Undergrad How to show the diagonal in the extended plane is closed?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the set of points where a sequence of measurable functions converges is measurable. It involves defining a function that maps to the limits of the sequence and showing that the diagonal set in the extended plane is closed. Participants clarify that the extended real line is the one-point compactification of the real numbers and discuss the appropriate metrics for this space. The challenge arises in adapting proofs from the Euclidean space to the extended plane, particularly due to the different topology. Ultimately, the diagonal's closed nature in the extended space is confirmed, emphasizing the Hausdorff property of the topology.
psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
Consider ##\{(x,x):x\in\mathbb R\}##. I've managed to show this set is closed in ##\mathbb R^2## by showing its complement is open. Now using what I've already showed, how can I argue that ##\{(x,x):x\in\overline{\mathbb R}\}## is closed in ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##?
Let ##(f_n)## be a sequence of measurable functions from ##E## into ##\mathbb R##. I'm reading a proof of the fact that the set ##A## of all ##x\in E## for which ##f_n(x)## converges in ##\mathbb R## as ##n\to\infty## is measurable. The proof goes like this (I'm paraphrasing):

Define ##G:E\to\overline{\mathbb R}^2## by ##G(x)=(\liminf f_n(x),\limsup f_n(x))##. Then ##G## is measurable and if ##D=\{(x,x):x\in\mathbb R\}##, then $$A=\{x\in E:-\infty<\liminf f_n(x)=\limsup f_n(x)<\infty\}=G^{-1}(D).$$So the measurability of ##A## follows since ##D## is measurable subset of ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2## (note that ##\{(x,x):x\in\overline{\mathbb R}\}## is measurable as a closed subset of ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##).

Why is ##\{(x,x):x\in\overline{\mathbb R}\}## closed in ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##? As I said, I can show the diagonal with ##x\in\mathbb R## is closed in ##\mathbb R^2##, but if ##x\in \overline{\mathbb R}## and the space is ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##, how does one proceed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
psie said:
TL;DR Summary: Consider ##\{(x,x):x\in\mathbb R\}##. I've managed to show this set is closed in ##\mathbb R^2## by showing its complement is open. Now using what I've already showed, how can I argue that ##\{(x,x):x\in\overline{\mathbb R}\}## is closed in ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##?

Let ##(f_n)## be a sequence of measurable functions from ##E## into ##\mathbb R##. I'm reading a proof of the fact that the set ##A## of all ##x\in E## for which ##f_n(x)## converges in ##\mathbb R## as ##n\to\infty## is measurable. The proof goes like this (I'm paraphrasing):



Why is ##\{(x,x):x\in\overline{\mathbb R}\}## closed in ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##? As I said, I can show the diagonal with ##x\in\mathbb R## is closed in ##\mathbb R^2##, but if ##x\in \overline{\mathbb R}## and the space is ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##, how does one proceed?
Is ##\overline{\mathbb R}## the 1-pt compactification? What metric do you use in ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##; the product metric? Edit: Is ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2=\overline {\mathbb R} \times \overline {\mathbb R}##?

Edit 2: Isn't the compactification map an embedding , and, if so, it sends closed sets to closed sets.
 
Last edited:
Why does you proof for ##\mathbb R## doesn't work for ##\overline{\mathbb R}##? In any case for a topological space ##X##, the diagonal is closed in ##X\times X## (with the product topology) if and only if ##X## is Hausdorff. This is easy to check. And your ##\overline{\mathbb R}##, I suppose is Hausdorff.
 
Good questions.
WWGD said:
Is ##\overline{\mathbb R}## the 1-pt compactification? What metric do you use in ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2##; the product metric? Edit: Is ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2=\overline {\mathbb R} \times \overline {\mathbb R}##?
Yes, ##\overline{\mathbb R}## is ##\{-\infty\}\cup \{\infty\}\cup \mathbb R##. The ad hoc metric is I think ##d(x,y)=|\arctan x-\arctan y|##, so it is homeomorphic to ##[-\pi/2,\pi/2]##. Yes, ##\overline{\mathbb R}^2=\overline {\mathbb R} \times \overline {\mathbb R}##.
WWGD said:
Edit 2: Isn't the compactification map an embedding , and, if so, it sends closed sets to closed sets.
I have only very rudimentary tools at my disposal (metric spaces and the fact that ##\overline {\mathbb R}## is metrizable), so I don't understand your Edit 2.
martinbn said:
Why does you proof for ##\mathbb R## doesn't work for ##\overline{\mathbb R}##?
It doesn't work because the proof uses the Euclidean norm on ##\mathbb R^2##. We can't equip ##\overline {\mathbb R}^2## with the Euclidean norm. :frown:
 
psie said:
It doesn't work because the proof uses the Euclidean norm on ##\mathbb R^2##. We can't equip ##\overline {\mathbb R}^2## with the Euclidean norm. :frown:
You take something off the diagonal ##(x,y)##, this means ##x\not = y##. Then you take to open sets ##U## and ##V## that don't intersect and contain ##x## and ##y## respectively. Then ##U\times V## is an open set containing ##(x,y)## and not meeting the diagonal.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K