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.

Short version: Is it possible to explicitly describe the open sets of the product topology (of arbitrary topological spaces) via set-builder notation? (Or differently formulated: What do to if set set I want to describe contains arbitrary many disjunction symbols ?)

Long version: Given a set $I$ and for every $i\in I$ a topological space $(X_i,\tau _i)$, then one can endow $\prod X_i $ with a topology by specifying a set $$\mathcal{S}=\{\prod Y_i \ |\ \exists j\in I \ \ \forall i \in I\setminus \{j\}: Y_i=X_i \textrm{ and } Y_j\in \tau _j\}.$$ Then there is only one topology, the product topology, for which this set is a subbase. To obtain the open sets in this topology, one has to go through the following process: One first has to intersect the elements from $S$ finitely many times - then one has obtained a base, $\mathcal{B}$, for the topology - and then one has to form arbitrary unions of the set in the base.

$ \ $

Let's warm up - I can describe the an element to be in $\mathcal{S}$ either by its construction, meaning it satisfies:

$S\in \mathcal{S} \Leftrightarrow \exists j\in I \ \ \exists O\in \tau_j \ \ \forall i \in I\setminus \{j\}: Y_i=X_i \textrm{ and } Y_j=O,$

or if it is of the form

$S=\{f:I\rightarrow \cup_{i\in I} X_i \ | \ \exists i\in I \ \ \exists O\in \tau_i: f(i)\in O \}.$

$ \ $

The same (only a bit more tedious to write out) goes for $\mathcal{B}$:

$B\in \mathcal{B} \Leftrightarrow \exists J, \ J \textrm{ finite set, such that } B=\cap_{j\in J} S_j $ with $S_j\in S,$

or in set-builder notation:

$B = \{ f:I\rightarrow \cup_{i\in I} X_i \ | \ \exists n\in \mathbb{N} \ \ \exists i_1,\ldots,i_n \in I \ \ \exists O_{i_1}\in T_{i_1},\ldots,O_{i_n}\in T_{i_n} $ such that $f(i_1)\in O_{i_1} \land ,\ldots, \land f(i_n)\in O_{i_n} \}. $

$ \ $

But if I want to describe an open set like above, I can only describe it via its contruction:

$O\in \mathcal{O} \Leftrightarrow \exists F, F \textrm{ arbitrary set},\ \ \exists J, \ J \textrm{ finite set, such that } O=\cup_{f \in F} \, \cap_{j\in J} S_{fj} $ with $S_{fj}\in S$.

If I wanted to describe it in set-builder notation I would have to have use infinitely many disjunction symbols. To exemplify this, see the following: Since an union of, lets say two base sets, $B_1\cup B_2$, can be written in set-builder notation as - this gets nasty -

$B_1\cup B_2= \{ f:I\rightarrow \cup_{i\in I} X_i \ | \ \ \exists n_1,n_2 \in \mathbb{N} \ \ \exists i_{1,n_1},\ldots ,i_{n_1,n_1}\in I, \ \ [\ldots ]$ $ [\ldots ] i_{1,n_2},\ldots ,i_{2,n_2} \in I \ \ \ \exists O_{1,n_1} \in \tau_{i_{1,n_1}} ,\ldots ,O_{n_1,n_1} \in \tau_{i_{n_1,n_1}}, \ [\ldots ] $ $[\ldots ] O_{1,n_2} \in \tau_{i_{1,n_2}} ,\ldots ,O_{n_2,n_2} \in \tau_{i_{n_2,n_2}} \textrm{ such that } [\ldots ]$ $ [\ldots ] ( f(i_{1,n_1})\in O_{1,n_1} \land ,\ldots , \land f(i_{n_1,n_1})\in O_{n_1,n_1}) \ \ \lor ( f(i_{1,n_2})\in O_{1,n_2} \land ,\ldots , \land f(i_{n_2,n_2})\in O_{n_2,n_2})$}

I would get for arbitrary unions arbitrary many disjunctions - but I can't write that out!

share|improve this question
2  
If you don't mind me asking: Why do you want to do that? –  Michael Greinecker Jan 1 '12 at 20:38
    
