I realize these two topologies have been discussed before, but I can't understand why the product topology's components are the spaces $X_\alpha$ except for finitely many components. It is probably a silly mistake. In Munkres' text this is a theorem, not part of the definition. He gives the following definitions:

Let $\{X_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in J}$ be an indexed family of topological spaces. Let us take as a basis for a topology on the product space $$\prod_{\alpha\in J} X_\alpha$$ the collection of all sets of the form $$\prod_{\alpha\in J} U_\alpha$$ where $U_\alpha$ is open in $X_\alpha$ for each $\alpha\in J$. The topology generated by this basis is called the box topology.

Then he defines the projection $\pi_\beta$ as usual for $\beta\in J$. Then he defines the product topology:

Let $\mathcal{S}_\beta$ denote the collection $$\mathcal{S}_\beta = \{ \pi^{-1}(U_\beta) | U_\beta \> \text{open in}\ \> X_\beta \},$$ and let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the union of these collections $$\mathcal{S} = \bigcup_{\beta\in J}\mathcal{S}_\beta$$ The topology generated by the subbasis $\mathcal{S}$ is called the product topology.

I see two possibilities for the interpretation of the definition of the set $\mathcal{S}_\beta$, and in particular the status of $U_\beta$. In one interpretation, for each $\beta$, $U_\beta$ is a fixed open set in $X_\beta$, so that $\mathcal{S}_\beta$ consists of all products of the form $$A_{\alpha_1} \times A_{\alpha_2} \times \cdots \times U_\beta \times \cdots$$ where for each $\alpha_i$ the $A_{\alpha_i}$ are any open set in $X_{\alpha_i}$, and $U_\beta$ is in the '$\beta$th' component. This is just the set of products which under the projection map to $U_\beta$, i.e. it is the preimage.

The other interpretation is that for each $\beta$, $U_\beta$ is 'universally quantified' over all open sets in $X_\beta$, making each product in $\mathcal{S}_\beta$ of the form $$A_{\alpha_1} \times A_{\alpha_2} \times \cdots \times U_{j,\beta} \times \cdots$$ where $U_{j,\beta}$ is any open set in $X_\beta$, indexing the open sets of $X_\beta$ by $j$ for clarity, so that the open sets of $X_\beta$ are exactly $\{ U_{j,\beta}\}$ (and of course $U_{j,\beta}$ in the $\beta$th component as before). However my understanding is that this would mean that for each $\beta$, $\mathcal{S}_\beta$ is equal to the box product, so I assume that is not the correct interpretation.

However, even if the first interpretation is correct, this means that $\mathcal{S}$ is the entire box product, because its elements are of the form $$\mathcal{A} = U_{\alpha_1} \times U_{\alpha_2} \times \cdots, $$where each $U_{\alpha_i}$ is universally quantified over the open sets in $X_{\alpha_i}$. And in particular, for such elements $\mathcal{A}\cap\mathcal{B}$, we have $$(U_{\mathcal{A},\alpha_1}\cap U_{\mathcal{B},\alpha_1}) \times (U_{\mathcal{A},\alpha_1}\cap U_{\mathcal{B},\alpha_2}) \times \cdots,$$ where since each component is an open set in $X_{\alpha_i}$, this intersection is again contained in $\mathcal{S}$ by my assumption.

I understand that something here, or quite a bit, is incorrect, but I don't see what, and in general I don't see how to prove that the product topology has for open sets the products with only finitely many components $\beta$ distinct from their space $X_\beta$. I suspect that the finiteness of the intersections performed on a subbasis somehow manifest into this finitely-many-proper-subset-components property, but I can't get past the definitions discussed here.


There is a slight misunderstanding here about the product (and box) topologies. It is not true that every open set (in either topology) is a product of open sets. Indeed, consider the open unit ball $\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2 \mid x^2+y^2< 1\}$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$. This set is open in both topologies (because they coincide for finite products), but it is not of the form $U\times V$ with $U,V\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ open. The key fact is that these products form a basis for the topology.

