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

I was reading through general-topology posts and I couldn't quite understand this one. I tried asking directly on the thread, but I didn't get a response.
This is in reference to Professor Israel's answer on How can I show this set of sequences is compact?. I followed all the logic up until the last sentence where he claims:

That is, $\iota(B)$ is the intersection of the closed sets $K(a,x,b,y)=\{p:ap_x+bp_y\}$ for $x,y\in\ell_1$ and $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$, so it is closed.

I'm probably missing something obvious, but why is $\iota(B)$ the intersection of those closed sets? The way I'm interpreting the claim is that $\iota(B)$ is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{\ell_1}$ while the $K$'s are just a set of linear maps (if I understood that notation correctly) so $\iota(B)$ can't possibly be the intersection of them, much less compared with them since one is a set of elements and the other is a set of maps.
What am I missing?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

I think that the definition of $K(a,x,b,y)$ was typoed and should read as follows: $$K(a,x,b,y) = \{p \in P:p_{ax+by}=ap_x+bp_y\}.$$ This really is a closed set in the product: it’s the set of all points whose $(ax+by)$-th coordinate is a particular linear combination of their $x$-th and $y$-th coordinates. In a more familiar finite-dimensional setting, it’s analogous to $$\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5)\in\mathbb{R}^5:x_4 = 2x_1 + 3x_5\},$$ for instance. Any point in $P$ that doesn’t satisfy the equation $p_{ax+by}=ap_x+bp_y$ can easily be bounded away from $K(a,x,b,y)$ by a basic open set in the product that restricts only the $x$-th, $y$-th, and $(ax+by)$-th coordinates, so $K(a,x,b,y)$ is closed in $P$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! That clarified a lot. But now I'm curious why the embedding $\iota(B)$ is truly set of all "linear" elements $p\in P$ ? Does this follow from construction of the embedding or..? – Dustin Tran Oct 4 '11 at 4:25
@Dustin: Yes. Each $p\in P$ is a function from the vector space $\ell_1$ to a certain product of symmetric closed intervals. I’ve been writing $p_x$ for the $x$-th coordinate, but it may be clearer if I write $p(x)$. Then $\iota [B]$ is the set of $p\in P$ such that $p(ax+by)=ap(x)+bp(y)$ for all $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ and $x,y\in\ell_1$. And you do get all of them: Robert showed how to reconstruct $y$ from $p=\iota(y)$. – Brian M. Scott Oct 4 '11 at 4:39
Ah, I see now! What confused me previously was when to consider $p$ as maps when to consider $p$ as elements. – Dustin Tran Oct 4 '11 at 4:44

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.