How to define limit operations in general topological spaces? Are nets able to do this?
$begingroup$
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?
real-analysis general-topology
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
real-analysis general-topology
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
real-analysis general-topology
$endgroup$
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
real-analysis general-topology
edited Mar 17 at 14:17
YuiTo Cheng
2,1362837
2,1362837
asked Mar 17 at 11:12
EEEBEEEB
53139
53139
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
But the question was about limits, not continuity.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Mar 18 at 3:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
But the question was about limits, not continuity.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Mar 18 at 3:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
But the question was about limits, not continuity.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
Mar 18 at 3:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
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 $f(x)$.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
edited Mar 17 at 16:44
answered Mar 17 at 13:40
Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma
114k348123
114k348123
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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