If $X=\prod_{i\in I}X_i$ (as sets) and $(X_i)_{i\in I}$ are topological spaces, then the sets of the form $$ \prod_{i\in I}U_i, $$ where $U_i\subseteq X_i$ is open for each $i$, form a base for the box topology on $X$.

Recall that if $B$ is a base which generates the topology $(X,\tau)$, then $$ \tau = \{U\subseteq X \mid U\ \text{is a union of elements of $B$}\}. $$

This is equivalent to saying that $U\subseteq X$ is open iff for every $x\in U$ there exists $V\in B$ such that $x\in V \subseteq U$. (Try justifying why these two are equivalent.)

On the other hand, we can consider a subbase. If $S$ is a subbase which generates the topology $(X,\tau)$, then $$ \tau = \{U\subseteq X \mid U\ \text{is a union of finite intersections of elements of $S$}\}. $$ Note also that if $S$ is a subbase, then we can obtain a base via $$ B = \{V\subseteq X \mid V\ \text{is a finite intersection of elements of $S$}\}. $$ This gets to the heart of a matter. We want to prove:

If $X=\prod_{i\in I}X_i$ (as sets) and $(X_i)_{i\in I}$ are topological spaces, then the sets of the form $$ \prod_{i\in I}U_i, $$ where $U_i\subseteq X_i$ is open for each $i$ and $U_i=X_i$ for all but finitely many $i$, form a base for the product topology on $X$.

We can do this with the process described above to turn a subbase into a base. We know that the set $$ S = \{\pi_i^{-1}(U_i) \mid i\in I,\, U_i\subseteq X_i\ \text{is open}\} $$ is a subbase for the product topology. This means that sets of the form $$ \pi_{i_1}^{-1}(U_{i_1})\cap \cdots \cap \pi_{i_n}^{-1}(U_{i_n}), $$ where $i_1,\ldots,i_n\in I$ and $U_{i_k}\subseteq X_{i_k}$ is open for each $k=1,\ldots,n$, forms a base for the topology. Since the preimage respects unions and intersections, we can assume that $i_1,\ldots,i_n$ are distinct. Then we have (why?) $$ \pi_{i_1}^{-1}(U_{i_1})\cap \cdots \cap \pi_{i_n}^{-1}(U_{i_n}) = \prod_{i\in I}U_i, $$ where $$ U_i = \begin{cases} U_{i_k} & \text{if $i=i_k$ for some $k=1,\ldots,n$},\\ X_i & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} $$

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your response. Sorry, I'm stuck on why $\pi_{i_1}^{-1}(U_{i_1})\cap\cdots\cap \pi_{i_n}^{-1}(U_{i_n}) $ is not the set of all products with component $\alpha$ an open set in $X_\alpha$. Why doesn't that follow immediately from the preimage? Hmm..I think I may have been making a 'syntactic' mistake here all along.. the 'type' of the domain of the preimage is 'set of elements $(x_{\alpha_1}, x_{\alpha_2},\ldots)$ where $x_{\alpha_i}\in X_{\alpha_1}$? I guess I've been thinking all along that the domain is the topology and not the space $\endgroup$ – A__A__0 Oct 8 '17 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ @A__A__0 Not quite, because we are only considering finitely many components. Since $\pi_{i_0}^{-1}(U_{i_0})$ is the set of all tuples $(x_i)_{i\in i}$ where $x_{i_0}\in U_{i_0}$, we have that $$ \pi_{i_0}^{-1}(U_{i_0}) = \prod_{i\in I} U_i, $$ where $U_i=X_i$ for $i\ne i_0$. Generalize this to the finite intersection $$ \pi_{i_1}^{-1}(U_{i_1})\cap\cdots\cap\pi_{i_n}^{-1}(U_{i_n}). $$ $\endgroup$ – John Griffin Oct 8 '17 at 14:43

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.