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.

First let $\Lambda$ be the bijective mapping between $Y^{Z \times X}$ and $(Y^X)^Z$ defined as follows: every mapping $f: Z \times X \to Y$ defines a set of mappings from $X$ to $Y$: for each $z \in Z$ is $f_z:X \to Y$ defined as $f_z(x) = f(z,x)$. The mapping $z \mapsto f_z$ of $Z$ to $Y^X$ obtained this way we denote as $\Lambda(f)$.

Engelking calls this the exponential mapping.

Then he goes on to define a topology on $C(X, Y)$ called the pointwise topology as the restriction of the product topology on $Y^X$ restricted to $C(X,Y)$. We can also see that this is equal to the topology generated by the subbasis $$\{M(x, U) : x \in X \text{ and $U$ open in $Y$}\},$$ where $M(x,U) := \{f \in C(X,Y) : f(x) \in U\}$.

So now I can finally ask the question I want to ask...

Give $C(X,Y)$, $C(Z \times X, Y)$ and $C(Z, C(X, Y))$ the pointwise topology.

How do I now show that $\Lambda:C(Z \times X, Y) \to C(Z, C(X,Y))$ is an embedding? I'm drowning in a syntax mess. I don't need a full solution a road map is fine.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I'll show continuity. The pointwise topology on $C(X,Y)$ is precisely what it says: a net $g_i$ converges in it, $g_i\to g$, if and only if for all $x\in X$ we have $g_i(x)\to g(x)$ in $Y$. (Indeed, this is because a net in a product converges iff all projections converge.)

So suppose $f_i\to f$ in $C(Z\times X,Y)$. We need to show $\Lambda (f_i)\to \Lambda (f)$. The latter means that, for all $z\in Z$, we have $(f_i)_z\to f_z$ in $C(X,Y)$ . But this means that for all $z\in Z$, we have that for all $x\in X$, $(f_i)_z(x)\to f_z(x)$ in $Y$. In other words, it means that for all $(z,x)\in Z\times X$, we have $f_i(z,x)\to f(z,x)$ in $Y$. But this is precisely our assumption $f_i\to f$ in $C(Z\times X,Y)$.

So it's basically a tautology: the maps are defined by 'currying' (holding the function pointwise fixed), and we are considering the pointwise topology.

To show that in fact $\Lambda(f)$ is continuous for continuous $f$, a similar argument can be used (namely $\Lambda(f)(z_i)\to \Lambda(f)(z)$ for nets $z_i\to z$), and the same for the well-definedness and continuity of the inverse.

(I think this is one of the places where using nets is superior to working directly with open set / subbases of the topology.)

share|improve this answer
    
I think that in this way we can show that $Y^{Z\times X}$ and $(Y^X)^Z$ are homeomorphic. (Continuouiy of both $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda^{-1}$ can be shown via nets.) If we work with the restriction of these topologies to spaces of continuous map, it only remains to show that every element of $C(Z\times X,Y)$ is mapped to an element of $C(Z,C(X,Y))$. (Again, nets should be useful for this.) –  Martin Sleziak Jul 2 '11 at 19:24
    
Great. Since I'm doing topology I'll take filters instead of nets then at least there is something left to think about for me ;-). –  Jonas Teuwen Jul 2 '11 at 19:28
    
For the record: Doesn't imbedding in topology just mean that the mapping in question is a homeomorphism onto its range? In this case I already know what $\Lambda$ and its inverse are. –  Jonas Teuwen Jul 2 '11 at 19:38
    
@Jonas, yes that is correct. –  wildildildlife Jul 2 '11 at 19:46
add comment

For the pointwise topology, I don't know. For the compact-open topology, with hypotheses on the spaces, the map you are talking about can be a homeomorphism and you can find it in the book of Maunder. For the pointwise topology, there are results in the book of Munkres.

share|improve this answer
    
I am sorry, but 'there are result in Munkres' does not seem really helpful. –  wildildildlife Jul 2 '11 at 19:23
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.