DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 6 Metric Spaces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 6 Metric Spaces Chapter 6 Metric Spaces Introduction The most important class of topological spaces is the class of metric spaces. Metric spaces provide a rich source of examples in topology. But more than this, most of the applications of topology to analysis are via metric spaces. The notion of metric space was introduced in 1906 by Maurice Fr´echet and developed and named by Felix Hausdorff in 1914 (Hausdorff [101]). 6.1 Metric Spaces 6.1.1 Definition. Let X be a non-empty set and d a real-valued function defined on X × X such that for a, b ∈ X: (i) d(a, b) ≥ 0 and d(a, b) = 0 if and only if a = b; (ii) d(a, b) = d(b, a); and (iii) d(a, c) ≤ d(a, b) + d(b, c), [the triangle inequality] for all a, b and c in X. Then d is said to be a metric on X, (X, d) is called a metric space and d(a, b) is referred to as the distance between a and b. 107 108 CHAPTER 6. METRIC SPACES 6.1.2 Example. The function d : R × R → R given by d(a, b) = |a − b|, a, b ∈ R is a metric on the set R since (i) |a − b| ≥ 0, for all a and b in R, and |a − b| = 0 if and only if a = b, (ii) |a − b| = |b − a|, and (iii) |a − c| ≤ |a − b| + |b − c|. (Deduce this from |x + y| ≤ |x| + |y|.) We call d the euclidean metric on R. 6.1.3 Example. The function d : R2 × R2 → R given by 2 2 d(ha1, a2i, hb1, b2i) = (a1 − b1) + (a2 − b2) p is a metric on R2 called the euclidean metric on R2. ... .... ..... .. .. ... ... ........ ......... 1 2 ......... hb , b i ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ha1, a2i ... ....... ........................ ......... 6.1.4 Example. Let X be a non-empty set and d the function from X × X into R defined by 0, if a = b d(a, b) = (1, if a =6 b. Then d is a metric on X and is called the discrete metric. 6.1. METRIC SPACES 109 Many important examples of metric spaces are “function spaces”. For these the set X on which we put a metric is a set of functions. 6.1.5 Example. Let C[0, 1] denote the set of continuous functions from [0, 1] into R. A metric is defined on this set by 1 d(f, g) = |f(x) − g(x)| dx 0 Z where f and g are in C[0, 1]. A moment’s thought should tell you that d(f, g) is precisely the area of the region which lies between the graphs of the functions and the lines x = 0 and x = 1, as illustrated below. 110 CHAPTER 6. METRIC SPACES 6.1.6 Example. Again let C[0, 1] be the set of all continuous functions from [0, 1] into R. Another metric is defined on C[0, 1] as follows: d∗(f, g) = sup{|f(x) − g(x)| : x ∈ [0, 1]}. Clearly d∗(f, g) is just the largest vertical gap between the graphs of the functions f and g. 6.1.7 Example. We can define another metric on R2 by putting ∗ d (ha1, a2i, hb1, b2i) = max{|a1 − b1|, |a2 − b2|} where max{x, y} equals the larger of the two numbers x and y. 6.1.8 Example. Yet another metric on R2 is given by d1(ha1, a2i, hb1, b2i) = |a1 − b1| + |a2 − b2|. 6.1. METRIC SPACES 111 A rich source of examples of metric spaces is the family of normed vector spaces. 6.1.9 Example. Let V be a vector space over the field of real or complex numbers. A norm k k on V is a map : V → R such that for all a, b ∈ V and λ in the field (i) k a k ≥ 0 and k a k= 0 if and only if a = 0, (ii) k a + b k ≤ k a k + k b k, and (iii) k λa k= |λ| k a k. A normed vector space (V, k k) is a vector space V with a norm k k. Let (V, k k) be any normed vector space. Then there is a corresponding metric, d, on the set V given by d(a, b) =k a − b k, for a and b in V . It is easily checked that d is indeed a metric. So every normed vector space is also a metric space in a natural way. For example, R3 is a normed vector space if we put 2 2 2 k hx1, x2, x3i k= x1 + x2 + x3 , for x1, x2, and x3 in R. q So R3 becomes a metric space if we put d(ha1, b1, c1i, ha2, b2, c2i) = k (a1 − a2, b1 − b2, c1 − c2) k 2 2 2 = (a1 − a2) + (b1 − b2) + (c1 − c2) . p Indeed Rn, for any positive integer n, is a normed vector space if we put 