in such that B−YC−Z and .
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1910.07913V4 [Math.LO]
    REPRESENTATIONS AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS SAM SANDERS Abstract. The representation of mathematical objects in terms of (more) ba- sic ones is part and parcel of (the foundations of) mathematics. In the usual foundations of mathematics, i.e. ZFC set theory, all mathematical objects are represented by sets, while ordinary, i.e. non-set theoretic, mathematics is rep- resented in the more parsimonious language of second-order arithmetic. This paper deals with the latter representation for the rather basic case of continu- ous functions on the reals and Baire space. We show that the logical strength of basic theorems named after Tietze, Heine, and Weierstrass, changes signifi- cantly upon the replacement of ‘second-order representations’ by ‘third-order functions’. We discuss the implications and connections to the Reverse Math- ematics program and its foundational claims regarding predicativist mathe- matics and Hilbert’s program for the foundations of mathematics. Finally, we identify the problem caused by representations of continuous functions and formulate a criterion to avoid problematic codings within the bigger picture of representations. 1. Introduction Lest we be misunderstood, let our first order of business be to formulate the following blanket caveat: any formalisation of mathematics generally involves some kind of representation (aka coding) of mathematical objects in terms of others. Now, the goal of this paper is to critically examine the role of representations based on the language of second-order arithmetic; such an examination perhaps unsurpris- ingly involves the comparison of theorems based on second-order representations versus theorems formulated in third-order arithmetic. To be absolutely clear, we do not claim that the latter represent the ultimate mathematical truth, nor do we arXiv:1910.07913v5 [math.LO] 9 Aug 2021 (wish to) downplay the role of representations in third-order arithmetic.
    [Show full text]
  • URYSOHN's THEOREM and TIETZE EXTENSION THEOREM Definition
    URYSOHN'S THEOREM AND TIETZE EXTENSION THEOREM Tianlin Liu [email protected] Mathematics Department Jacobs University Bremen Campus Ring 6, 28759, Bremen, Germany Definition 0.1. Let x; y topological space X. We define the following properties of topological space X: ∈ T0: If x y, there is an open set containing x but not y or an open set containing y but not x. ≠ T1: If x y, there is an open set containing y but not x. T2: If x≠ y, there are disjoint open sets U; V with x U and y V . ≠ ∈ T3∈: X is a T1 space, and for any closed set A X and any x AC there are disjoint open sets U; V with x U and A V . ⊂ T4∈: X is a T1 space, and for any disjoint closed∈ sets A, ⊂B in X there are disjoint open sets U, V with A Uand B V . We say a T2 space is a Hausdorff space, a T⊂3 space is⊂ a regular space, a T4 space is a normal space. Definition 0.2. C X; a; b Space of all continuous a; b valued functions on X. ( [ ]) ∶= [ ] Date: February 11, 2016. 1 URYSOHN'S THEOREM AND TIETZE EXTENSION THEOREM 2 Theorem 0.3. (Urysohn's Lemma) Let X be a normal space. If A and B are disjoint closed sets in X, there exists f C X; 0; 1 such that f 0 on A and f 1 on B. Proof. ∈ ( [ ]) = = Step 1: Define a large collection of open sets in X (Lemma 4.14 in [1]) Let D be the set of dyadic rationals in 0; 1 , that is, D 1 1 3 1 3 7 1; 0; 2 ; 4 ; 4 ; 8 ; 8 ; 8 ::: .
    [Show full text]
  • Normal Spaces
    ––––––––––––––– Chapter 8 Normal Spaces 1 Regular Spaces The Hausdorff property is perhaps the most important “separation by open sets” property, but it is certainly not the only one worth studying. There are natural ways of strengthening this property, and a few of these pave the way for some of the deeper results of general topology. As we shall see, im- posing such stronger separation properties avoids many sorts of pathologies, and leads us to topological spaces whose behavior are reminiscent of metric spaces in some important aspects. Regularity The first strengthening we will consider in this chapter is called regularity. While the Hausdorff property asks for separating two distinct points by two open sets, this property asks for the separation of a closed set from a point that lies in its outside in this manner. Definition. Let X be a topological space. We say that X (or the topology of X) is regular if X is a T1-space, and for every closed set C in X and x X C, there are disjoint open subsets O and U of X such that x O and2 C n U. (In this case, we refer to X simply as a regular space.) 2 Warning. Some authors omit the T1-condition in the definition of regularity, and refer to what we call here a regular space as a “regular T1-space”or “T3-space.” It is plain that regularity is a topological invariant. Moreover, since singletons are closed in any T1-space, every regular space is Hausdorff. As 1 such, regularity is a stronger “separation by open sets”property than being Hausdorff.
