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.

May I refer you to:

Lemma 4.1.6 in:

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/Math-Net/Lehrveranstaltungen/Lehrmaterial/SS2005/Liegruppen/skript/ch5vorl.pdf

Page $4$

OK so I want to understand why that family forms a subbasis for the compact open topology. By definition of subbasis we must show that the each basic open set is a finite intersection of sets of elements of the form $[K,V]$ right? My question is, it seems that the author is just showing that each element of $[K,U]$ is a finite union of finite intersections of elements of the collection, why this implies that it is a subbasis?

I'm really confused with the statement. Can you please explain what we really have to prove?

share|improve this question
    
See the second bullet point underneath the "Theorems" heading at the Wikipedia article on topological bases. –  Dylan Moreland Aug 11 '11 at 2:08

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Let $\mathcal{T}$ be the compact-open topology on $C(X,Y)$. Let $$\mathcal{S}_0 = \{[K,U]:K\subseteq X\text{ is compact and }U\subseteq Y\text{ is open}\},$$ the standard subbase for $\mathcal{T}$, and let $\mathcal{B}_0$ be the associated base, $$\mathcal{B}_0 = \{\bigcap\mathcal{F}:\mathcal{F}\subseteq \mathcal{S}_0\text{ and }\mathcal{F}\text{ is finite}\}.$$

In Lemma $4.1.6$ we’re given a subbase $\mathcal{S}$ of $Y$, and the claim is that $$\mathcal{S}_1 = \{[K,V]:V \in \mathcal{S},K \subseteq X\text{ compact}\}$$ is a subbase for $\mathcal{T}$. Stripped of its details, the argument given there shows that if $$\mathcal{B}_1 = \{\bigcap\mathcal{F}:\mathcal{F}\subseteq \mathcal{S}_1\text{ and }\mathcal{F}\text{ is finite}\}$$ is the base generated by $\mathcal{S}_1$, then for any $[K,U]\in \mathcal{S}_0$ and any $\gamma\in [K,U]$ there is an $H\in \mathcal{B}_1$ such that $\gamma \in H \subseteq [K,U]$. From this it follows immediately that each member of $\mathcal{S}_0$ is a union of members of $\mathcal{B}_1$, and you’re wondering why this is sufficient to show that $\mathcal{S}_1$ is a subbase for $\mathcal{T}$.

To show that $\mathcal{S}_1$ is a subbase for $\mathcal{T}$, we need only show that $\mathcal{B}_1$ is a base for $\mathcal{T}$, i.e., that every member of $\mathcal{T}$ is a union of members of $\mathcal{B}_1$. This will certainly follow if we can show that every member of the base $\mathcal{B}_0$ is a union of members of $\mathcal{B}_1$. Fix $B \in \mathcal{B}_0$, say $$B = [K_1,U_1]\cap [K_2,U_2]\cap\dots\cap [K_n,U_n],$$ where $[K_1,U_1],[K_2,U_2],\dots,[K_n,U_n] \in \mathcal{S}_0$. Suppose that $\gamma\in B$. Then $\gamma\in [K_i,U_i]$ for $i=1,2,\dots,n$, so the proof of Lemma $4.1.6$ guarantees that there are sets $H_i \in \mathcal{B}_1$ such that $\gamma \in H_i \subseteq [K_i,U_i]$ for $i=1,2,\dots,n$. Let $H = \bigcap\limits_{i=1}^n H_i$; then $H\in \mathcal{B}_1$, and $\gamma \in H \subseteq B$. It follows that $B$ is a union of members of $\mathcal{B}_1$, which is exactly what we needed.

(I suppose that I should mention in passing that since $\mathcal{S}_1$ is clearly a subset of $\mathcal{T}$, it cannot generate a topology finer than $\mathcal{T}$; the only question is whether it generates all of $\mathcal{T}$.)

share|improve this answer

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.