How to define limit operations in general topological spaces? Are nets able to do this?












4












$begingroup$


I was always under the impression that in order to take a limit, I need to have a metric defined on my underlying space.



For $f:mathbb{R}to mathbb{R}$,
$
lim_{xto x_0}f(x)=a
$

means that for all $epsilon >0 $ there exists a $delta(epsilon)>0$ such that $|f(x)-a|<epsilon$ whenever $0< |x-x_0|<delta$. The notion of a limit uses the underlying metric $|cdot|$ of $mathbb{R}$.



Is there a consistent way of dispensing with the metric and still define a limit operation in some topological space? Are nets able to do this?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    I was always under the impression that in order to take a limit, I need to have a metric defined on my underlying space.



    For $f:mathbb{R}to mathbb{R}$,
    $
    lim_{xto x_0}f(x)=a
    $

    means that for all $epsilon >0 $ there exists a $delta(epsilon)>0$ such that $|f(x)-a|<epsilon$ whenever $0< |x-x_0|<delta$. The notion of a limit uses the underlying metric $|cdot|$ of $mathbb{R}$.



    Is there a consistent way of dispensing with the metric and still define a limit operation in some topological space? Are nets able to do this?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4


      1



      $begingroup$


      I was always under the impression that in order to take a limit, I need to have a metric defined on my underlying space.



      For $f:mathbb{R}to mathbb{R}$,
      $
      lim_{xto x_0}f(x)=a
      $

      means that for all $epsilon >0 $ there exists a $delta(epsilon)>0$ such that $|f(x)-a|<epsilon$ whenever $0< |x-x_0|<delta$. The notion of a limit uses the underlying metric $|cdot|$ of $mathbb{R}$.



      Is there a consistent way of dispensing with the metric and still define a limit operation in some topological space? Are nets able to do this?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I was always under the impression that in order to take a limit, I need to have a metric defined on my underlying space.



      For $f:mathbb{R}to mathbb{R}$,
      $
      lim_{xto x_0}f(x)=a
      $

      means that for all $epsilon >0 $ there exists a $delta(epsilon)>0$ such that $|f(x)-a|<epsilon$ whenever $0< |x-x_0|<delta$. The notion of a limit uses the underlying metric $|cdot|$ of $mathbb{R}$.



      Is there a consistent way of dispensing with the metric and still define a limit operation in some topological space? Are nets able to do this?







      real-analysis general-topology






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Mar 17 at 14:17









      YuiTo Cheng

      2,1362837




      2,1362837










      asked Mar 17 at 11:12









      EEEBEEEB

      53139




      53139






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$

          The notion of limit is well-defined for any topological space, even non-metric ones.



          Here is the correct definition: let $f : X rightarrow Y$ be a function between two topological spaces. We say that the limit of $f$ at a point $x in X$ is the point $y in Y$ if for all neighborhoods $N$ of $y$ in $Y$, there exists a neighborhood $M$ of $x$ in $X$ such that $f(M) subset N$.



          But note that the sequential characterization of limit ($f$ tends to $y$ in $x$ iff for every sequence $(x_n) rightarrow x$, one has $f(x_n) rightarrow y$) is not true in a general topological space. It is true if $X$ is metrizable.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 4




            $begingroup$
            Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the limit might fail to be unique, in non-Hausdorff spaces.
            $endgroup$
            – chi
            Mar 17 at 19:05










          • $begingroup$
            @chi Yes, thank you for this comment ! Indeed the precision can be usefull.
            $endgroup$
            – TheSilverDoe
            Mar 17 at 19:07



















          4












          $begingroup$

          The general definition of continuity is as follows: let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and $f:X to Y$ be a map. $F$ is continuous if the inverse image of any open set is open. $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff for every open set $V$ containing $f(x)$ there exists an open set $U$ containing $x$ such that $f(U) subset V$.



          Continuity of $f$ is equivalent to the following: whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to some point $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$. Similarly, $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            But the question was about limits, not continuity.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Sinclair
            Mar 18 at 3:43



















          4












          $begingroup$

          A net is a function from an directed set $(I, le)$ (say) to a space $X$.



          $f: I to X$ converges to $x$ iff for every open set $O$ that contains $x$ there exists some $i_0 in I$ (depending on $O$, in general) such that for all $i in I, i ge i_0$ we know that $f(i) in O$.