    [Show full text]
  • Extension of Mappings and Pseudometrics
    E extracta mathematicae Vol. 25, N´um.3, 277 { 308 (2010) Extension of Mappings and Pseudometrics M. Huˇsek∗ Charles University, Prague, Sokolovsk´a 83, Czech Republic, and University J.E.Purkynˇe, Ust´ınad´ Labem, Cesk´eml´adeˇzeˇ 8, Czech Republic, Miroslav.Husek@mff.cuni.cz, [email protected] Presented by Gino Tironi Received December 22, 2010 Abstract: The aim of this paper is to show a development of various methods of extensions of mappings and their interrelations. We shall point out some methods and relations entailing more general results than those originally stated. Key words: Extension of function, extension of pseudometric, metric space. AMS Subject Class. (2010): 54C20, 54E35. 1. Introduction 1.1. General remarks. We shall use two main looks at results con- cerning extensions of mappings. The first one is just historical { we shall go through the original methods and divide them into three almost disjoint pro- cedures. The second look goes into deeper analysis of the methods and tries to deduce from them as much as possible. In several cases we shall see that authors proved much more than they formulated and used (see, e.g. Theo- rems 3', 10', 2.6). We shall also describe some elementary relations among various extension results and some elementary procedures allowing to gener- alize extension results for metric spaces to more general ones (see 2.5-2.7, 3.4, Proposition 22, 4.1.3). We shall consider those situations when all (uniformly) continuous map- pings can be extended from closed subsets, excluding cases when extension exists for some of them only or from some more special subsets only.
    [Show full text]
  • Simultaneous Extension of Continuous and Uniformly Continuous Functions
    SIMULTANEOUS EXTENSION OF CONTINUOUS AND UNIFORMLY CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS VALENTIN GUTEV Abstract. The first known continuous extension result was obtained by Lebes- gue in 1907. In 1915, Tietze published his famous extension theorem generalis- ing Lebesgue’s result from the plane to general metric spaces. He constructed the extension by an explicit formula involving the distance function on the met- ric space. Thereafter, several authors contributed other explicit extension for- mulas. In the present paper, we show that all these extension constructions also preserve uniform continuity, which answers a question posed by St. Watson. In fact, such constructions are simultaneous for special bounded functions. Based on this, we also refine a result of Dugundji by constructing various continuous (nonlinear) extension operators which preserve uniform continuity as well. 1. Introduction In his 1907 paper [24] on Dirichlet’s problem, Lebesgue showed that for a closed subset A ⊂ R2 and a continuous function ϕ : A → R, there exists a continuous function f : R2 → R with f ↾ A = ϕ. Here, f is commonly called a continuous extension of ϕ, and we also say that ϕ can be extended continuously. In 1915, Tietze [30] generalised Lebesgue’s result for all metric spaces. Theorem 1.1 (Tietze, 1915). If (X,d) is a metric space and A ⊂ X is a closed set, then each bounded continuous function ϕ : A → R can be extended to a continuous function f : X → R. arXiv:2010.02955v1 [math.GN] 6 Oct 2020 Tietze gave two proofs of Theorem 1.1, the second of which was based on the following explicit construction of the extension.
    [Show full text]
  • [Math.GN] 25 Dec 2003
    Problems from Topology Proceedings Edited by Elliott Pearl arXiv:math/0312456v1 [math.GN] 25 Dec 2003 Topology Atlas, Toronto, 2003 Topology Atlas Toronto, Ontario, Canada http://at.yorku.ca/topology/ [email protected] Cataloguing in Publication Data Problems from topology proceedings / edited by Elliott Pearl. vi, 216 p. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-9730867-1-8 1. Topology—Problems, exercises, etc. I. Pearl, Elliott. II. Title. Dewey 514 20 LC QA611 MSC (2000) 54-06 Copyright c 2003 Topology Atlas. All rights reserved. Users of this publication are permitted to make fair use of the material in teaching, research and reviewing. No part of this publication may be distributed for commercial purposes without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 0-9730867-1-8 Produced November 2003. Preliminary versions of this publication were distributed on the Topology Atlas website. This publication is available in several electronic formats on the Topology Atlas website. Produced in Canada Contents Preface ............................................ ............................v Contributed Problems in Topology Proceedings .................................1 Edited by Peter J. Nyikos and Elliott Pearl. Classic Problems ....................................... ......................69 By Peter J. Nyikos. New Classic Problems .................................... ....................91 Contributions by Z.T. Balogh, S.W. Davis, A. Dow, G. Gruenhage, P.J. Nyikos, M.E. Rudin, F.D. Tall, S. Watson. Problems from M.E. Rudin’s Lecture notes in set-theoretic topology ..........103 By Elliott Pearl. Problems from A.V. Arhangel′ski˘ı’s Structure and classification of topological spaces and cardinal invariants ................................................... ...123 By A.V. Arhangel′ski˘ıand Elliott Pearl. A note on P. Nyikos’s A survey of two problems in topology ..................135 By Elliott Pearl.
