Is this a valid argument about box topology?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the convergence of sequences in box topology versus product topology in R^ω. It argues that the sequence defined by x_n = {1/n} does not converge in box topology since the basis converges to a single set ∏(0, 0), which is not open. Questions arise about the nature of convergence being discussed, whether it pertains to sequences of points or sets. Clarification is sought on the definition of a basis and its role in convergence, with some participants expressing confusion over the terminology used. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities and nuances of understanding convergence in different topological contexts.
Pippi
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Given the following sequence in the product space R^ω, such that the coordinates of x_n are 1/n,

x1 = {1, 1, 1, ...}
x2 = {1/2, 1/2, 1/2, ...}
x3 = {1/3, 1/3, 1/3, ...}
...

the basis in the box topology can be written as ∏(-1/n, 1/n). However, as n becomes infinitely large, the basis converges to ∏(0, 0), which is a single set and not open. Therefore the sequence is not convergent in box topology.

Since there exists a basis that converges to ∏(x, x), for any element x of R^ω, a sequence in box topology does not converge to any element in R^ω.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Pippi said:
However, as n becomes infinitely large, the basis converges to ∏(0, 0), which is a single set and not open. Therefore the sequence is not convergent in box topology.

To have a basis B for R^\omega don't you need to be able to represent any set in R^\omega as a union of sets in B , not merely the sets that are near {0,0,...}?

What kind of convergence are you talking about? Are you talking about a sequence of sets or a sequence of points? Under the usual definition of convergence, a sequence of points in a toplogical space that converges will converge to a point. There is no requirement that it converge to an open set.
 
I don't know the right terminology. x_n represents a point in R^ω that has infinite number of coordinates. I want to use the sequence that if each of the coordinate converges as n grows large, x_n converges to a point.

I want to show the difference between product topology and box topology using the sequence x_n = {1/n, 1/, 1/n, ..., 1/n, ... }. A textbook argument, if I read correctly, says that because 1/n eventually goes to 0, there is no open set in the box topology that contains (-δ, δ) in R, hence no function converges. Am I on the right track?
 
To get a clear answer, you're going to have state a clear question. You mention a sequence of points and then you talk about a function converging without explaining what function you mean.

If there is a textbook argument, then quote the argument. Quote it, don't just give a mangled summary. (Perhaps the discipline of copying it will make it clearer to you.)
 
Thanks but no thank you. You are not being helpful at all.
 
Pippi said:
Thanks but no thank you. You are not being helpful at all.

That is because your question is a bit weird. What does it mean for a basis to converge?? The only things which can converge in topology are sequences, nets and filters. Things like basises can't converge. Except if you're talking about a filter basis, but even then the OP makes little sense.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
574
Replies
17
Views
993
Replies
5
Views
561
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top