          The point $f(i)$ is often denoted by subscript: $x_i$. This subscript an be any member of the directed set $I$. A sequence is the special case where $I=mathbb{N}, le)$ (in its standard order). The definition is non-metric in that we use open sets containing $x$ (not open balls) but for metric spaces it suffices to check this for open balls $B(x,varepsilon), varepsilon>0$ as these form a local base at $x$.



          I think that $lim_{x to a} f(x)$ can be defined by considering all nets $n$ on $Xsetminus {a}$ that converge to $a$, and if all those nets have the property that $f circ n$ is a net in $Y$ converging to the same $b in Y$, then this $b$ is called the limit of $f$ as $x$ tends to $a$.



          If $X$ has a topology induced from a metric, e.g. then we can restrict ourselves to sequences instead of general nets in the above characterisation.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151413%2fhow-to-define-limit-operations-in-general-topological-spaces-are-nets-able-to-d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            7












            $begingroup$

            The notion of limit is well-defined for any topological space, even non-metric ones.



            Here is the correct definition: let $f : X rightarrow Y$ be a function between two topological spaces. We say that the limit of $f$ at a point $x in X$ is the point $y in Y$ if for all neighborhoods $N$ of $y$ in $Y$, there exists a neighborhood $M$ of $x$ in $X$ such that $f(M) subset N$.



            But note that the sequential characterization of limit ($f$ tends to $y$ in $x$ iff for every sequence $(x_n) rightarrow x$, one has $f(x_n) rightarrow y$) is not true in a general topological space. It is true if $X$ is metrizable.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the limit might fail to be unique, in non-Hausdorff spaces.
              $endgroup$
              – chi
              Mar 17 at 19:05










            • $begingroup$
              @chi Yes, thank you for this comment ! Indeed the precision can be usefull.
              $endgroup$
              – TheSilverDoe
              Mar 17 at 19:07
















            7












            $begingroup$

            The notion of limit is well-defined for any topological space, even non-metric ones.



            Here is the correct definition: let $f : X rightarrow Y$ be a function between two topological spaces. We say that the limit of $f$ at a point $x in X$ is the point $y in Y$ if for all neighborhoods $N$ of $y$ in $Y$, there exists a neighborhood $M$ of $x$ in $X$ such that $f(M) subset N$.



            But note that the sequential characterization of limit ($f$ tends to $y$ in $x$ iff for every sequence $(x_n) rightarrow x$, one has $f(x_n) rightarrow y$) is not true in a general topological space. It is true if $X$ is metrizable.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the limit might fail to be unique, in non-Hausdorff spaces.
              $endgroup$
              – chi
              Mar 17 at 19:05










            • $begingroup$
              @chi Yes, thank you for this comment ! Indeed the precision can be usefull.
              $endgroup$
              – TheSilverDoe
              Mar 17 at 19:07














            7












            7








            7





            $begingroup$

            The notion of limit is well-defined for any topological space, even non-metric ones.



            Here is the correct definition: let $f : X rightarrow Y$ be a function between two topological spaces. We say that the limit of $f$ at a point $x in X$ is the point $y in Y$ if for all neighborhoods $N$ of $y$ in $Y$, there exists a neighborhood $M$ of $x$ in $X$ such that $f(M) subset N$.



            But note that the sequential characterization of limit ($f$ tends to $y$ in $x$ iff for every sequence $(x_n) rightarrow x$, one has $f(x_n) rightarrow y$) is not true in a general topological space. It is true if $X$ is metrizable.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            The notion of limit is well-defined for any topological space, even non-metric ones.



            Here is the correct definition: let $f : X rightarrow Y$ be a function between two topological spaces. We say that the limit of $f$ at a point $x in X$ is the point $y in Y$ if for all neighborhoods $N$ of $y$ in $Y$, there exists a neighborhood $M$ of $x$ in $X$ such that $f(M) subset N$.



