DOCSLIB.ORG

Lecture 15: October 20 the Tietze Extension Theorem. Another

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lecture 15: October 20 the Tietze Extension Theorem. Another 1 Lecture 15: October 20 The Tietze extension theorem. Another important application of Urysohn’s lemma is the following extension theorem for continuous real-valued functions. This result is very useful in analysis. Theorem 15.1 (Tietze extension theorem). Let X be a normal topological space, and A X a closed subset. ⊆ (a) Let I R be a closed interval. Any continuous function f : A I can be extended⊆ to a continuous function g : X I. → → (b) Similarly, any continuous function f : A R can be extended to a contin- → uous function g : X R. → Saying that g extends f means that we have g(a)=f(a) for every point a A. The assumption that A be closed is very important: for example, the function∈ f :(0, ) R with f(x)=1/x cannot be extended continuously to all of R. The∞ proof→ of Theorem 15.1 goes as follows. Using Urysohn’s lemma, we shall construct a sequence of continuous functions sn : X I that approximates f more and more closely as n gets large. The desired function→ g will be the limit of this sequence. Since we want g to be continuous, we first have to understand under what conditions the limit of a sequence of continuous functions is again continuous. Uniform convergence. Consider a sequence of functions fn : X R from a → topological space X to R (or, more generally, to a metric space). We say that the sequence converges (pointwise) to a function f : X R if, for every x → ∈ X, the sequence of real numbers fn(x) converges to the real number f(x). More precisely, this means that for every x X and every ε>0, there exists N with ∈ fn(x) f(x) <εfor all n N. Of course, N is allowed to depend on x; we get a more| restrictive− | notion of convergence≥ if we assume that the same N works for all x X at the same time. ∈ Definition 15.2. A sequence of functions fn : X R converges uniformly to a → function f : X R if, for every ε>0, there is some N such that f(x) fn(x) <ε for all n N and→ all x X. | − | ≥ ∈ The usefulness of uniform convergence is that it preserves continuity. Lemma 15.3. The limit of a uniformly convergent sequence of continuous func- tions is continuous. Proof. Suppose that the sequence of continuous functions fn : X R converges → uniformly to a function f : X R. We have to show that f is continuous. Let V → 1 ⊆ R be an arbitrary open set; to show that f − (V ) is open, it suffices to produce for 1 every point x0 f − (V ) a neighborhood U with f(U) V . This is straightforward. One, f(x ) V∈, and so there is some r>0with ⊆ 0 ∈ B f(x ) V. r 0 ⊆ Two, the sequence converges uniformly, and so we can find an index n such that f (x) f(x) <r/3 for every x X.Three,f is continuous, and so there is an | n − | ∈ n open set U containing x0 with f (U) B f (x ) . n ⊆ r/3 n 0 2 Now we can show that f(U) V . Let x U be any point; then ⊆ ∈ r r r f(x) f(x ) f(x) f (x) + f (x) f (x ) + f (x ) f(x ) < + + = r, | − 0 |≤| − n | | n − n 0 | | n 0 − 0 | 3 3 3 and so f(x) B f(x ) V . ∈ r 0 ⊆ Proof of Tietze’s theorem. We will do the proof of Theorem 15.1 in three steps. Throughout, X denotes a normal topological space, and A X a closed subset. The first step is to solve the following simpler problem.⊆ Given a continuous function f : A [ r, r], we are going to construct a continuous function h: X R that is somewhat→ − close to f on the set A, without ever getting unreasonably large.→ More precisely, we want the following two conditions: 1 (15.4) g(x) r for every x X | |≤3 ∈ 2 (15.5) f(a) g(a) r for every a A | − |≤3 ∈ To do this, we divide [ r, r] into three subintervals of length 2 r, namely − 3 1 1 1 1 I = r, r ,I= r, r ,I= r, r . 1 − 3 2 −3 3 3 3 1 1 Now consider the two sets B = f − (I1) and C = f − (I3). They are closed subsets of A (because f is continuous), and therefore of X (because A is closed); they are also clearly disjoint.