3
$\begingroup$

On Wikipedia it states that a space $X$ is compact if and only if every net has a convergent subnet. It then states that a net in the product topology has a limit if and only if each projection has a limit. I understand why both of these facts are true. However it then states this leads to a slick proof of Tychonoff's theorem, and I don't quite see how.

In particular, it seems to me that the first fact implies that every compact space is sequentially compact. Since every sequence is also a net, it has a convergent subnet, which gives a convergent subsequence. This is obviously not true, since $\{0,1\}^\mathbb{R}$ is not sequentially compact, but it is compact by Tychonoff's theorem.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you give an example of a subnet that is not a subsequence? $\endgroup$ – SmileyCraft Jan 20 '19 at 5:40
  • $\begingroup$ But if you have a subnet, isn't it always possible to find a subnet of the subnet which is a subsequence of the original sequence? It seems to me that this is easily done using the final property of subnets. $\endgroup$ – SmileyCraft Jan 20 '19 at 5:49
  • $\begingroup$ That definitely sounds like a good idea. However, the proof that there exists a convergent subnet is non-constructive and relies on Tychonoff's theorem. So the example of a sequence in $\{0,1\}^{[0,1]}$ with no convergent subsequence is $\{f_n\}$ such that $f_n(x)$ is the $n$'th bit of $x$. I have no idea what would be a convergent subnet. $\endgroup$ – SmileyCraft Jan 20 '19 at 6:03
  • $\begingroup$ No, a subnet need not have a subsubnet that is a subsequence of the original sequence. $\endgroup$ – David C. Ullrich Jan 20 '19 at 18:46
2
+100
$\begingroup$

Here is an example of a sequence which has no convergent subsequence, but it has a convergent subnet assuming the axiom of choice.

Let $I=\{0,1\}^\mathbb N$.

The product space $X=\{0,1\}^I$ is a compact space which is not sequentially compact.

For $n\in\mathbb N$ define $f_n:I\to\{0,1\}$ by setting $f_n(i)=i(n)$. Then $\langle f_n:n\in\mathbb N\rangle$ is a sequence in $X$ with no convergent subsequence.

Let $\mathcal U$ be a uniform ultrafilter on $\mathbb N$. (I suppose it can be done without using ultrafilters, but I'm more used to filters than nets.)

Define $f:I\to\{0,1\}$ so that, for each $i\in I$, $\{n\in\mathbb N:i(n)=f(i)\}\in\mathcal U$.

Let $D$ be the collection of all finite subsets of $I$, directed by $\subseteq$.

For $K\in D$, let $h(K)$ be the least $n\in\mathbb N$ such that $i(n)=f(i)$ for all $i\in K$; this defines a monotone final function $h:D\to\mathbb N$.

Define $g_K=f_{h(K)}\in X$; then $\langle g_K:K\in D\rangle$ is a subnet of $\langle f_n:n\in\mathbb N\rangle$ which converges to $f$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your help. I was, however, more looking for a solution based on nets. I will try to remember to give you a bounty when I can, because even though this is not the answer I was looking for, you definitely helped me find it. $\endgroup$ – SmileyCraft Jan 20 '19 at 9:27
  • $\begingroup$ Did you know that you can explicitly state when starting a bounty that it is to reward an existing answer, but you still can not give the bounty until 24 hours later? How wonderful. $\endgroup$ – SmileyCraft Jan 22 '19 at 13:03
0
$\begingroup$

The problem in the reasoning in the OP is that a net can admit no subnet that is a sequence. This is because a subnet needs to be final. For example if the index set of the subnet is $\omega_1$, the first uncountable ordinal, then there exists no final function $h:\mathbb{N}\to\omega_1$, since $\cup h(n)$ is an upper bound on $h(n)$.

To prove Tychonoff's theorem with nets, the main idea is to use Zorn's lemma on partial clusterpoints. We define a partial cluster point of a sequence $\{f_n\}$ in $\Pi X_{\alpha\in A}$ as a tuple $(f,I)$ where $f\in\Pi X_{\alpha\in A}$ and $I\subseteq A$ such that $f$ is a cluster point of $\{f_n|_I\}$. We can then define the partial ordening $(f,I)\leq(g,J)$ iff $I\subseteq J$ and $g|_I=f$.

Then there obviously exists some partial clusterpoint; consider $(f,\emptyset)$. There is a canonical notion of union of clusterpoints which gives us an upper bound for any chain. Hence, by Zorn's lemma there exists a maximal cluster point $(f,I)$. To show that $I=A$, consider a hypothetical element $a\in A\setminus I$. Then the $a$-coordinate of the subnet $\{g_n|_I\}$ of $\{f_n|_I\}$ converging to $f$ must have a cluster point $p$. Then setting $f^+(a)=p$ while $f^+|_I=f$ we find a greater partial cluster point $(f^+,I\cup\{a\})$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.