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.

It should be a triviality, I believe.

The topology induced by a uniform structure $\mathcal{U}$ with $\cap \mathcal{U} =\Delta$, where $\Delta$ is the diagonal, is Hausdorff.

Now I think that if I define the product topology $X \times X$ to be such that the closed sets of it are the sets that are in the $\mathcal{U}$, then I will get that $\Delta$ is closed as an arbitrary intersection of closed sets, and thus the space $X$ is $T_2$.

Is this right? (I am just not sure that if I induce the sets in $\mathcal{U}$ as open sets in $X \times X$ that the above will occur).

share|improve this question
2  
If you define a topology on $X\times X$, there is no reason why this topology will have anything to do with a topology on $X$. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Nov 16 '11 at 16:03
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

You don’t need to look at any topology on $X\times X$; just show Hausdorffness of $X$ directly. Let $x$ and $y$ be distinct points of $X$. Then $\langle x,y\rangle\notin\Delta$, so there is some $U\in\mathcal{U}$ such that $\langle x,y\rangle\notin U$. Now use the uniformity axioms to show that there is a symmetric $V\in\mathcal{U}$ such that $V\circ V\subseteq U$, and then show that $V[x]$ and $V[y]$ must be disjoint nbhds of $x$ and $y$, respectively.

share|improve this answer
    
I am not sure, but the symmetric set $V$ I am looking is actually $V=U\cap U^{-1}$, right? I can see that it equals $V^{-1}$, cause $$(x,y)\in V \leftrightarrow (x,y) \in U & (y,x) \in U$$ and $$(x,y) \in V^{-1} \leftrightarrow (y,x) \in U & (x,y) \in U$$. I see now that it's really as easy as the lecturer said. :-) –  MathematicalPhysicist Nov 16 '11 at 17:37
    
@MathematicalPhysicist: Whether you can use $U\cap U^{-1}$ directly depends on exactly how the axioms of a uniformity were given. It’ll work with the definition here, for instance. Definition 35.2 in Willard’s General Topology, on the other hand, requires a couple of extra steps: it guarantees a $V_1\in\mathcal{U}$ with $V_1\circ V_1\subseteq U$ and then a $V_2\in\mathcal{U}$ such that $V_2^{-1}\subseteq V_1$; then $(V_1\cap V_2)\cap(V_1\cap V_2)^{-1}$ works. –  Brian M. Scott Nov 16 '11 at 17:59
    
In the definition we were given there wasn't mention of condition d) in def 35.2 of Willards' text. This added condition makes the definition inequivalent, right? –  MathematicalPhysicist Nov 18 '11 at 8:39
    
@MathematicalPhysicist: I’d have to see your definition to be sure. I suspect that yours actually implies that condition. –  Brian M. Scott Nov 18 '11 at 10:35
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.