2 2 2 k hx1, x2, . , xni k= x1 + x2 + ··· + xn . q So Rn becomes a metric space if we put d(ha1, a2, . , ani, hb1, b2, . , bni) = k ha1 − b1, a2 − b2, . , an − bni k 2 2 2 = (a1 − b1) + (a2 − b2) + ··· + (an − bn) . p 112 CHAPTER 6. METRIC SPACES In a normed vector space (N, k k) the open ball with centre a and radius r is defined to be the set Br(a) = {x : x ∈ N and k x − a k< r}. This suggests the following definition for metric spaces: 6.1.10 Definition. Let (X, d) be a metric space and r any positive real number. Then the open ball about a ∈ X of radius r is the set Br(a) = {x : x ∈ X and d(a, x) < r}. 6.1.11 Example. In R with the euclidean metric Br(a) is the open interval (a − r, a + r). 2 6.1.12 Example. In R with the euclidean metric, Br(a) is the open disc with centre a and radius r. 6.1. METRIC SPACES 113 6.1.13 Example. In R2 with the metric d∗ given by ∗ d (ha1, a2i, hb1, b2i) = max{|a1 − b1|, |a2 − b2|}, the open ball B1(h0, 0i) looks like 2 6.1.14 Example. In R with the metric d1 given by d1(ha1, a2i, hb1, b2i) = |a1 − b1| + |a2 − b2|, the open ball B1(h0, 0i) looks like 114 CHAPTER 6. METRIC SPACES The proof of the following Lemma is quite easy (especially if you draw a diagram) and so is left for you to supply. 6.1.15 Lemma. Let (X, d) be a metric space and a and b points of X. Further, let δ1 and δ2 be positive real numbers. If c ∈ Bδ1 (a) ∩ Bδ2 (b), then there exists a δ > 0 such that Bδ(c) ⊆ Bδ1 (a) ∩ Bδ2 (b). The next Corollary follows in a now routine way from Lemma 6.1.15. 6.1.16 Corollary. Let (X, d) be a metric space and B1 and B2 open balls in (X, d). Then B1 ∩ B2 is a union of open balls in (X, d). Finally we are able to link metric spaces with topological spaces. 6.1.17 Proposition. Let (X, d) be a metric space. Then the collection of open balls in (X, d) is a basis for a topology τ on X. [The topology τ is referred to as the topology induced by the metric d, and (X, τ ) is called the induced topological space or the corresponding topological space or the associated topological space.] Proof. This follows from Proposition 2.2.8 and Corollary 6.1.16. 6.1.18 Example. If d is the euclidean metric on R then a basis for the topology τ induced by the metric d is the set of all open balls. But Bδ(a) = (a − δ , a + δ). From this it is readily seen that τ is the euclidean topology on R. So the euclidean metric on R induces the euclidean topology on R. 6.1. METRIC SPACES 115 6.1.19 Example. From Exercises 2.3 #1 (ii) and Example 6.1.12, it follows that the euclidean metric on the set R2 induces the euclidean topology on R2. 6.1.20 Example. From Exercises 2.3 #1 (i) and Example 6.1.13 it follows that the metric d∗ also induces the euclidean topology on the set R2. It is left as an exercise for you to prove that the metric d1 of Example 6.1.14 also induces the euclidean topology on R2. 6.1.21 Example. If d is the discrete metric on a set X then for each x ∈ X, B 1 (x) = 2 {x}. So all the singleton sets are open in the topology τ induced on X by d. Consequently, τ is the discrete topology. We saw in Examples 6.1.19, 6.1.20, and 6.1.14 three different metrics on the same set which induce the same topology. 6.1.22 Definition. Metrics on a set X are said to be equivalent if they induce the same topology on X. ∗ 2 So the metrics d, d , and d1, of Examples 6.1.3, 6.1.13, and 6.1.14 on R are equivalent. 6.1.23 Proposition. Let (X, d) be a metric space and τ the topology induced on X by the metric d. Then a subset U of X is open in (X, τ ) if and only if for each a ∈ U there exists an ε > 0 such that the open ball Bε(a) ⊆ U.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 12 | Urysohn Metrization Theorem