            But note that the sequential characterization of limit ($f$ tends to $y$ in $x$ iff for every sequence $(x_n) rightarrow x$, one has $f(x_n) rightarrow y$) is not true in a general topological space. It is true if $X$ is metrizable.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Mar 17 at 14:46









            psmears

            71149




            71149










            answered Mar 17 at 13:09









            TheSilverDoeTheSilverDoe

            4,645215




            4,645215








            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the limit might fail to be unique, in non-Hausdorff spaces.
              $endgroup$
              – chi
              Mar 17 at 19:05










            • $begingroup$
              @chi Yes, thank you for this comment ! Indeed the precision can be usefull.
              $endgroup$
              – TheSilverDoe
              Mar 17 at 19:07














            • 4




              $begingroup$
              Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the limit might fail to be unique, in non-Hausdorff spaces.
              $endgroup$
              – chi
              Mar 17 at 19:05










            • $begingroup$
              @chi Yes, thank you for this comment ! Indeed the precision can be usefull.
              $endgroup$
              – TheSilverDoe
              Mar 17 at 19:07








            4




            4




            $begingroup$
            Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the limit might fail to be unique, in non-Hausdorff spaces.
            $endgroup$
            – chi
            Mar 17 at 19:05




            $begingroup$
            Perhaps it's worth mentioning that the limit might fail to be unique, in non-Hausdorff spaces.
            $endgroup$
            – chi
            Mar 17 at 19:05












            $begingroup$
            @chi Yes, thank you for this comment ! Indeed the precision can be usefull.
            $endgroup$
            – TheSilverDoe
            Mar 17 at 19:07




            $begingroup$
            @chi Yes, thank you for this comment ! Indeed the precision can be usefull.
            $endgroup$
            – TheSilverDoe
            Mar 17 at 19:07











            4












            $begingroup$

            The general definition of continuity is as follows: let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and $f:X to Y$ be a map. $F$ is continuous if the inverse image of any open set is open. $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff for every open set $V$ containing $f(x)$ there exists an open set $U$ containing $x$ such that $f(U) subset V$.



            Continuity of $f$ is equivalent to the following: whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to some point $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$. Similarly, $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              But the question was about limits, not continuity.
              $endgroup$
              – Paul Sinclair
              Mar 18 at 3:43
















            4












            $begingroup$

            The general definition of continuity is as follows: let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and $f:X to Y$ be a map. $F$ is continuous if the inverse image of any open set is open. $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff for every open set $V$ containing $f(x)$ there exists an open set $U$ containing $x$ such that $f(U) subset V$.



            Continuity of $f$ is equivalent to the following: whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to some point $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$. Similarly, $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              But the question was about limits, not continuity.
              $endgroup$
              – Paul Sinclair
              Mar 18 at 3:43














            4












            4








            4





            $begingroup$

            The general definition of continuity is as follows: let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and $f:X to Y$ be a map. $F$ is continuous if the inverse image of any open set is open. $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff for every open set $V$ containing $f(x)$ there exists an open set $U$ containing $x$ such that $f(U) subset V$.



            Continuity of $f$ is equivalent to the following: whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to some point $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$. Similarly, $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The general definition of continuity is as follows: let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces and $f:X to Y$ be a map. $F$ is continuous if the inverse image of any open set is open. $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff for every open set $V$ containing $f(x)$ there exists an open set $U$ containing $x$ such that $f(U) subset V$.



            Continuity of $f$ is equivalent to the following: whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to some point $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$. Similarly, $f$ is continuous at a point $x$ iff whenever a net $(x_i)_{i in I}$ converges to $x$ we have $x$ we have $(f(x_i))_{i in I}$ converges to $f(x)$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Mar 17 at 13:11









            Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

            70.1k53170




            70.1k53170








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              But the question was about limits, not continuity.
              $endgroup$
              – Paul Sinclair
              Mar 18 at 3:43














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              But the question was about limits, not continuity.
              $endgroup$
              – Paul Sinclair
              Mar 18 at 3:43








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            But the question was about limits, not continuity.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Sinclair
            Mar 18 at 3:43




            $begingroup$
            But the question was about limits, not continuity.
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Sinclair
            Mar 18 at 3:43











            4












            $begingroup$

            A net is a function from an directed set $(I, le)$ (say) to a space $X$.



            $f: I to X$ converges to $x$ iff for every open set $O$ that contains $x$ there exists some $i_0 in I$ (depending on $O$, in general) such that for all $i in I, i ge i_0$ we know that $f(i) in O$.



