Munkres Chapter 2 Section 19 (Part I)
1.
Problem: Suppose that for each the topology on
is given by a basis
. The collection of all sets of the form
Such that is a basis for
with the box topology, denote this collection by
. Also, the collection
of all sets of the form
Where for finitely many
and
otherwise is a basis for the product topology on
.
Proof: To prove the first part we let be open. Then, by construction of the box topology for each
we may find some
such that
is open in
and
. So, then for each
we may find some
such that
and thus
Noticing that and every element of
is open finishes the argument.
Next, we let be open with respect to the product topology. Once again for each
we may find some
such that
is open in
for each
and
for all but finitely many
, call them
. So, for each
we may find some
such that
and so
Where
Noting that and
is a collection of open subsets of
finishes the argument.
2.
Problem: Let be a collection of topological spaces such that
is a subspace of
for each
. Then,
is a subspace of
if both are given the product or box topology.
Proof: Let denote the topologies
inherits as a subspace of
and as a product space respectively. Note that
are generated by the bases
(where
is the basis on
with the product topology), and
So, let where
then
Where is open in
, and thus
is open in
. Also, since
for all but finitely many
it follows that
for all but finitely many
. And so
. Similarly, if
then
Where is open in
, but this means that
for some open set
in
and so
From where it follows that and thus
are equal.
The case for the box topology is completely analgous.
3.
Problem: Let be a collection of Hausdorff spaces, then
is Hausdorff with either the box or product topologies
Proof: It suffices to prove this for the product topology since the box topology is finer.
So, let be distinct. Then,
for some
. Now, since
is Hausdorff there exists disjoint open neighborhoods
of
respectively. So,
are disjoint open neighborhoods of
respectively. The conclusion follows.
4.
Problem: Prove that .
Proof: Define
Clearly this is continuous since
5.
Problem: One of the implications holds for theorem 19.6 even in the box topology, which is it?
Proof: If where the latter is given the box topology then we have that each
is continuous and thus so is each
.
#
6.
Problem: Let be a sequence of points in the product space
. Prove that
converges to
if and only if the sequences
coverge to
for each
. Is this fact true if one uses the box topology?
Proof: Suppose that is a neighborhood of
such that
is infinite. Notice then that if that
from where it follows that
is a neighborhood of
which does not contain all but finitely many values of
contradicting the fact that
in
.
Conversely, suppose that for each
and let
be a basic open neighborhood of
. Then, letting
be the finitely many indices such that
. Since each
there exists some
such that
. So, let
. Now, note that if
then
for some
. But, since clearly
we must have that
and thus
. It follows that for every
we have that
. Then, since every neighborhood of
contains a basic open neighborhood and the above basic open neighborhood was arbitrary the conclusion follows.
Clearly the first part holds in the box topology since there was no explicit mention of the product topology or it’s defining characteristics. That said, the second does not hold. Consider . Clearly each coordinate converges to zero, but
is a neighborhood of
in the product topology. But, if one claimed that for every
(for some
that
they’d be wrong. To see this merely note
and so
and thus
.
7.
Problem: Let be the subset of
consisting of all eventually zero sequences. What is
in the box and product topology?
Proof: We claim that in the product topology . To see this let
be a basic non-empty open set in
with the product topology. Since we are working with the product topology we know there are finitely many indices
such that
. So, for each
select some
and consider
where
Clearly then and thus every non-empty open set in
intersects
and the conclusion follows.
Now, we claim that with the box topology that . To see this let
. Then, there exists some subsequence
of the sequence
which is non-zero. For each
form an interval
such that
. Then, consider
Clearly then is a neighborhood of
and since each clearly has an infinite subsequence of non-zero values it is disjoint from
. It follows that in
with the box topology that
is closed and thus
as desired.
8.
Problem: Given sequences and
of real numbers with
define
by the equation
Show that if is given the product topology that
is a homeomorphism. What happens if
is given the box topology?
Proof: Let us first prove that is a bijection. To do this we prove something more general…
Lemma: Let and
be two classes of untopologized sets and
a collection of bijections
. Then, if
we have that is a bijection.
Proof: To prove injectivity we note that if
Then,
And by definition of an -tuple this implies that
for each . But, since each
is injective it follows that
For each . Thus,
as desired.
To prove surjectivity we let be arbitrary. We then note that for each fixed
we have there is some
such that
. So, if
is the corresponding
-tuple of these values we have that
from where surjectivity follows. Combining these two shows that is indeed a bijection.
Lemma: Let and
be two classes of non-empty topological spaces and
a corresponding class of continuous functions such that
. Then, if
and
are given the product topologies the mapping
is continuous.
Proof: Since the codomain is a product space it suffices to show that
is continuous for each . We claim though that the diagram
commutes where and
denote the canonical projections from
and
to
and
respectively. To see this we merely note that
and
which confirms the commutativity of the diagram. But, the conclusion follows since is the composition of two continuous maps (the projection being continuous since
is a product space).
The lemma follows by previous comment.
We come to our last lemma before the actual conclusion of the problem.
Lemma: Let and
be two classes of non-empty topological spaces and
a set of homeomorphisms with
. Then,
is a homeomorphism if and
are given the product topology.
Proof: Our last two lemmas show that is bijective and continuous. To prove that it’s inverse is continuous we note that
And similarly for the other side. Thus,
Which is continuous since each is continuous and appealing to our last lemma again. Thus,
is a bi-continuous bijection, or in other words a homeomorphism. The conclusion follows.
Thus, getting back to the actual problem we note that if we denote that each
is a homeomorphism. Thus, since it is easy to see that
we may conclude by our last lemma (since we are assuming that we are giving in both the domain and codomain the product topology) that
is a homeomorphism.
This is also continuous if we give the box topology. To see this we merely need to note that
and thus if all of the
are open then so are (since each
is continuous) is each
and thus the inverse image of a basic open set is the unrestricted product of open sets and thus basic open. A similar argument works for the inverse function.
Why no love for section 19? (I’m working through the book to study for the math subject GRE.)
n/m. Looking at the problems they pretty much seem to be the same. You working out of the first edition?
Haha, yeah recheck the title, I just mislabeled it. And no, I am working out of the second edition.
Also, is there really that much top. on the GREs?
I don’t think there’s too much, which is why I only plan to work my way through the first three chapters. Afterwards will be a crash course in algebra (Fraleigh’s book which seems good). Keep it up, really cool what you’re doing!
Thank you! I appreciate that someone actually read this. You’ll notice that this blog mostly used to be theorems, but I just really like doing problems. So, I figured over the summer I’d “try” to do all the problems in the “trifecta”: Topology-Munkres, Algebra-Dummit and Foote (over Herstein,yes), and Analysis-Rudin (baby Rudin). To be fair, I know all of these subjects fairly well. In fact, I’ve been through most of Munkres and Rudin’s book themselves. That said, it’ll still be hard.
P.S. I would not suggest Fraleigh. That book is kind of dumbed down and if you intend to pursue a graduate degree in mathematics (as the GRE reference suggests) it won’t do.