    [Show full text]
  • Reverse Mathematics and the Strong Tietze Extension Theorem
    Reverse mathematics and the strong Tietze extension theorem Paul Shafer Universiteit Gent [email protected] http://cage.ugent.be/~pshafer/ CTFM 2016 Tokyo, Japan September 20, 2016 Paul Shafer { UGent RM and sTET[0;1] September 20, 2016 1 / 41 A conjecture of Giusto & Simpson (2000) Conjecture (Giusto & Simpson) The following are equivalent over RCA0: (1) WKL0. (2) Let Xb be a compact complete separable metric space, let C be a closed subset of Xb, and let f : C ! R be a continuous function with a modulus of uniform continuity. Then there is a continuous function F : Xb ! R with a modulus of uniform continuity such that F C = f. (3) Same as (2) with `closed' replaced by `closed and separably closed.' (4) Special case of (2) with Xb = [0; 1]. (5) Special case of (3) with Xb = [0; 1]. Let sTET[0;1] denote statement (5). Paul Shafer { UGent RM and sTET[0;1] September 20, 2016 2 / 41 Definitions in RCA0 (metric spaces) Let's remember what all the words in the conjecture mean in RCA0. A real number is coded by a sequence hqk : k 2 Ni of rationals such that −k 8k8i(jqk − qk+ij ≤ 2 ). A complete separable metric space Ab is coded by a non-empty set A and a ≥0 metric d: A × A ! R . A point in Ab is coded by a sequence hak : k 2 Ni of members of A such −k that 8k8i(d(ak; ak+i) ≤ 2 ). A complete separable metric space Ab is compact if there are finite sequences hhxi;j : j ≤ nii : i 2 Ni with each xi;j 2 Ab such that −i (8z 2 Ab)(8i 2 N)(9j ≤ ni)(d(xi;j; z) < 2 ): Paul Shafer { UGent RM and sTET[0;1] September 20, 2016 3 / 41 Definitions in RCA0 (the interval [0,1]) The interval [0; 1] is a complete separable metric space coded by the set fq 2 Q : 0 ≤ q ≤ 1g (with the usual metric).
    [Show full text]
  • Continuity of Set-Valued Maps Revisited in the Light of Tame Geometry
    Continuity of set-valued maps revisited in the light of tame geometry ARIS DANIILIDIS & C. H. JEFFREY PANG Abstract Continuity of set-valued maps is hereby revisited: after recalling some basic concepts of varia- tional analysis and a short description of the State-of-the-Art, we obtain as by-product two Sard type results concerning local minima of scalar and vector valued functions. Our main result though, is in- scribed in the framework of tame geometry, stating that a closed-valued semialgebraic set-valued map is almost everywhere continuous (in both topological and measure-theoretic sense). The result –depending on stratification techniques– holds true in a more general setting of o-minimal (or tame) set-valued maps. Some applications are briefly discussed at the end. Key words Set-valued map, (strict, outer, inner) continuity, Aubin property, semialgebraic, piecewise polyhedral, tame optimization. AMS subject classification Primary 49J53 ; Secondary 14P10, 57N80, 54C60, 58C07. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Basic notions in set-valued analysis 3 2.1 Continuity concepts for set-valued maps . 3 2.2 Normal cones, coderivatives and the Aubin property . 5 3 Preliminary results in Variational Analysis 6 3.1 Sard result for local (Pareto) minima . 6 3.2 Extending the Mordukhovich criterion and a critical value result . 8 3.3 Linking sets . 10 4 Generic continuity of tame set-valued maps 11 4.1 Semialgebraic and definable mappings . 11 4.2 Some technical results . 13 4.3 Main result . 18 5 Applications in tame variational analysis 18 1 Introduction We say that S is a set-valued map (we also use the term multivalued function or simply multifunction) from X to Y, denoted by S : X ¶ Y, if for every x 2 X, S(x) is a subset of Y.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eberlein Compactification of Locally Compact Groups
    The Eberlein Compactification of Locally Compact Groups by Elcim Elgun A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Pure Mathematics Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2012 c Elcim Elgun 2012 I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract A compact semigroup is, roughly, a semigroup compactification of a locally compact group if it contains a dense homomorphic image of the group. The theory of semigroup com- pactifications has been developed in connection with subalgebras of continuous bounded functions on locally compact groups. The Eberlein algebra of a locally compact group is defined to be the uniform closure of its Fourier-Stieltjes algebra. In this thesis, we study the semigroup compactification associated with the Eberlein algebra. It is called the Eberlein compactification and it can be constructed as the spectrum of the Eberlein algebra. The algebra of weakly almost periodic functions is one of the most important function spaces in the theory of topological semigroups. Both the weakly almost periodic func- tions and the associated weakly almost periodic compactification have been extensively studied since the 1930s. The Fourier-Stieltjes algebra, and hence its uniform closure, are subalgebras of the weakly almost periodic functions for any locally compact group. As a consequence, the Eberlein compactification is always a semitopological semigroup and a quotient of the weakly almost periodic compactification.