ï Becauseò X is normal,ï Urysohn’sò lemmaï ò produces for us a continuous function h: X [ 1 r, 1 r]with → − 3 3 1 r for x B, f(x)= − 3 ∈ 1 r for x C. 3 ∈ 1 Since f(x) 3 r, it is clear that (15.4) holds. To show that (15.5) is also satisfied, take any| point|≤ a A. There are three cases. If a B,thenf(a) and h(a) both belong to I ;ifa ∈ C,thenf(a) and® h(a) both belong∈ to I ;ifa B C,then 1 ∈ 3 ∈ ∪ f(a) and h(a) both belong to I2. In each case, the distance between f(a) and h(a) 2 can be at most 3 r,whichproves(15.5). The second step is to use the construction from above to prove assertion (a) in Theorem 15.1.IfI consists of a single point, the result is clear. On the other hand, any closed interval of positive length is homeomorphic to [ 1, 1]; without loss of generality, we may therefore assume that we are dealing with− a continuous function f : A [ 1, 1]. As I said above, our strategy is to build a uniformly convergent → − sequence of continuous functions sn : X [ 1, 1] that approximates f more and more closely on A. → − To begin with, we can apply the construction in the first step to the function f : A [ 1, 1]; the result is a continuous function h1 : X R with → − → 1 2 h (x) r and f(a) h (a) r. | 1 |≤3 | − 1 |≤3 Now consider the difference f h1, which is a continuous function from A into the 2 2 − closed interval [ 3 r, 3 r]. By applying the construction from the first step again 2 − (with r = ), we obtain a second continuous function h2 : X R with 3 → 1 2 2 2 h (x) and f(a) h (a) h (a) . | 2 |≤3 · 3 | − 1 − 2 |≤ 3 Å ã 3 Notice how h1 + h2 is a better approximation for f than the initial function h1.We can obviously continue this process indefinitely. After n steps, we have n continuous functions h1,...,hn : X R with → 2 n f(a) h (a) h (a) . | − 1 −···− n |≤ 3 By applying the construction to the function f h1 hn and the value n − −···− r =(2/3) , we obtain a new continuous function hn+1 : X R with → 1 2 n Å ã 2 n+1 h (x) and f(a) h (a) h (a) h (a) . | n+1 |≤3 · 3 | − 1 −···− n − n+1 |≤ 3 Now I claim that the function ∞ g(x)= h (x) Å ã n Å ã n=1 is the desired continuous extension of f. To prove this claim, we have to show that the series converges for every x X; that the limit function g : X [ 1, 1] is continuous; and that g(a)=f(a)∈ for every a A. → − To prove the convergence, let us denote by∈s (x)=h (x)+ + h (x)then-th n 1 ··· n partial sum of the series; clearly, sn : X R is continuous. If m>n,then → m m k 1 n 1 2 − 2 s (x) s (x) h (x) . | m − n |≤ | k |≤3 3 ≤ 3 k=n+1 k=n+1 This proves that the sequence of real numbers sn(x) is Cauchy; if we define g(x) as the limit, we obtain a function g : X R. Now we can let m go to infinity in the inequality above to obtain → Å ã Å ã 2 n g(x) s (x) | − n |≤ 3 for every x X. This means that the sequence sn converges uniformly to g, and so by Lemma∈ 15.3, g is still continuous. It is also not hard to see that g takes values in [ 1, 1]: for every x X,wehave − ∈ Å ã n 1 ∞ 1 ∞ 2 − g(x) h (x) =1, | |≤ | n |≤3 3 n=1 n=1 by evaluating the geometric series. It remains to show that g(a)=f(a)whenever a A. By construction, we have ∈ Å ã 2 n f(a) s (a) = f(a) h (a) h (a) ; | − n | | − 1 −···− n |≤ 3 letting n , it follows that f(a) g(a) = 0, which is what we wanted to show. The third→∞ step is to prove assertion| − (b)| in Theorem 15.1, where we are given a continous function f : A R.Evidently,R is homeomorphicÅ toã the open interval ( 1, 1); the result of the second→ step therefore allows us to extend f to a continuous function− g : X [ 1, 1]. The remaining problem is how we can make sure that g(X) ( 1, 1).→ Here− we use the following trick. Given g, we consider the subset ⊆ − 1 D = g− 1, 1 X. {− }⊆ Because g is continous, this set is closed; it is also disjoint from the closed set A, because g(A) ( , 1). By Urysohn’s lemma, there is a continous function ⊆ − 4 ϕ: X [0, 1] with ϕ(D)= 0 and ϕ(A)= 1 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 .