    12 | Urysohn Metrization Theorem In this chapter we return to the problem of determining which topological spaces are metrizable i.e. can be equipped with a metric which is compatible with their topology. We have seen already that any metrizable space must be normal, but that not every normal space is metrizable. We will show, however, that if a normal space space satisfies one extra condition then it is metrizable. Recall that a space X is second countable if it has a countable basis. We have: 12.1 Urysohn Metrization Theorem. Every second countable normal space is metrizable. The main idea of the proof is to show that any space as in the theorem can be identified with a subspace of some metric space. To make this more precise we need the following: 12.2 Definition. A continuous function i: X → Y is an embedding if its restriction i: X → i(X) is a homeomorphism (where i(X) has the topology of a subspace of Y ). 12.3 Example. The function i: (0; 1) → R given by i(x) = x is an embedding. The function j : (0; 1) → R given by j(x) = 2x is another embedding of the interval (0; 1) into R. 12.4 Note. 1) If j : X → Y is an embedding then j must be 1-1. 2) Not every continuous 1-1 function is an embedding. For example, take N = {0; 1; 2;::: } with the discrete topology, and let f : N → R be given ( n f n 0 if = 0 ( ) = 1 n if n > 0 75 12.
    [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]
  • An Exploration of the Metrizability of Topological Spaces
    AN EXPLORATION OF THE METRIZABILITY OF TOPOLOGICAL SPACES DUSTIN HEDMARK Abstract. A study of the conditions under which a topological space is metrizable, concluding with a proof of the Nagata Smirnov Metrization The- orem Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Product Topology 2 3. More Product Topology and R! 3 4. Separation Axioms 4 5. Urysohn's Lemma 5 6. Urysohn's Metrization Theorem 6 7. Local Finiteness and Gδ sets 8 8. Nagata-Smirnov Metrization Theorem 11 References 13 1. Introduction In this paper we will be exploring a basic topological notion known as metriz- ability, or whether or not a given topology can be understood through a distance function. We first give the reader some basic definitions. As an outline, we will be using these notions to first prove Urysohn's lemma, which we then use to prove Urysohn's metrization theorem, and we culminate by proving the Nagata Smirnov Metrization Theorem. Definition 1.1. Let X be a topological space. The collection of subsets B ⊂ X forms a basis for X if for any open U ⊂ X can be written as the union of elements of B Definition 1.2. Let X be a set. Let B ⊂ X be a collection of subsets of X. The topology generated by B is the intersection of all topologies on X containing B. Definition 1.3. Let X and Y be topological spaces. A map f : X ! Y . If f is a homeomorphism if it is a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse. If there is a homeomorphism from X to Y , we say that X and Y are homeo- morphic.
    [Show full text]
  • DEFINITIONS and THEOREMS in GENERAL TOPOLOGY 1. Basic
    DEFINITIONS AND THEOREMS IN GENERAL TOPOLOGY 1. Basic definitions. A topology on a set X is defined by a family O of subsets of X, the open sets of the topology, satisfying the axioms: (i) ; and X are in O; (ii) the intersection of finitely many sets in O is in O; (iii) arbitrary unions of sets in O are in O. Alternatively, a topology may be defined by the neighborhoods U(p) of an arbitrary point p 2 X, where p 2 U(p) and, in addition: (i) If U1;U2 are neighborhoods of p, there exists U3 neighborhood of p, such that U3 ⊂ U1 \ U2; (ii) If U is a neighborhood of p and q 2 U, there exists a neighborhood V of q so that V ⊂ U. A topology is Hausdorff if any distinct points p 6= q admit disjoint neigh- borhoods. This is almost always assumed. A set C ⊂ X is closed if its complement is open. The closure A¯ of a set A ⊂ X is the intersection of all closed sets containing X. A subset A ⊂ X is dense in X if A¯ = X. A point x 2 X is a cluster point of a subset A ⊂ X if any neighborhood of x contains a point of A distinct from x. If A0 denotes the set of cluster points, then A¯ = A [ A0: A map f : X ! Y of topological spaces is continuous at p 2 X if for any open neighborhood V ⊂ Y of f(p), there exists an open neighborhood U ⊂ X of p so that f(U) ⊂ V .
