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.

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 $\tau_1\subseteq \tau_2$ be two Hausdorff regular topologies in an infinite set $X$ such that the convergences of sequences in $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ coincide (they have the same convergent sequences (to the same limits)). Must the Borel $\sigma$-fields (generated by open sets) of $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ be the same?

share|cite|improve this question
Of course not. Why not think about how to find a counterexample? – GEdgar Oct 3 '11 at 21:22
@GEdgar: I don't doubt you. What's wrong with my answer? – robjohn Oct 3 '11 at 21:28
@GEdgar: sorry, I deleted my answer again because it was getting down-voted with no comments. – robjohn Oct 3 '11 at 21:30
@robjohn: I was in the middle of typing a comment (with a counterexample) but you deleted your answer before I could post it. – Nate Eldredge Oct 3 '11 at 21:32
I'm not 100% sure, but it seems that [descriptive-set-theory] fits here nicely. – Asaf Karagila Oct 3 '11 at 21:43

They need not be the same. Let $X = ^{\omega_1}\mathbb{Z}$, the set of integer sequences of length $\omega_1$, and give it the order topology $\tau_1$ induced by the lexicographic order. Every linearly ordered topological space is $T_1$ and hereditarily normal, so $\langle X,\tau_1 \rangle$ is certainly $T_3$. There are no non-trivial convergent sequences in $\langle X,\tau_1 \rangle$. To see this, suppose that $x \in X$, and $A \subseteq X\setminus\{x\}$ is countable. There is an $\alpha < \omega_1$ such that for each $y\in A$ there is some $\xi < \alpha$ such that $x(\xi)\ne y(\xi)$. Let $x^-,x^+\in X$ be be defined as follows: $$\begin{align*} x^-(\xi) &= \begin{cases} x(\xi),&\text{if }\xi \ne \alpha\\ x(\alpha)-1,&\text{if }\xi = \alpha \end{cases}\\ &\\&\\&\\ x^+(\xi) &= \begin{cases} x(\xi),&\text{if }\xi \ne \alpha\\ x(\alpha)+1,&\text{if }\xi = \alpha. \end{cases} \end{align*}$$

Then $x \in (x^-,x^+) \subseteq X\setminus A$.

Now let $\tau_2$ be the discrete topology on $X$; clearly $\tau_1 \subseteq \tau_2$, and there are no non-trivial convergent sequences in $\langle X,\tau_2 \rangle$, either. But the Borel $\sigma$-field of $\tau_2$ is $\wp(X)$, and I’m reasonably sure that that of $\tau_1$ isn’t.

Edit: I originally had $X = ^{\omega_1}2$ with the lexicographic order topology, which, as Byron Schmuland pointed out, does have convergent sequences. I was actually thinking of the tree topology on $X$, which has a base consisting of all sets of the form $\{x \in X:x \upharpoonright\alpha = \varphi\}$, where $\alpha < \omega_1$ and $\varphi \in ^{\alpha}2$. It’s zero-dimensional and $T_1$, hence completely regular, and every countable subset is easily seen to be closed and discrete by an argument similar to the one used above to show that $\langle X,\tau_1 \rangle$ has no non-trivial convergent sequences..

share|cite|improve this answer
I am way outside my comfort zone, but I'd like to try to understand your example. Could you define "character", as in "every point has character $\omega_1$"? My naive thought is that the sequence $1_n$ converges to $1_\omega$ in the lexicographic order ($n$ is an ordinary integer, $\omega$ the first infinite ordinal, and $1_s$ means the binary sequence that is all zero, except a $1$ at $s$). Where do I misunderstand? – Byron Schmuland Oct 4 '11 at 0:02
@Byron: The character of a point is the minimum cardinality of a local base at the point. You’re right about the sequence: I was thinking of the tree topology, not the order topology. Alternatively, you could replace $2$ by $\mathbb{Z}$ and use the lexicographic order topology. I’ll fix it. – Brian M. Scott Oct 4 '11 at 1:08
Why does $(1_n)_{n<\omega}$ converge to $1_\omega$ in the order topology? Isn't $(\leftarrow,s)$, where $s$ is the sequence that is zero except at $\omega$ and $\omega+1$, a neighbourhood of $1_\omega$ that does not contain any of the $1_n$'s? – LostInMath Oct 4 '11 at 1:24
@LostInMath: You’re right. I misread @Byron’s example as one that does work: for $n\le\omega$ let $1_n$ have $1$’s in the first $n$ places. Then $\langle 1_n:n\in\omega\rangle\to 1_\omega$. – Brian M. Scott Oct 4 '11 at 1:35
@Lost and Brian: Thanks for sorting that out for me! – Byron Schmuland Oct 4 '11 at 1:40

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.