7
$\begingroup$

This is a follow-up to my question here. A subset $A$ of a uniform space is said to be bounded if for each entourage $V$, $A$ is a subset of $V^n[F]$ for some natural number $n$ and some finite set $F$. A subset of a metric space is said to be bounded if it is contained in some open ball. Now this answer shows that if $U$ is the uniformity induced by a metric $d$, then a set bounded with respect to $U$ is also bounded with respect to $d$, but the converse need not be true.

But I’m interested in whether something weaker is true. Suppose that $(X,U)$ is a metrizable uniform space, and $A$ is a subset of $X$ which is bounded with respect to every metric which induces $U$. Then is $A$ bounded with respect to $U$?

To put it another way, is the collection of bounded sets with respect to a metrizable uniformity equal to the intersection of the collections of bounded sets with respect to each of the metrics for the uniformity?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let $\rho$ be any metric which induces the uniformity $U$. Put $d=\frac{\rho}{1+\rho}$. Then $d$ also induces the uniformity $U$ and $X$ (and so each its subset) is bounded with respect to $\rho$, right? $\endgroup$ – Alex Ravsky Dec 25 '18 at 3:09
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexRavsky Yes, that’s right. I posted a question about that here: math.stackexchange.com/q/3050017/71829 $\endgroup$ – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 25 '18 at 4:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexRavsky By the way, I changed this question to reflect your answer to my other question. $\endgroup$ – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 25 '18 at 4:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexRavsky Yes, I’d be interested in doing that. $\endgroup$ – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 18 at 8:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexRavsky: I don't think I can help but feel free to use any ideas or material from my answer if you think it would improve your paper $\endgroup$ – Dap Jan 18 at 12:28
2
+100
$\begingroup$

Yesterday I lost Internet connection, so I wrote my answer offline and didn’t see similer Dap’s answer.

The answer is affirmative. Assume that $A$ is unbounded. Then there exists a symmertic entourage $V_1\in\mathcal U$ such that for each finite subset $F$ of $X$ and each natural number $n$, $A\not\subset V^n_1[F]$.

Choose a base $\{V_i\}$, $n\ge 2$ of the uniformity $\mathcal U$ consisting of symmetric entourages such that $V^3_{i+1}\subset V_i$ for each $i\ge 1$. For each $n\le 0$ put $V_i=V_1^{3^{1-i}}$.

To construct a metric $\rho$ in which $A$ is not contained in any ball we formulate an unbounded counterpart of a fundamental Theorem 8.1.10 from Engelking’s “General topology” (2nd edn.).

enter image description here

Lemma. For every sequence $\{V_i:i\in\Bbb Z\}$ of symmetric members of a uniformity $\mathcal U$ on a set $X$, where $V^3_{i+1}\subset V_i$ for each $i$ there exists a function $\rho$ on the set $V=\bigcup V_i$ such that

(i) For each $x\in X$ we have $(x,x)\in V$ and $\rho(x,x)=0$.

(ii) For each $(x,y)\in V$ we have $(y,x)\in V$ and $\rho(x,y)=\rho(y,x)$.

(iii) For each $(x,y),(y,z)\in V$ we have $(x,z)\in V$, and $\rho(x,z)\le \rho(x,y)+ \rho(y,z)$.

(iv) For each $i$ we have $\{(x,y):\rho(x,y)<1/2^i\}\subset V_i\subset \{(x,y):\rho(x,y)\le 1/2^i\}.$

The proof of Lemma is almost the same as that of Theorem 8.1.10, so we skip it.

Remark that conditions (i)-(iii) imply that $V$ is an equivalence relation. Let $\widehat V$ be the set of classes of the relation $V$. For each class $[x]\in \widehat V$ pick a point $p[x]\in [x]$. Let $[A]=\{[x]\in V: [x]\cap A\ne\varnothing\}$. Define a function $f: \widehat V \to\Bbb N$ such that $f\equiv 1$, if $[A]$ is finite, and $f|[A]$ is unbounded, otherwise.

At last, for each $x,y\in X$ put $$\rho’(x,y)=\cases{\rho(x,y), \mbox{ if }(x,y)\in V,\\ 1+|f([x])- f([y])|+\rho(x, p[x])+ \rho(y,p[y]), \mbox{ otherwise}.}$$

It is easy to check that $\rho’$ is a metric on $X$. Since and $r(x,y)\le 1/2$ iff $r’(x,y)\le 1/2$ for each $x,y\in X$, the metric $\rho’$ induces the uniformity $\mathcal U$ on the set $X$.

Let $a\in X$ be any element. If $[A]$ is finite, there exists a class $[x]\in \widehat V$ such that $A\cap [x]\not\subset V^n_1[p[x]]$ for each natural number $n$. Condition (iv) of Lemma imply that a set $\rho(A,p[x])$ is unbounded, so a set $\rho’(A,a)$ is unbounded too. If $[A]$ is infinite then $f|[A]$ is unbounded, so a set $\rho’(A,a)$ is unbounded too.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Fix a set $A$ and an entourage $V$ witnessing that $A$ is not bounded with respect to the uniformity. So for all $n,F$ we have $A\not\subseteq V^n[F].$ We need to construct a metric for the uniformity in which $A$ is not bounded.