    [Show full text]
  • Mcshane-Whitney Extensions in Constructive Analysis
    Logical Methods in Computer Science Volume 16, Issue 1, 2020, pp. 18:1–18:23 Submitted Apr. 24, 2018 https://lmcs.episciences.org/ Published Feb. 17, 2020 MCSHANE-WHITNEY EXTENSIONS IN CONSTRUCTIVE ANALYSIS IOSIF PETRAKIS Mathematics Institute, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨atM¨unchen e-mail address: [email protected] Abstract. Within Bishop-style constructive mathematics we study the classical McShane- Whitney theorem on the extendability of real-valued Lipschitz functions defined on a subset of a metric space. Using a formulation similar to the formulation of McShane-Whitney theorem, we show that the Lipschitz real-valued functions on a totally bounded space are uniformly dense in the set of uniformly continuous functions. Through the introduced notion of a McShane-Whitney pair we describe the constructive content of the original McShane-Whitney extension and we examine how the properties of a Lipschitz function defined on the subspace of the pair extend to its McShane-Whitney extensions on the space of the pair. Similar McShane-Whitney pairs and extensions are established for H¨older functions and ν-continuous functions, where ν is a modulus of continuity. A Lipschitz version of a fundamental corollary of the Hahn-Banach theorem, and the approximate McShane-Whitney theorem are shown. Introduction A central theme in mathematical analysis, classical or constructive, is the extension of a continuous function f, defined on a subspace A of a space X and satisfying some property P , to a continuous function f ∗ defined on X and satisfying the property P . A \general extension theorem" is a statement providing conditions on X and A such that such an extension of f to f ∗ is possible1.
    [Show full text]
  • Insertion of a Measurable Function
    J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) 57 (1994), 295-304 INSERTION OF A MEASURABLE FUNCTION WESLEY KOTZE and TOMASZ KUBIAK (Received 4 March 1991; revised 3 July 1991) Communicated by J. H. Rubinstein Abstract Some theorems on the existence of continuous real-valued functions on a topological space (for example, insertion, extension, and separation theorems) can be proved without involving uncountable unions of open sets. In particular, it is shown that well-known characterizations of normality (for example the Katgtov-Tong insertion theorem, the Tietze extension theorem, Urysohn's lemma) are characterizations of normal a -rings. Likewise, similar theorems about extremally disconnected spaces are true for a -rings of a certain type. This cr-ring approach leads to general results on the existence of functions of class a. 1991 Mathematics subject classification (Amer. Math. Soc): 54C50, 28A05, 28A20, 54C20, 54C45, 26A21.54C30. Keywords and phrases: real-valued function, cr-ring, measurable function, class a function, insertion, extension, separation, perfect space, normal, extremally disconnected. 1. Introduction hi this paper we shall show that some important theorems on the existence of real- valued functions on a topological space remain valid if uncountable unions of open sets are not available. For instance, the proof of Urysohn's lemma depends upon constructing a countable family of open sets {Ur : r e Q} such that Ur C Us if r < s. This involves the operation of closure, hence a not necessarily countable intersection. But one can easily overcome this topological ingredient by requiring the existence of a countable family of closed sets {K : r e Q] such that Ur C Kr c Us whenever r < s.
    [Show full text]