Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $(X,\tau)$ be a topological space, and consider the family $\mathcal{F}$ of the topologies over $X$ such that the convergent sequences for each $\gamma \in \mathcal{F}$ are the same as the convergent sequences for $\tau$, with the same limits. That is, $$ \mathcal{F} = \{\gamma \;|\; x_n \xrightarrow{\gamma} x \Leftrightarrow x_n \xrightarrow{\tau} x\} $$

It is easy to see that the topology $\tau_M$ generated by the topologies in $\mathcal{F}$ is such that $\tau_M \in \mathcal{F}$. The $\tau_M$ is the finest topology with the same convergent sequences as $\tau$, converging to the same point.

But is it true that the topology $$ \tau_m = \bigcap_{\gamma \in \mathcal{F}} \gamma $$ is itself in $\mathcal{F}$?

In other words, does it follow that the convergent sequences for $\tau_m$ and their limits are the same as the convergent sequences and their limits in $\tau$? Are there any nice counterexamples?

In other words again, do we have a weakest topology such that the convergent sequences and their limits are the same as the ones for $\tau$?


Edit: Fixed according to @joriki's comment.

share|improve this question
1  
Your first statement about $\tau_M$ doesn't hold for an indiscrete space with two elements. In $(\{1,2\},\{\{\},\{1,2\}\})$ all sequences converge (to both $1$ and $2$). This is also the case for both $(\{1,2\},\{\{\},\{1\},\{1,2\}\})$ (all sequences converge to $2$) and for $(\{1,2\},\{\{\},\{2\},\{1,2\}\})$ (all sequences converge to $1$), so here $\tau_M$ is the discrete topology, which is not in $\mathcal F$. Perhaps you want the topologies to be Hausdorff? –  joriki May 19 '13 at 2:17
1  
Alternatively, you might want to require not only that the same sequences converge, but that they converge to the same limits. –  joriki May 19 '13 at 4:27
    
@joriki: You are right. That's what I meant. I will fix the post. –  André Caldas May 19 '13 at 17:31
    
I have a hunch it is false; no counterexample yet, though we might need infinitely many topologies for this to fail. –  Henno Brandsma May 19 '13 at 17:41
    
@Henno: Your hunch is right, assuming that I made no mistake. –  Brian M. Scott May 20 '13 at 6:33
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Taking the intersection can introduce new convergent sequences.

Let $p$ be a point not in $\omega$. Let $X=\{p\}\cup\omega$. For each free ultrafilter $\mathscr{U}$ on $\omega$ define a topology $\tau_{\mathscr{U}}$ on $X$ as follows. Points of $\omega$ are isolated, and the basic open nbhds of $p$ in $\tau_{\mathscr{U}}$ are the sets of the form $\{p\}\cup U$ such that $U\in\mathscr{U}$. The only convergent sequences of $\langle X,\tau_{\mathscr{U}}\rangle$ are the trivial ones. Let $$\tau=\bigcap_{\mathscr{U}\in\beta\omega\setminus\omega}\tau_{\mathscr{U}}\;.$$ A set $W\subseteq X$ belongs to $\tau$ iff $p\notin W$, or $W\in\mathscr{U}$ for all $\mathscr{U}\in\beta\omega\setminus\omega$. But the only subsets of $\omega$ that belong to all free ultrafilters on $\omega$ are the cofinite sets, and It follows that

$$\tau=\wp(\omega)\cup\{W\subseteq X:p\in W\text{ and }|\omega\setminus W|<\omega\}\;.$$

That is, points of $\omega$ are isolated in $\langle X,\tau\rangle$, and the basic open nbhds of $p$ are the sets of the form $\{p\}\cup(\omega\setminus F)$ such that $F$ is finite. But then $\langle k:k\in\omega\rangle$ is a sequence in $X$ that $\tau$-converges to $p$.

Now let $\tau'$ be the intersection of all topologies on $X$ having only the trivial convergent sequences. Clearly $\tau'\subseteq\tau$, so $\langle k:k\in\omega\rangle$ converges to $p$ in $\langle X,\tau'\rangle$.

share|improve this answer
    
Nice, and quite simple. So to be explicit: we take one particular $\tau_{\mathcal{U}}$ as our starting topology on $X$, and then we only have trivial convergent sequences; $\tau' = \tau_m$ gets a new convergent sequence, $\omega$ itself. –  Henno Brandsma May 20 '13 at 6:52
    
@Henno: Yep, in the OP’s original formulation. –  Brian M. Scott May 20 '13 at 6:54
    
@BrianM.Scott: Very nice! I had thought of a circle (in $\mathbb{R}^2$ plus $p = (0,0)$. But I was trying to use the topology of the circle. Taking the discrete topology on the circle, and changing the neighborhoods of $p$ would work, right? –  André Caldas May 20 '13 at 16:53
    
@André: It should, if you do something like what I did here to tie $p$ to the circle. –  Brian M. Scott May 20 '13 at 16:56
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.