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

In the beginning of chapter 4 of Dr. Pete Clark's convergence notes:

Theorem 4.1 (page 13) asserts the equivalence of 5 conditions. After making a nice observation involving De Morgan's law and applying a previous proposition, the problem of proof is reduced to showing the equivalence of the following two statements (extracted from Theorem 4.1 referenced above):

Let $X$ be a topological space.

(b) Every net in $X$ has a limit point.

(e) For every family $\{F_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in J}$ of closed subsets with the finite intersection property (the finite intersection of any finite subcollection is non-empty), $\cap_{\alpha\in J}F_{\alpha}\neq \phi$.

For the $(b)\Rightarrow (e)$ direction, it is stated that such a family $F:=\{F_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in J}$ is directed under reverse set inclusion (this is used to create a net to which (b) is applied).

I cannot see this.

Of course it is a partially ordered set. But I do not think it needs to be directed. For example, if $X = [0,1]$, $F_{0} = [0,\frac{1}{2}]$, and $F_{1} = [\frac{1}{2},1]$ then $F:=\{F_{0},F_{1}\}$ satisfies the finite intersection property but is not directed. That is, there is no $A\in F$ such that $A\subset F_{0}$ and $A\subset F_{1}$.

Is there a way to argue away this type of case so that we can safely assume that we have a directed set?

share|cite|improve this question
After some thought, I realize that this example immediately satisfies the conclusion of (e), so in this case there is no need to use (b) at all. Maybe I can use this idea to argue away any cases where $F$ is not directed. – roo May 12 '12 at 23:24
up vote 2 down vote accepted

There's a slight oversight. A collection of closed sets with the finite intersection property isn't necessarily directed by reverse inclusion, but it can be extended to a family that is so directed.

If $\mathscr{F}$ is a family of closed sets with the finite intersection property, let $$\overline{\mathscr{F}}=\left\{\bigcap\mathscr{F}_0:\mathscr{F}_0\text{ is a finite subset of }\mathscr{F}\right\}\;.$$ In other words, $\overline{\mathscr{F}}$ is $\mathscr{F}$ together with all intersections of finite subfamilies of $\mathscr{F}$. In technical terminology, $\overline{\mathscr{F}}$ is the closure of $\mathscr{F}$ under (taking) finite intersections. It's easy to check that $\overline{\mathscr{F}}$ also has the finite intersection property, and $\overline{\mathscr{F}}$ is directed under $\supseteq$. As you'll see, this extension is harmless, because $\overline{\mathscr{F}}$ doesn't contain any set that wasn't in some sense implicitly there in $\mathscr{F}$.

Now for each $F\in\overline{\mathscr{F}}$ choose $x_F\in F$; the assigment $F\mapsto x_F$ is a net $\mathbf x$ in $X$. Let $x$ be a limit point of $\mathbf x$, and suppose that there is some $F\in\overline{\mathscr{F}}$ such that $x\notin F$. Let $U=X\setminus F$; $U$ is open, and $x\in U$, so there is some $G\in\overline{\mathscr{F}}$ such that $G\subseteq F$ and $x_G\in U$. But then $$x_G\in U\cap G\subseteq U\cap F=(X\setminus F)\cap F=\varnothing\;,$$ which is a wee bit difficult, to say the least! Hence $x\in F$ for all $F\in\overline{\mathscr{F}}\supseteq\mathscr{F}$, and thus $x\in\bigcap\mathscr{F}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
This resembles (to me) the technique of passing to a subsequence which is commonly done without comment. This will be a good one to remember. As usual, many thanks to you sir! – roo May 13 '12 at 1:01

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.