Definition: Let $X$ be a set. A set $U\subseteq X\times X$ is called entourage of the diagonal if $\Delta=\{(x,x):x\in X\}\subseteq U$ and $U=U^{-1}.$

Let $\Phi$ be a family of entourages of the diagonal. The pair $(X,\Phi)$ is called uniform space if for all entourages $U,V$ the following conditions are satisfied:

$1.U\in \Phi,U\subseteq V \implies V\in \Phi.$

$2.U,V\in \Phi\implies U\cap V\in \Phi.$

$3.U\in \Phi \implies (\exists V\in \Phi)V\circ V=\{(x,z):(\exists y\in X),(x,y),(y,z)\in V\}\subseteq U.$


The sets of the form $$U[x]=\{y\in X:(x,y)\in U\}$$ gives a local base at $x$ for the topology induced by the uniformity $\Phi.$

Now in this paper $I^K$-cauchy Functions by Sleziak,Toma,Das it says The last condition of the Definition implies that the induced topology is Hausdorff.

Now by last condition it means the $4$th one $\bigcap \Phi = \Delta.$

Let $x,y\in X;x\neq y.$ We need to find at least two $U\cap V=\phi,U,V\in \Phi$ such that $x\in U,y\in V.$Now according to the definitions wlg $$U=U[x]\\ V=V[y]$$. Now if they have a point say $(a,b)$ in common then to be in $U[x]$, $a=x$ and to be in $V[y]$ $a=y$ and thus making $x=y$ which contradicts our initial assumption that $x\neq y.$ So they are Hausdorff. But what has condition $4$ to do with it $?$

Also , from the proof , did we just find out that whenever two points are distinct in an Uniform Space all their nbd's are disjoint?

Thank You.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That is not the usual definition of uniform space: the usual definition does not require that $\bigcap\Phi=\Delta$ and does require that if $U\in\Phi$, then $U^{-1}\in\Phi$. The usual definition does not imply that a uniform space is Hausdorff. It does imply that a uniform space is completely regular; $\bigcap\Phi=\Delta$ immediately implies that it’s $T_1$, hence Tikhonov, hence Hausdorff. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Dec 18 '16 at 23:46
  • $\begingroup$ @BrianM.Scott: It's the definition I got from the paper I mentioned above. $\endgroup$ – user118494 Dec 19 '16 at 5:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I understood that; I’m just warning you for future reference that it’s not the usual one. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Dec 19 '16 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ @BrianM.Scott I somehow missed the above comment when this was posted. We followed the definition from Engelking's book. In the paper, we explicitly mentioned that different definitions are also used. (That's what I have to say to our defense.) Anyway, +1 for your comment. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 16 '17 at 8:40

Let $x,y\in X$ and assume that every neighborhood of $x$ intersects every neighborhood of $y$. In particular we'll have: $$\forall U\in\Phi,\ \exists z_U\in X,\ z_U\in U[x]\cap U[y].$$ Which can be translated as $$\forall U\in\Phi,\ \exists z_U\in X,\ (x,z_U),(y,z_U)\in U.$$ Now, since $U$ is an entourage of $\Delta$, $U=U^{-1}$, hence we conclude: $$\forall U\in\Phi,\ \exists z_U\in X,\ (x,z_U),(z_U,y)\in U.$$

We now proceed by contradiction: assume that $x\neq y$, then, by Condition 4, there exists $U\in\Phi$ such that $(x,y)\not\in U$. By Condition 3, there exists $V\in\Phi$ such that $V\circ V\subset U$. But we have a contradiction with the fact that $(x,z_V),(z_V,y)\in V$ hence $(x,y)\in V\circ V\subset U$.

You went wrong there:

Now if they have a point say $(a,b)$ in common

This is nonsense: $U[x]$ is a subset of $X$, not of $X\times X$.

did we just find out that whenever two points are distinct in an Uniform Space all their nbd's are disjoint?

Certainly not!

  • $\begingroup$ To say that "every neighborhood of $x$ intersects every neighborhood of $y$" does not mean what you say it means. Your quantifiers are wrong, the point $z$ will depend on the neighborhood. The correct statement is "for every $U,V \in \Phi$ there exists $z \in U[x] \cap V[y]$". $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Dec 18 '16 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ @LeeMosher: hopefully fixed… $\endgroup$ – gniourf_gniourf Dec 18 '16 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ So is our $U$ fixed here? $\endgroup$ – user118494 Dec 18 '16 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ @user118494: where? I usually leave no free variables, so things should be clear. $\endgroup$ – gniourf_gniourf Dec 18 '16 at 20:03

If $x \neq y$, then $(x,y) \notin \Delta$, so if (4) holds, there is some $U \in \Phi$ such that $(x,y) \notin U$. Now let $V \in \Phi$ be such that $V \circ V \subseteq U$.

Now suppose $z \in V[x] \cap V[y]$. Then $(x,z) \in V, (z,y) \in V$ and symmetry yields that $(x,y) \in V \circ V$ so $(x,y) \in U$, which is a contradiction with how $U$ was chosen. So $V[x]$ and $V[y]$ are disjoint neighbourhoods for $x$ and $y$.

Note the abstract similarity with the proof for metrics: $d(x,y) = r > 0$ and we use a two balls of radius $\frac{r}{2}$ (Which corresponds to $V[x], V[y]$) and the triangle inequality then does the rest. Uniformities are inspired on metrics, so this often helps.


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.