@MichaelGreinecker I don't. I was trying to figure out how the product topology on some family of sets endowed with the discrete topology looks like - meaning I was trying to see how a generic open set would look like. And trying to see how something looks like (in this case) means (among other things) describing in set-builder notation; and in the process of doing that it hit me, that I can't actually describe the set in set-builder notation. And this I found to be rather strange (since I thought that any well-formed set can be described like that), so I posted this problem here. –  temo Jan 2 '12 at 16:02
2  
To me, this is a somewhat unusual way to describe a set. I know how a circle looks like, but I don't think I understand it better by viewing it as the complement of a union of open rectangles in $\mathbb{R}^2$. In the case of the discrete topology, a subset of $\prod_i X_i$ looks essentially like $S\times\prod_{j\in J}X_j$ where $J\subseteq I$ has a finite complement and $S$ is an arbitrary subset of $\prod_{i\in I\backslash J}$. Since you only have to construct points in the first step, set builder notation actually works quite well for products of discrete spaces. –  Michael Greinecker Jan 2 '12 at 16:22
3  
Yes, I meant an open set. Silly me. The "looks essentially like" refers to the fact, that $S\times\prod_{i\in J}X_i$ is in principle a set of ordered pairs and not a set of functions with domain $I$. This is one of the cases where rigor can lead to rigor mortis. –  Michael Greinecker Jan 2 '12 at 18:39
2  
+1 for rigor vs. rigor mortis :D –  temo Jan 3 '12 at 16:36

1 Answer 1

Your set-builder expression for a typical subbase element is inadequate: it doesn’t even ensure that elements of $S$ belong to the product of the $X_i$, since it doesn’t require $f(j)\in X_j$ for all $j\in I$. You could remedy that shortcoming with

$$S=\left\{f\in ^I(\cup_{i\in I}X_i):\exists i\in I\,\exists U\in\tau_i\Big(f(i)\in U\land\forall j\in I\big(f(j)\in X_j\big)\Big)\right\}\;,$$

but it still wouldn’t do what you want: every member of $\prod\limits_{i\in I}X_i$ satisfies the set-building condition, so this is just a fancy description of the product.

The problem is that the definition allows a different choice of the restricting index $i$ and the restriction $U$ for each $f\in S$, and to get a member of the subbase you have to fix a single restricting index $i$ and restriction $U$ that applies to all of them. I see no way to write a self-contained expression

$$S=\left\{f\in ^I(\cup_{i\in I}X_i):\varphi(f)\right\}$$

that actually describes all subbasic sets and nothing else; external parameters $i$ and $U$ specifying the restriction on the members of $S$ seem to be necessary.

Your set-builder version of $B$ has similar problems. Unless you can find a way to overcome them $-$ and as I said, I don’t at the moment see one $-$ there’s not much point worrying about the next stage.

share|improve this answer
    
@BrianMScott You're right: I did write $S$ incorrectly out. And you're also right I think, that one can't write the sets of (for example) $\mathcal{S}$ in a self-contained form. But one can write them in a form, where one first fixates the restricting indices and restriction sets and then writes the set in set-builder notation. For example the $S$ could (hopefully correctly this time) be written as: "Let $i\in I$ and $U\in \tau_i$. Then $S=\{ f:I \rightarrow \cup_{j\in I} X_j | f(i)\in U \land \forall k\in I\setminus \{ j\}: f(k)\in X_k \}$ (...) –  temo Jan 2 '12 at 17:39
    
(...) But even for this weaker conditions (since self-containdness isn't any more required) for writing the sets in set-builder notation, which I think should also work for the sets in $\mathcal{B}$ (by moving all the appropriate indices and open sets of the set $B$, as I have written it, outside of $B$), I can't write the open sets in set-builder notation, since it would contain infinitely many conjunction and disjunction symbols, since it would be of the form: "[specifying the fixed indices and sets] $\{f:I\rightarrow \cup_{i\in I} X_i \ | \alpha (f) \land \beta (f) \land \ldots \}$" (...) –  temo Jan 2 '12 at 17:46
    
(...) where $\alpha (f), \beta(f) $ look tell me that $f$ has to lie in finitely many of the sets fixed at the beginning (so there are finitely many conjunction symbols) - and since the set consists of arbitrary unions of finite intersections (every finite intersection corresponds to an $\alpha,\beta,\ldots $), I have to form arbitrary many disjunctions, to write the set in set-builder notation. (...) –  temo Jan 2 '12 at 17:55
    
(...) This is actually the problem I want to know the answer of. Writing the sets in a self-contained way would be a nice bonus, but that was not what I was originally after. Sorry if my malformed expressions of my sets $S,B$ misguided to think that this was the problem I was after. (Although I didn't think of the problem of self-containdness, when I was writing this question, I'm grateful to you for pointing it out, because otherwise I probably wouldn't have realised it, so I'm also glad for having written the sets in an inadequate way.) –  temo Jan 2 '12 at 17:57

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.