Limits of functions and sequences

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
36 replies · 4K views
WWGD said:
Or is ze risky ( Zariski ;) ) topology the same in the spaces in question as the finite complement topology?
On the real line this is true, because there is a one-to-one correspondence between zero sets of polynomials and finite sets. Whether this is true in full generality, I do not know by heart. Probably @mathwonk knows.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
Physics news on Phys.org
S.G. Janssens said:
On the real line this is true, because there is a one-to-one correspondence between zero sets of polynomials and finite sets. Whether this is true in full generality, I do not know by heart. Probably @mathwonk knows.
Actually, I was just thinking about it and the zero locus over 2+ dimensions can be ( uncountably) infinite, as in ##x^2+y^2+z^2-1## so likely the two topologies are not equal.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: S.G. Janssens
WWGD said:
Actually, I was just thinking about it and the zero locus over 2+ dimensions can be ( uncountably) infinite, as in ##x^2+y^2+z^2-1## so likely the two topologies are not equal.
I don't think multivariates qualify, because if they would qualify, then I do not see how every sequence consisting of distinct points would have to converge to every point in the space:
mathwonk said:
You have made me realize another odd fact about the zariski topology that we use in algebraic geometry. On any affine space, say the real line, zariski closed sets are zero loci of polynomials, hence either the whole line, or finite sets. Hence every sequence consisting of distinct points, converges in this topology to every point of the line. Needless to say we don't use sequences much in this topology.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
Very observant. Indeed what seems to be true in more variables is that any sequence of distinct points that eventually lies entirely on an algebraic curve, converges to every point of that curve.
 
mathwonk said:
Very observant. Indeed what seems to be true in more variables is that any sequence of distinct points that eventually lies entirely on an algebraic curve, converges to every point of that curve.

Suppose that ##C## and ##D## are two distinct algebraic curves in the (real) plane and let ##x \in C \setminus D##. If I understand you correctly, then any sequence of distinct points in ##C## should eventually be in ##C \setminus D##, for that sequence to converge to ##x##. However, what if ##C## and ##D## have a common component ##E## and the sequence in question lies entirely in ##E##?

I understand that the case of ##C## and ##D## having a common component is "non-generic", but the definition of convergence requires that it works in this case, too, doesn't it?
 
excellent point! you are quite right that one should consider also possibly reducible curves, but i tend to think of irreducible ones. So, good point well taken, a closed subset of a reducible curve may not be finite, it might be a whole component! so maybe add "irreducible" to my statements about curves.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: S.G. Janssens