            The point $f(i)$ is often denoted by subscript: $x_i$. This subscript an be any member of the directed set $I$. A sequence is the special case where $I=mathbb{N}, le)$ (in its standard order). The definition is non-metric in that we use open sets containing $x$ (not open balls) but for metric spaces it suffices to check this for open balls $B(x,varepsilon), varepsilon>0$ as these form a local base at $x$.



            I think that $lim_{x to a} f(x)$ can be defined by considering all nets $n$ on $Xsetminus {a}$ that converge to $a$, and if all those nets have the property that $f circ n$ is a net in $Y$ converging to the same $b in Y$, then this $b$ is called the limit of $f$ as $x$ tends to $a$.



            If $X$ has a topology induced from a metric, e.g. then we can restrict ourselves to sequences instead of general nets in the above characterisation.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              4












              $begingroup$

              A net is a function from an directed set $(I, le)$ (say) to a space $X$.



              $f: I to X$ converges to $x$ iff for every open set $O$ that contains $x$ there exists some $i_0 in I$ (depending on $O$, in general) such that for all $i in I, i ge i_0$ we know that $f(i) in O$.



              The point $f(i)$ is often denoted by subscript: $x_i$. This subscript an be any member of the directed set $I$. A sequence is the special case where $I=mathbb{N}, le)$ (in its standard order). The definition is non-metric in that we use open sets containing $x$ (not open balls) but for metric spaces it suffices to check this for open balls $B(x,varepsilon), varepsilon>0$ as these form a local base at $x$.



              I think that $lim_{x to a} f(x)$ can be defined by considering all nets $n$ on $Xsetminus {a}$ that converge to $a$, and if all those nets have the property that $f circ n$ is a net in $Y$ converging to the same $b in Y$, then this $b$ is called the limit of $f$ as $x$ tends to $a$.



              If $X$ has a topology induced from a metric, e.g. then we can restrict ourselves to sequences instead of general nets in the above characterisation.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                A net is a function from an directed set $(I, le)$ (say) to a space $X$.



                $f: I to X$ converges to $x$ iff for every open set $O$ that contains $x$ there exists some $i_0 in I$ (depending on $O$, in general) such that for all $i in I, i ge i_0$ we know that $f(i) in O$.



                The point $f(i)$ is often denoted by subscript: $x_i$. This subscript an be any member of the directed set $I$. A sequence is the special case where $I=mathbb{N}, le)$ (in its standard order). The definition is non-metric in that we use open sets containing $x$ (not open balls) but for metric spaces it suffices to check this for open balls $B(x,varepsilon), varepsilon>0$ as these form a local base at $x$.



                I think that $lim_{x to a} f(x)$ can be defined by considering all nets $n$ on $Xsetminus {a}$ that converge to $a$, and if all those nets have the property that $f circ n$ is a net in $Y$ converging to the same $b in Y$, then this $b$ is called the limit of $f$ as $x$ tends to $a$.



                If $X$ has a topology induced from a metric, e.g. then we can restrict ourselves to sequences instead of general nets in the above characterisation.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                A net is a function from an directed set $(I, le)$ (say) to a space $X$.



                $f: I to X$ converges to $x$ iff for every open set $O$ that contains $x$ there exists some $i_0 in I$ (depending on $O$, in general) such that for all $i in I, i ge i_0$ we know that $f(i) in O$.



                The point $f(i)$ is often denoted by subscript: $x_i$. This subscript an be any member of the directed set $I$. A sequence is the special case where $I=mathbb{N}, le)$ (in its standard order). The definition is non-metric in that we use open sets containing $x$ (not open balls) but for metric spaces it suffices to check this for open balls $B(x,varepsilon), varepsilon>0$ as these form a local base at $x$.



                I think that $lim_{x to a} f(x)$ can be defined by considering all nets $n$ on $Xsetminus {a}$ that converge to $a$, and if all those nets have the property that $f circ n$ is a net in $Y$ converging to the same $b in Y$, then this $b$ is called the limit of $f$ as $x$ tends to $a$.



                If $X$ has a topology induced from a metric, e.g. then we can restrict ourselves to sequences instead of general nets in the above characterisation.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Mar 17 at 16:44

























                answered Mar 17 at 13:40









                Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma

                114k348123




                114k348123






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151413%2fhow-to-define-limit-operations-in-general-topological-spaces-are-nets-able-to-d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                    ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                    Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?