    [Show full text]
  • Proofs of Urysohn's Lemma and the Tietze Extension Theorem Via The
    PROOFS OF URYSOHN'S LEMMA AND THE TIETZE EXTENSION THEOREM VIA THE CANTOR FUNCTION FLORICA C. C^IRSTEA Abstract. Urysohn's Lemma is a crucial property of normal spaces that deals with separation of closed sets by continuous functions. It is also a fundamental ingredient in proving the Tietze Extension Theorem, another property of normal spaces that deals with the existence of extensions of continuous functions. Using the Cantor function, we give alternative proofs for Urysohn's Lemma and the Tietze Extension Theorem. 1. Introduction Urysohn's Lemma provides the means for proving big theorems in topology such as Urysohn's metrization theorem (see Urysohn's final1 paper [17]) and the Tietze Extension Theorem proved by Tietze [15] for metric spaces and generalised by Urysohn [16] to normal spaces. For further details, see [6]. Using the Cantor function, we give new proofs for Urysohn's Lemma (in Section 2) and the Tietze Extension Theorem (in Section 3). Urysohn's Lemma, the origin of which is in the third appendix to Urysohn's paper [16], gives a property that characterises normal spaces2: Theorem 1.1 (Urysohn's Lemma). If A and B are disjoint closed subsets of a normal space X, then there exists a continuous function f : X ! [0; 1] such that f = 0 on A and f = 1 on B. Munkres, the author of the popular book [11], regards the Urysohn Lemma as \the first deep theorem of the book" (see p. 207 in [11]). He adds that \it would take considerably more originality than most of us possess to prove this lemma unless we were given copious hints." For the standard proof of Urysohn's Lemma, see [8, p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brouwer Invariance Theorems in Reverse Mathematics
    Forum of Mathematics, Sigma (2020), Vol. 8:e51, 1–12 doi:10.1017/fms.2020.52 RESEARCH ARTICLE The Brouwer invariance theorems in reverse mathematics Takayuki Kihara Graduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan; E-mail: [email protected]. Received: 2 February 2019; Revised: 22 November 2019; Accepted: 13 September 2020 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary – 03B30; Secondary – 54F45, 55M10 Abstract In [12], John Stillwell wrote, ‘finding the exact strength of the Brouwer invariance theorems seems to me one of the most interesting open problems in reverse mathematics.’ In this article, we solve Stillwell’s problem by showing that (some forms of) the Brouwer invariance theorems are equivalent to the weak König’s lemma over the base system RCA0. In particular, there exists an explicit algorithm which, whenever the weak König’s lemma is false, constructs a topological embedding of R4 into R3. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Preliminaries ....................................... 3 2 Proof of (4)⇒(1) 3 2.1 Coincidence of dimension ................................ 3 2.1.1 Normality ..................................... 3 2.1.2 Star refinement .................................. 4 2.1.3 Absolute extensor ................................. 5 2.1.4 Covering dimension ............................... 5 2.2 Nöbeling’s embedding theorem .............................. 6 2.2.1 The modified Kuratowski mapping ........................ 7 2.2.2 Proof of Theorem 2 ................................ 7 2.3 Every Polish space is at most one-dimensional ...................... 10 3 Continuous degrees 10 1. Introduction How different are R< and R=? It is intuitively obvious that R< and R= are not homeomorphic whenever < ≠ =. However, this is not as easy as it appears. Quite a few prominent mathematicians have tried to solve this invariance of dimension problem, and nobody before Brouwer succeeded in providing a correct rigorous proof (see [14, Section 5.1] for the history of the invariance of dimension problem).
    [Show full text]