Box topology does not preserve first countable

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter R136a1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Box Topology
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the fact that the box topology does not preserve first countability, contrasting it with the product topology. Specifically, when each space \(X_n\) is first countable, the product space \(\prod_{n \in \mathbb{N}} X_n\) is first countable under the product topology, but this is not the case for the box topology. A counterexample is provided using \(X_n = \mathbb{R}\), demonstrating that a neighborhood of \(\vec{0} = (0,0,\ldots)\) can be constructed that does not belong to any countable neighborhood basis, thus proving that \(\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}}\) is not first countable in the box topology.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of first countability in topology
  • Familiarity with product and box topologies
  • Knowledge of Cantor's diagonal argument
  • Basic concepts of neighborhood bases in topological spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of box topology versus product topology
  • Explore examples of first countable and non-first countable spaces
  • Investigate the concept of sequential spaces in topology
  • Study the implications of Cantor's diagonal argument in topology
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in topology, students studying advanced topology concepts, and anyone interested in the properties of different topological structures.

R136a1
Messages
343
Reaction score
53
So, in the topology text I'm reading is mentioned that if each ##X_n## is first countable, then ##\prod_{n\in \mathbb{N}} X_n## is first countable as well under the product topology. And then it says that this does not need to be true for the box topology. But there is no justification at all. Does anybody know a good counterexample?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let X_n=\mathbb{R} and X= \prod_{n \in \mathbb{N}} X_n = \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}}. Suppose U_{n \in \mathbb{N}} is a countable neighborhood basis for the point \vec{0} = (0,0, \ldots ) \in X.

See if you can think of an open neighborhood of \vec{0} that does not contain anyone of the U_n's. That would contradict the assumption that the U_n's form a countable neighborhood basis of \vec{0} in the first place and would show that X is not first countable.
 
As an added hint, recall Cantor's diagonal argument.
 
Thanks a lot guys!

Here's what I came up with. We can of course assume that ##U_n = \prod_{k\in \mathbb{N}} (a_k^n,b_k^n)##, and that all intervals ##(a_k^n,b_k^n)## are bounded. Now we consider the neighborhood ##\prod_{k\in \mathbb{N}} (a_k^k/2, b_k^k/2)##. This is not included in any ##U_n##. That seems to do it.

So it's not first countable. But maybe it is sequential? Is there something known about that?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
12K