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

Let $M$ be a manifold with an atlas $\mathbb{a}$. A sequence of points $\{x_i \in M\}$ converges to $x\in M$ if

  • there exists a chart $(U_i,\phi_i) \in \mathbb{a}$ with an integer $N_i$ such that $x\in U_i$ and for all $k>N_i,x_k \in U_i$
  • $\phi_i(x_k)_{k>N_i}$ converges to $\phi_i(x)$

I don't think the above definition is consistent. For example, given a 2-manifold sphere and a sequence of points converging to the north pole. The atlas of the manifold consists of two charts, which projects the points on the lower semi-sphere (resp., upper semi-sphere) from the south pole (resp., north pole) , i.e.,

  • $\displaystyle \phi_1(x_1,x_2,x_3) = \left\langle \frac{x_1}{1-x_3},\frac{x_2}{1-x_3}\right\rangle$
  • $\displaystyle \phi_2(x_1,x_2,x_3) = \left\langle \frac{x_1}{1+x_3},\frac{x_2}{1+x_3}\right\rangle$
share|cite|improve this question
Are you asking whether the definition is consistent? For confirmation/refutation of your thoughts? It helps to ask explicit questions...also: it seems you haven't accepted any answers to your previous questions. If answers aren't clear to you, ask for clarification. Otherwise, it is considered "good manners" to accept (one of/the) answer which you found helpful/most helpful for each question: you can do that by clicking on the grey "check mark" next to a given answer. You can also vote up any and all answers you found helpful (click on upward arrow). – amWhy Jun 25 '11 at 0:04
@amWhy: the $\lt$ was part of a scalar product. Please use \langle a, b \rangle for such cases. Compare: $\lt a,b \gt = \langle a, b \rangle$, obtained by \lt a,b \gt = \langle a, b \rangle – t.b. Jun 25 '11 at 0:12
@Theo I assumed the user was trying to express less than or equal too...clearly didn't read the problem through...Thanks for undoing my correction and editing OP's incorrect use of < > instead of the angle bracket notation (knowing what was meant... – amWhy Jun 25 '11 at 0:19
up vote 1 down vote accepted

I am assuming that you are asking regarding the equivalence between "convergence in the topological sense" and "convergence in the manifold sense". More precisely:

(1) [Convergence in the "Topological Sense"] A sequence $\{x_n\}$ of points in a topological space $X$ is said to converge to $x\in X$ if to each neighborhood $U$ of $x$, there exists a natural number $N$ such that $n\geq N$ implies $x_n\in U$.

(2) [Convergence in the "Manifold Sense"] The definition you have given at the beginning of your answer.

Proof. (1)=>(2): If $x\in M$ and if $\{x_n\}$ is a sequence converging to $x$ in the sense of (1), then we wish to prove that $\{x_n\}$ converges to $x$ in the sense of (2). We certainly know that there is a chart $(U,\phi)$ such that $x\in U$. Choose a natural number $N$ such that $n\geq N$ implies $x_n\in U$. We wish to show that the sequence $\{\phi(x_n)\}_{n\geq N}$ converges to $\phi(x)$. This is a consequence of the following exercise:

Exercise 1: Prove that if $\{x_n\}$ is a sequence of points in a topological space $X$ such that $x_n\to x$ and if $f:X\to Y$ is a continuous map of topological spaces, then $\phi(x_n)\to \phi(x)$.

Therefore $x_n\to x$ in the sense of (2).

(2)=>(1) Conversely, suppose $x_n\to x$ in the sense of (2); we wish to prove that $x_n\to x$ in the sense of (1). Choose a neighborhood $V$ of $x$. We know that there exists a chart $(U,\phi)$ such that $x\in U$. Therefore, there exists (by (2)) a natural number $N$ such that $x_n\in U$ for all $n\geq N$. We also know that the sequence $\{\phi(x_n)\}_{n\geq N}$ converges to $\phi(x)$. However, $\phi$ is a homeomorphism and therefore its inverse is continuous. In particular, we can apply Exercise 1 to $\phi^{-1}$ to conclude that $\{\phi^{-1}(\phi(x_n))\}_{n\geq N}\to \phi^{-1}(\phi(x))$ in $U$, i.e., $\{x_n\}_{n\geq N}\to x$ in $U$. Therefore, there exists $M\geq N$ such that $n\geq M$ implies $x_n\in U\cap V\subseteq V$ and $x_n\to x$ in the sense of (1).

Exercise 2: Prove the following generalization of a result noted in the implication (2)=>(1) in the above proof: if $f:X\to Y$ is a homeomorphism of topological spaces and if $\{x_n\}$ is a sequence in $X$ such that $f(x_n)\to f(x)$ for some $x\in X$, then $x_n\to x$.

Exercise 3: Does there exist an example of a continuous map $f:X\to Y$ between topological spaces and a sequence $\{x_n\}$ of points of $X$ such that $f(x_n)\to f(x)$ but that $x_n\not\to x$? (Prove or give a counterexample.)

Exercise 4: Let $f:X\to Y$ be a map such that whenever $\{x_n\}$ is a sequence of points with $x_n\to x$ for some $x\in X$, we also have $f(x_n)\to f(x)$. If $X$ and $Y$ are first countable topological spaces, then prove that $f$ is continuous.

Exercise 5: Is the result of Exercise 4 true if the word "first countable" is deleted every time it appears?

Exercise 6: You might wish to study the concept of a net in point-set topology. This concept allows us to define a type of "generalized sequence" that is very useful in the context of topological spaces that are not first countable. I leave it as an exercise to search up the concept of a net and learn more about it (if you have not already).

I hope this helps!

share|cite|improve this answer

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.