    [Show full text]
  • SOME REMARKS on Sn-METRIZABLE SPACES1
    Novi Sad J. Math. Vol. 39, No. 2, 2009, 103-109 SOME REMARKS ON sn-METRIZABLE SPACES1 Xun Ge2, Jinjin Li3 Abstract. This paper shows that sn-metrizable spaces can not be characterized as sequence-covering, compact, σ-images of metric spaces or sn-open, ¼, σ-images of metric spaces. Also, a space with a locally countable sn-network need not to be an sn-metrizable space. These results correct some errors on sn-metrizable spaces. AMS Mathematics Subject Classi¯cation (2000): 54C05, 54E35, 54E40 Key words and phrases: sn-metrizable space, sequence-covering mapping, sn-network, sn-open mapping, compact-mapping, ¼-mapping, σ-mapping 1. Introduction sn-metrizable spaces are a class of important generalized metric spaces be- tween g-metrizable spaces and @-spaces [9]. To characterize sn-metrizable spaces by certain images of metric spaces is an interesting question, and many \nice" characterizations of sn-metrizable spaces have been obtained [3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 24]. In the past years, the following results were given. Proposition 1. Let X be a space. (1) X is an sn-metrizable space i® X is a sequence-covering, compact, σ- image of a metric space [21, Theorem 3.2]. (2) X is an sn-metrizable space i® X is an sn-open, ¼, σ-image of a metric space [14, Theorem 2.7]. (3) If X has a locally countable sn-network, then X is an sn-metrizable space [21, Theorem 4.3]. Unfortunately, Proposition 1.1 is not true. In this paper, we give some ex- amples to show that sn-metrizable spaces can not be characterized as sequence- covering, compact, σ-images of metric spaces or sn-open, ¼, σ-images of metric spaces, and a space with a locally countable sn-network need not to be an sn-metrizable space.
    [Show full text]
  • TOPOLOGICAL SPACES DEFINITIONS and BASIC RESULTS 1.Topological Space
    PART I: TOPOLOGICAL SPACES DEFINITIONS AND BASIC RESULTS 1.Topological space/ open sets, closed sets, interior and closure/ basis of a topology, subbasis/ 1st ad 2nd countable spaces/ Limits of sequences, Hausdorff property. Prop: (i) condition on a family of subsets so it defines the basis of a topology on X. (ii) Condition on a family of open subsets to define a basis of a given topology. 2. Continuous map between spaces (equivalent definitions)/ finer topolo- gies and continuity/homeomorphisms/metric and metrizable spaces/ equiv- alent metrics vs. quasi-isometry. 3. Topological subspace/ relatively open (or closed) subsets. Product topology: finitely many factors, arbitrarily many factors. Reference: Munkres, Ch. 2 sect. 12 to 21 (skip 14) and Ch. 4, sect. 30. PROBLEMS PART (A) 1. Define a non-Hausdorff topology on R (other than the trivial topol- ogy) 1.5 Is the ‘finite complement topology' on R Hausdorff? Is this topology finer or coarser than the usual one? What does lim xn = a mean in this topology? (Hint: if b 6= a, there is no constant subsequence equal to b.) 2. Let Y ⊂ X have the induced topology. C ⊂ Y is closed in Y iff C = A \ Y , for some A ⊂ X closed in X. 2.5 Let E ⊂ Y ⊂ X, where X is a topological space and Y has the Y induced topology. Thenn E (the closure of E in the induced topology on Y ) equals E \ Y , the intersection of the closure of E in X with the subset Y . 3. Let E ⊂ X, E0 be the set of cluster points of E.
