Processing math: 100%

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Munkres Review Chapters 1-4

MathJax TeX Test Page (1) The ordered square is connected. Proof: Linear continua are connected.

(2) ω in the uniform topology is disconnected. Proof: The sets of bounded and unbounded sequences in ω are both open in this metric, and form a separation.

(3) The ordered square is not path connected. Proof: Suppose there exists a path from 0×0 to 1×1. Since I20 is a linear continuum, this implies the path is surjective and I20 is an image of the separable [0,1]. But I20 itself is not separable, for r×(1/4,3/4) for rI is a collection of uncountably many disjoint open subsets.

(4) K is not path connected. Proof: Suppose f:[0,1]K is a path from 0 to 1. Then f1(0) is a closed set not containing 1, so r=sup f1(0)<1. Since [r,1][0,1] we may assume f(x)>0 for x>0.

Now, let an=inf f1(1/n) for n+. We see an+1<an by connectivity of continuous images, but also an0 in [0,1] since 1/n0 in K. Hence let a>0 be such that a<an for all n. But then f(a)>0 so 1/N<f(a) for some N, implying aN<a again by connectivity of continuous images, a contradiction.

(5) The ordered square is not locally path connected. Proof: The proof of (3) extends to show that the path components of I20 are precisely r×[0,1] for r[0,1], which are not open.

(6) l is not locally compact at any of its points. Proof: Let xl and U be a hood of x. Suppose V is a hood of x such that ¯VU is compact. Then x[a,b)V for some a,b, and since [a,b) is also closed in ¯V this implies [a,b) is compact. However, [a,b) is not compact even in .

(7) ω in the uniform topology is not locally compact. Proof: Suppose C is a compact subset of ω containing a hood of i=(0,0,...). Then B[i,ε]=[ε,ε]ω is compact for some ε(0,1). But {en}n+ (when en is the point with zeros in every coordinate except the nth in which it is ε) is an infinite subset containing no limit point (as d(en,em)=ε for every nm), so [ε,ε]ω cannot even be limit point compact.

(8) ω in the uniform topology is not second countable, separable, or Lindelof. Proof: We see each pair of distinct x,y{0,1}ω are of distance 1 in ω, so that ω cannot be separable and hence not second countable. As well, {B(x,3/4) | x{0,1}ω} is an uncountable open cover of the closed subset [0,1]ω, yet there are not even any proper subcovers, so ω cannot be Lindelof.

(9) I is not locally metrizable. Proof: Suppose some basis element U=iIUi of I were metrizable. Then since Ui= for all but finitely many iI, and since IF for any finite subset FI is still uncountably infinite, we see I can be imbedded in U. But I itself is not metrizable, as it is not normal.

(10) I is not Lindelof. Proof: Regular Lindelof spaces are normal, which I is not.

No comments:

Post a Comment