1
$\begingroup$

Wikipedia's article on uniform spaces defines the following.

  • A nonempty family $\mathcal{U}$ of subsets $U \subseteq X \times X$ is a uniform structure if it satisfies the following axioms:

    1. If $U \in \mathcal{U}$, then $\Delta \subseteq U$, where $\Delta = \{ (x,x) : x \in X \}$ is the diagonal on $X \times X$.
    2. If $U \in \mathcal{U}$ and $U \subseteq V$ for $V \subseteq X \times X$, then $V \in \mathcal{U}$.
    3. If $U \in \mathcal{U}$ and $V \in \mathcal{U}$, then $U \cap V \in \mathcal{U}$.
    4. If $U \in \mathcal{U}$, then there is $V \in \mathcal{U}$ such that $V \circ V \subseteq U$, where $V \circ V$ denotes the composites of $V$ with itself. (The composite of two subsets $V$ and $U$ of $X \times X$ is defined by $V \circ U = \{ (x,z) : (\exists y \in X)((x,y) \in U \wedge (y,z) \in V ) \}$.)
    5. If $U \in \mathcal{U}$, then $U^{-1} \in \mathcal{U}$, where $U^{-1} = \{ (y,x) : (x,y) \in \mathcal{U} \}$.

    ... The elements $U$ of $\mathcal{U}$ are called entourages....

  • Every uniform space $X$ becomes a topological space by defining a subset $O$ of $X$ to be open if and only if for every $x$ in $O$ there exists an entourage $V$ such that $V[x] = \{ y : (x,y) \in V \}$ is a subset of $O$.

I am having trouble showing that the sets $V[x]$ themselves are open using this definition (this is claimed in the following sentence). In a metric space, it is clear what to do: if $z \in B_{\varepsilon}(x)$, then there is some smaller $\delta < \varepsilon$ with $z \in B_{\delta}(x)$ and then $B_{\varepsilon - \delta}(z) \subseteq B_{\varepsilon}(x).$

In a uniform space, it's claimed that "this can be proved with a recursive use of the existence of a "half-size" entourage". I guess this is meant as an adaptation of the metric space argument but it isn't clear to me that this works. If $X$ is not Hausdorff, then I can't see any axiom that says that any $(x,y) \in U$ must always lie in a smaller entourage $(x,y) \in V \subseteq U$; and even if $X$ is Hausdorff I don't see how we can "take the difference" in entourages and look at $B_{\varepsilon-\delta}.$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Reference: General Topology by R. Engelking. ..One of the 8 chapters is entirely on Uniform Spaces. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Nov 9 '15 at 1:21
  • $\begingroup$ @user254665 Thanks but I'm still not convinced. I don't see anywhere where Engelking shows that $V[x]$ is open, and for example, in Corollary 8.1.3 Engelking refers specifically to the interior of $V[x]$ (which he calls $B(x,V)$) rather than $V[x]$ itself. I am concerned because this conflicts with Bourbaki who defines the topology on $X$ to have the sets $V[x]$ as a basis. $\endgroup$ – user288288 Nov 9 '15 at 1:35
  • $\begingroup$ I will take a look at it. I have a copy but it's been a while.... $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Nov 9 '15 at 1:42
  • $\begingroup$ Please read carefully what the next sentence from the Wikipedia article states, and also look at the article on neighbourhoods. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Nov 9 '15 at 5:12
  • $\begingroup$ @ArthurFischer Thanks, I see that I've been misinterpreting the term "neighborhood base" and "neighborhood filter". I guess it's not claimed there that $U[x]$ is open after all. $\endgroup$ – user288288 Nov 9 '15 at 5:24
0
$\begingroup$

The sets of the type $V[x]$ do not have to be open at all.
Take for example $\mathbb{R}$ with the standard metric and the induced uniform structure.
Then for every $\epsilon > 0$

\begin{equation} V_\epsilon = \bigcup \limits_{x \in \mathbb{R}} \{ x \} \times B_\epsilon(x) \end{equation}

is an entourage.
However by the second axiom $W = V_\epsilon \cup \{0,2\epsilon\}$ is also an entourage.
But now we have

\begin{equation} W[0] = V_\epsilon[0] \cup \{2 \epsilon\} = B_\epsilon(0) \cup \{2 \epsilon \} = (-\epsilon, \epsilon) \cup \{2 \epsilon \} \end{equation}

which is certainly not open.
Note however that its interior is nonempty!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for piggybacking onto this post. I'm wondering about something. If $U$ is an entourage of $X$ and $x \in X$ is any point, is $U[x]$ at least a neighbourhood of $x$? (i.e. for every $y \in U[x]$ does there exist an open set that contains $y$ and is a subset of $U[x]$?) $\endgroup$ – jessica Jan 10 at 8:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.