    [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]
  • Quantum General Relativity and the Classification of Smooth Manifolds
    Quantum general relativity and the classification of smooth manifolds Hendryk Pfeiffer∗ DAMTP, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom Emmanuel College, St Andrew’s Street, Cambridge CB2 3AP, United Kingdom May 17, 2004 Abstract The gauge symmetry of classical general relativity under space-time diffeomorphisms implies that any path integral quantization which can be interpreted as a sum over space- time geometries, gives rise to a formal invariant of smooth manifolds. This is an oppor- tunity to review results on the classification of smooth, piecewise-linear and topological manifolds. It turns out that differential topology distinguishes the space-time dimension d = 3 + 1 from any other lower or higher dimension and relates the sought-after path integral quantization of general relativity in d = 3 + 1 with an open problem in topology, namely to construct non-trivial invariants of smooth manifolds using their piecewise-linear structure. In any dimension d ≤ 5 + 1, the classification results provide us with trian- gulations of space-time which are not merely approximations nor introduce any physical cut-off, but which rather capture the full information about smooth manifolds up to diffeomorphism. Conditions on refinements of these triangulations reveal what replaces block-spin renormalization group transformations in theories with dynamical geometry. The classification results finally suggest that it is space-time dimension rather than ab- arXiv:gr-qc/0404088v2 17 May 2004 sence of gravitons that renders pure gravity in d = 2 + 1 a ‘topological’ theory. PACS: 04.60.-m, 04.60.Pp, 11.30.-j keywords: General covariance, diffeomorphism, quantum gravity, spin foam model 1 Introduction Space-time diffeomorphisms form a gauge symmetry of classical general relativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Types of Diffeomorphism Groups of Noncompact 2-Manifolds
    数理解析研究所講究録 1248 巻 2002 年 50-58 50 HOMOTOPY TYPES OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF NONCOMPACT 2-MANIFOLDS 矢ヶ崎 達彦 (TATSUHIKO YAGASAKI) 京都工芸繊維大学 工芸学部 1. INTRODUCTION This is areport on the study of topological properties of the diffeomorphism groups of noncompact smooth 2-manifolds endowed with the compact-0pen $C^{\infty}$ topology [18]. When $M$ is compact smooth 2-manifold, the diffeomorphism group $D(M)$ with the compact- $C^{\infty}-\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{o}1\mathrm{e}$ $\mathrm{s}\mathrm{m}\infty \mathrm{t}\mathrm{h}$ open )$\mathrm{y}$ is a R&het manifold [6, Saetion $\mathrm{I}.4$], $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{d}$ the homotopy tyPe of the $V(M)q$ identity component has been classified by S. Smale [15], C. J. Earle and J. $\mathrm{E}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{U}[4]$ , et. al. In $C^{0}-\mathrm{c}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{y}$ $M$ the , for any compact 2- anifold , the homeomorphism group $\mathcal{H}(M)$ with the compact-0pen topology is atopological R&het manifold [6, 11, 1.4], and the homotopy type of the identity component $\mathcal{H}(M)0$ has been classified by M. E. Hamstrom [7]. Recently we have shown that $H(M)0$ is atopological R&het-manifold even if $M$ is anon- compact connected 2-manif0ld, and have classified its homotopy type [17]. The argument in [17] is based on the following ingredients: (i) the ANR-property and the contractibilty of $\mathcal{H}(M)_{0}$ for $M$ compact , (ii) the bundle theorem connecting the homeomorphism group $\mathcal{H}(M)0$ and the embedding spaces of submanifolds into $M$ [$16$ , Corolary 1.1], and (hi) aresult on the relative isotopies of 2-manif0ld [17, Theorem 3.1].
