( This is from an exercise in Munkres' Topology )(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Let [itex]X_\alpha[/itex] be an indexed collection of spaces, and [itex]A_\alpha \subset X_\alpha[/itex] be a collection of subsets.

Under the product topology, show that, as a subset of [itex]X = \prod_\alpha{X_\alpha}[/itex]

[tex]\overline{\prod_\alpha{A_\alpha}} = \prod_\alpha{\overline{A_\alpha}}[/tex]

This part I have no problem with. However, he then asks if this holds under the box topology on [itex]X[/itex]

Clearly ( closure being the intersection of all containing closed sets ):

[tex]\overline{\prod_\alpha{A_\alpha}} \subset \prod_\alpha{\overline{A_\alpha}}[/tex]

The reverse inclusion, on the other hand, has me in a twist.

The following is my attempt at a proof:

Let [itex]x = (x_\alpha) \in \prod_\alpha{\overline{A_\alpha}}[/itex], and [itex]U \subset X[/itex] be a neighborhood of [itex]x[/itex]. We can assume [itex]U[/itex] is a basis element for the box topology on [itex]X[/itex]

Then [itex]\exists \hspace{3} U_\alpha \subset X_\alpha[/itex] such that [itex]U = \prod_\alpha{U_\alpha}[/itex], where [itex]U_\alpha[/itex] are open.

Then we have:

[tex]x = (x_\alpha) \in U \longrightarrow x_\alpha \in U_\alpha[/tex]

Because the [itex]U_\alpha[/itex] are neighborhoods of the [itex]x_\alpha[/itex], and [itex]x_\alpha \in \overline{A_\alpha}[/itex] for all [itex]\alpha[/itex], we have:

[tex]U_\alpha \cap A_\alpha \neq \varnothing[/tex] for all [itex]\alpha[/itex]

so that:

[tex]\prod_\alpha{U_\alpha} \cap \prod_\alpha{A_\alpha} \neq \varnothing[/tex]

That, and [itex]x \in U[/itex] gives:

[tex]x \in \overline{\prod_\alpha{A_\alpha}}[/tex]

and therefore:

[tex]\prod_\alpha{\overline{A_\alpha}} \subset \overline{\prod_\alpha{A_\alpha}}[/tex]

I can't see the flaw in this proof, yet I can't somehow shake the feeling that this inclusion shouldn't hold. I know the box topology can give some funky results ( like the closure of the set of sequences with finitely many non-zero entries, or the product of continuous functions not necessarily being continuous ), so I'm a bit weary of it. That, and the way Munkres states the question gives me the suspicion it's atrick question.

So, is there a flaw with my proof? Or am I just being paranoid ( which I often tend to be )

Thanks in advance for any comments, and also for putting up with my anal-latex exactness.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Closures and Infinite Products

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**