Continuous Map if Both Are Given the Corresponding Inductive Limit Topology Stackexchange
Following what we did for real analysis, we have the following definition of limits.
Definition of Limits. Let X, Y be topological spaces and . If f : X-{a} → Y is a function, then we write if the function:
is continuous at x=a. In words, we say that f(x) approaches b as x approaches a.
Definition of Convergence. If X is a topological space, a sequence of elements is said to converge to a if the function f :N* – {∞} → X, f(n) = xn, approaches a as n approaches ∞. A sequence which has a limit is called aconvergent sequence.
[ Refer here for the definition ofN*. ]
We shall show that this convergence is consistent with our earlier definition of convergence.
Proposition. Let (X, d) be a metric space. Then a sequence converges to a (in the above definition) if and only if:
- for any ε>0, there exists N such that whenever n>N, .
Proof.
- Suppose converges to a. Given any ε>0, N(a, ε) is an open ball containinga. By definition, if g:N* → X is defined by g(n)=xn , forn=1, 2, 3, … andg(∞)=a, theng is continuous at ∞. Thus contains an open subset ofN* containing ∞. SoU contains someUN = {N,N+1,N+2, … } and
- Conversely, assume the condition in the proposition holds; let's prove thatg is continuous at ∞. Now any open subset containinga must contain an open ball for some ε>0. Then there existsN such that whenevern>N, Thus contains the setUN +1 = {N+1,N+2,N+3, …, ∞} which is an open subset containing ∞. ♦
In addition toN*, let's consider the extended real line Again we should think of the infinities as dummy symbols. Its topology is defined via the basis:
Then all prior limits can be expressed via the extended real line. For example:
Proposition.
Proof.
We'll prove (LHS) → (RHS) and leave the converse to the reader.
Let's prove the first statement. Suppose LHS holds; we need to show which takes is continuous at ∞. Indeed, any open subset of containing ∞ must contain some (L, ∞]. By classical definition, there existsN such that whenevern>N, we havexn >L. Then contains , an open set containing ∞.
For the second statement, again assume LHS holds. Let be the function which takes realx tof(x) and ∞ toL; our job is to prove continuity ofg at ∞. LetV be an open subset ofR containingL, which contains (L-ε,L+ε) for some ε>0. By classical definition, there existsM such that wheneverx>M,f(x) lies in (L-ε,L+ε) and henceV. Thus, is an open subset of containing ∞, andg is continuous at ∞. ♦
The point we're trying to say is this.
Summary. The various multi-case definitions of limits and convergence can all be subsumed under a single definition by considering various topological spaces.
Basic Properties of Limits
The following is basic.
Proposition. Let f : X-{a} → Y be a function where . If g : Y → Z is continuous at b, then gf : X-{a} → Z satisfies .
Proof.
Define and via:
and
From the condition, we know thath is continuous at a. Since g is continuous atb=h(a),i =gh is also continuous at a. ♦
Corollary. If in the topological space X, and f : X → Y is continuous, then in Y.
Proof
Since , the function which takes has a limit . By the previous proposition, we get and so ♦
Next we shall approach the basic question: is the limit unique? Phrased in such generality, the answer is no, as we saw counter-examples even for the case whereX is a subset ofR.
So let's first consider sequences.
Theorem. Let X be a topological space. Assume:
Then every sequence has at most one limit in X. A topological space satisfying the above property is said to beHausdorff.
Thus, the Hausdorff property is a sufficient condition for unique convergence, but it's known that the condition is not necessary.
Proof.
Supposea,b are distinct limits of . Pick open subsetsU,V such that , , . Then there existsM,N such that (i) whenevern>M, we have , (ii) whenevern>N, we have . The two statements clearly contradict. ♦
One obvious source of Hausdorff topological spaces is via metric spaces, i.e. metric spaces are Hausdorff. Indeed, ifx,y are distinct points in a metric spaceX, then letting ε=d(x,y)/2 > 0, we have , for ifz satisfiesd(x,z) < ε andd(y,z) < ε, thend(x,y) ≤d(x,z) +d(z,y) < 2ε = d(x,y), which is absurd. In particular, any convergent sequence in a metric space has a unique limit.
For uniqueness of general limits, obviously we have to care about the domain spaceX.
Theorem. Let f : X-{a} → Y be a map of topological spaces. Assume the following.
- Y is Hausdorff.
- The singleton set {a} is not open in X.
Then there's at most one limit for .
Proof.
Suppose are distinct limits. Hence the functions ,
and
are continuous. Pick open subsetsU andV ofY, such that , and . Now must contain an open subset which containsa. Same for . But since , the intersection of these two open subsets is {a}, which contradicts the second condition. ♦
Note: it's easy to find a counter-example when {a} is open inX. In an earlier article, we saw the following:
Here andf :X-{0} →R is defined byf(x)=x. But because {0} is an open subset ofX,f(0) can take any value without violating its continuity.
flinchumstren1944.blogspot.com
Source: https://mathstrek.blog/2013/02/02/topology-limits-and-convergence/
Post a Comment for "Continuous Map if Both Are Given the Corresponding Inductive Limit Topology Stackexchange"