We are given some metric $d$ for the uniformity, and we can assume that $V=\{(a,b)\mid d(a,b)<\epsilon\}$ for some $\epsilon>0.$ Define $a\sim b$ if there is a path $a=x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n=b$ with $d(x_i,d_{i+1})<\epsilon$ for each $0\leq i<n.$ The basic idea of this argument (see the argument around (*) below) is that $A$ is not contained in any finite union of balls of the extended metric $d'$ defined as a path metric by

  • $d'(a,b)=\inf\left\{\sum_{i=0}^nd(x_i,x_{i+1})\mid x_0=a, x_n=b, d(x_i,x_{i+1})<\epsilon\right\}$ if $a\sim b$
  • $d'(a,b)=\infty$ otherwise.

The problem is that $d'$ may take infinite values so fail to be a metric.

Pick an element $t_C$ in each equivalence class $C\in X/\sim$ (using the axiom of choice).

Case 1. $A$ intersects infinitely many classes in $X/\sim.$

By the axiom of choice there is a sequence $C_1,C_2,\dots$ of distinct equivalence classes intersecting $A.$ Define $f:(X/\sim)\to\mathbb N$ such that $f(C_i)=i$ and $f(C)=1$ if $C$ is not equal to any $C_i.$ Define a metric $d''$ by:

  • $d''(a,b)=d'(a,b)$ if $a\sim b$
  • $d''(a,b)=d'(a,t_C)+\max(1,|f(C)-f(C')|)+d'(t_{C'},b)$ if $a\in C$ and $b\in C'$ where $C,C'\in X/\sim$ are disjoint equivalence classes

I claim that $d''$ is a metric for the uniformity in which $A$ is not bounded. Suppose not, so there exists $x,r$ such that $d''(a,x)<r$ for all $a\in A.$ For large enough $i$ we have $i>r+f([x])$ where $[x]$ is the equivalence class of $x.$ There exists $a\in C_i\cap A,$ but then $d''(a,x)>r$ which contradicts the choice of $r.$

Case 2. $A$ intersects finitely many $\sim$-equivalence classes.

Define $d''$ in the same way but with $f$ constant, so

  • $d''(a,b)=d'(a,b)$ if $a\sim b$
  • $d''(a,b)=d'(a,t_C)+1+d'(t_{C'},b)$ if $a\in C$ and $b\in C'$ where $C,C'\in X/\sim$ are disjoint equivalence classes

I claim that $d''$ is a metric for the uniformity in which $A$ is not bounded.

There must be some class $C\in X/\sim$ such that for all $n,F$ we have $A\cap C\not\subseteq V^n[F].$ (Suppose not; for each $C$ intersecting $A$ there are $n_C,F_C$ with $A\cap C\subseteq V^{n_C}[F_C],$ but then $A\subseteq V^{\max n_C}[\bigcup F_C]$ which contradicts the definition of $V.$)

Suppose $A\cap C$ is contained in the $d''$-ball of radius $r$ around $a\in X.$ If $a\notin C,$ replace it by $t_C$ - the ball will still contain $A\cap C$ since the distance from any point in $C$ to $t_C$ is less than its distance to any point not in $C.$ Pick an integer $N>2r/\epsilon+1.$ We know $A\cap C\not\subseteq V^N[\{x\}],$ which implies there is a point $b\in (A\cap C)\setminus V^N[\{x\}].$

Consider a list $a=x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n=b$ with each $d(x_i,x_{i+1})<\epsilon$ and $\sum_{i=0}^nd(x_i,x_{i+1})<r.$ If any two consecutive distances $d(x_i,x_{i+1}),d(x_{i+1},x_{i+2})$ sum to less than $\epsilon$ we can delete the middle element $x_{i+1}$ to get a shorter list with the same properties. Eventually we get a list where every two consecutive distances sum to at least $\epsilon.$ Therefore

$$(n-1)\epsilon\leq\sum_{i=0}^{n-2}(d(x_{i},x_{i+1})+d(x_{i+1},x_{i+2}))<2r\tag{*}$$

so $n<2r/\epsilon+1<N.$ But that implies $b\in A\cap C\setminus V^N[\{x\}],$ contradicting the choice of $b.$

Finally note that $d,d',$ and $d''$ (for either case) all define the same uniformity since for $\alpha<\min(1,\epsilon)$ we have $$\{(a,b)\mid d(a,b)<\alpha\}=\{(a,b)\mid d'(a,b)<\alpha\}=\{(a,b)\mid d''(a,b)<\alpha\}.$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ A bounded subset of a uniform space is not the same as a totally bounded, see a definition at the beginning of the question. Each ball of a normed space (over $\Bbb R$) is bounded, so $A$ is not a counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Alex Ravsky Jan 17 at 9:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexRavsky: thanks, I had misread. I've now tried to answer the question using the correct definition of boundedness in a uniform space. $\endgroup$ – Dap Jan 17 at 20:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Dap May I ask what part of your mathematical career (if any) you are in? $\endgroup$ – mathworker21 Jan 18 at 4:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexRavsky: thanks for the comments, I agree those steps were missing $\endgroup$ – Dap Jan 18 at 11:51

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.