Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I started reading about uniform spaces in Bourbaki, and the closure operation has been defined as such:


Where $\mathcal{U}$ is the uniform structure of the space, and $V(A)$ is the set of all left-relatives of $A$. One thing I don't understand is why $\bar{A}=\bar{\bar{A}}$, as is necessary for a closure operation. In particular, I don't see why $\bar{\bar{A}}\subseteq\bar{A}$.

After playing around with it for a while, I have this. Take some $s\in\bar{\bar{A}}$. So $s\in V(\bar{A})$ for all $V\in\mathcal{U}$. So taking any $V$, there is some $r\in\bar{A}$ such that $(s,r)\in V$. But $r\in V(A)$, so $(r,t)\in V$ for some $t\in A$. Is there some why to show that $(s,t)\in V$, to conclude that $s\in V(A)$? At best I can see that $(s,t)\in V\circ V$.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

For any $V\in {\cal U}$ choose $U\in {\cal U}$ such that $U\circ U\subset V$. Then you proceed with your proof above with $U$ (instead of $V$).

share|cite|improve this answer
Ah, I should have seen that! Thanks TCL. – yunone Nov 30 '10 at 4:44

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.