    [Show full text]
  • Countable Metric Spaces Without Isolated Points
    Topology Explained. June 2005. Published by Topology Atlas. Document # paca-25. c 2005 by Topology Atlas. This paper is online at http://at.yorku.ca/p/a/c/a/25.htm. COUNTABLE METRIC SPACES WITHOUT ISOLATED POINTS ABHIJIT DASGUPTA Theorem (Sierpinski, 1914–1915, 1920). Any countable metrizable space without isolated points is homeomorphic to Q, the rationals with the order topology (same as Q as a subspace of R with usual topology, or as Q with the metric topology). The theorem is remarkable, and gives some apparently counter-intuitive exam- ples of spaces homeomorphic to the usual Q. Consider the “Sorgenfrey topology on Q,” which has the collection {(p, q]: p, q ∈ Q} as a base for its topology. This topology on Q is strictly finer than, and yet homeomorphic to, the usual topology of Q. Another example is Q × Q as a subspace of the Euclidean plane. In this article, we present three proofs of Sierpinski’s theorem. 1. Order-theoretic proof This proof is fairly elementary in the sense that no “big guns” are used (such as Brouwer’s characterization of the Cantor space or the Alexandrov-Urysohn charac- terization of the irrationals), and no new back-and-forth method is used, but the main tool is: Theorem (Cantor’s Theorem). Any countable linear order which is order dense (meaning x < y implies there is z such that x < z < y), and has no first or last element is order isomorphic to (Q, <). This theorem will be used more than once. N N 1.1. Easy properties of 2 = Z2 .
    [Show full text]
  • On Some Problems of Local Approximability in Compact Spaces
    Toposym 3 Gino Tironi; Romano Isler On some problems of local approximability in compact spaces In: Josef Novák (ed.): General Topology and its Relations to Modern Analysis and Algebra, Proceedings of the Third Prague Topological Symposium, 1971. Academia Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Praha, 1972. pp. 443--446. Persistent URL: http://dml.cz/dmlcz/700741 Terms of use: © Institute of Mathematics AS CR, 1972 Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic provides access to digitized documents strictly for personal use. Each copy of any part of this document must contain these Terms of use. This paper has been digitized, optimized for electronic delivery and stamped with digital signature within the project DML-CZ: The Czech Digital Mathematics Library http://project.dml.cz 443 ON SOME PROBLEMS OF LOCAL APPROXIMABILITY IN COMPACT SPACES G. TIRONI and R. ISLER1) Trieste 1. Introduction. In this paper we study some problems concerning T2 compact spaces. The main problem, not yet solved, is the following: Problem 1. Is a compact separable and accessible Hausdorff space E first countable? We give three examples showing that the conjecture is not true if the compact separable and accessible space is not Hausdorff or if the separable and accessible Hausdorff space fails to be compact or finally, if the compact Hausdorff space is neither separable nor accessible. Another question arises if we require such a space to be FrSchet or sequential. In this paper it is proved that a T2 compact, sequentially compact space is sequential provided that the topology induced by the sequential closure is Lindelof.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Lindelöf-Type Covering Properties of Topological
    Rose- Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal A Comparison of Lindelof-type¨ Covering Properties of Topological Spaces Petra Staynova a Volume 12, No. 2, Fall 2011 arXiv:1212.2863v1 [math.GN] 12 Dec 2012 Sponsored by Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Department of Mathematics Terre Haute, IN 47803 Email: [email protected] http://www.rose-hulman.edu/mathjournal aOxford University Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal Volume 12, No. 2, Fall 2011 A Comparison of Lindelof-type¨ Covering Properties of Topological Spaces Petra Staynova Abstract. Lindel¨ofspaces are studied in any basic Topology course. However, there are other interesting covering properties with similar behaviour, such as almost Lin- del¨of,weakly Lindel¨of,and quasi-Lindel¨of,that have been considered in various research papers. Here we present a comparison between the standard results on Lindel¨ofspaces and analogous results for weakly and almost Lindel¨ofspaces. Some theorems, similar to the published ones, will be proved. We also consider coun- terexamples, most of which have not been included in the standard Topological textbooks, that show the interrelations between those properties and various basic topological notions, such as separability, separation axioms, first countability, and others. Some new features of those examples will be noted in view of the present comparison. We also pose several open questions. Acknowledgements: The author is in debt to the referee for his careful and assiduous reading of the initially submitted paper. The present version has greatly benefitted from his valuable comments and numerous suggestions for improvement. The author is also thankful to the editor for his suggestions on improving the structure of this paper.
    [Show full text]