1
$\begingroup$

In Rudin's functional analysis text, he defines convergence in Hausdorff spaces in the following way:

$x_n\rightarrow x$ if every neighborhood of $x$ contains all but finitely many $x_n$.

Is this the definition for convergence in topological spaces generally? If so, any idea why he would specify Hausdorff spaces? I mean I supposed the definition is only clearly meaningful in Hausdorff spaces since this kind of bunching in neighborhoods of $x$ is only 'special' in a space in which we are capable of separating points into disjoint neighborhoods. Is that the only thing going on here? Is there a better way to understand convergence in non-Hausdorff spaces?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think Rudin makes the distinction because in Hausdorff spaces, the limit will be guaranteed to be unique. In non-Hausdorff spaces, it may be that every sequence with infinitely many distinct points "converges" to every point in the space (think of $\Bbb R$ with the cofinite topology). $\endgroup$ – Clayton Mar 19 '19 at 13:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The definition of $x_n\to x$ works in any topological space, Hausdorff or not. But people often use the alternative notation $\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n=x$, and this notation should be restricted to Hausdorff spaces. In non-Hausdorff spaces, you could have $\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n=x$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n=y$ and yet $x\neq y$, contrary to how the symbol "$=$" should behave. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Mar 19 '19 at 19:17
1
$\begingroup$

This is the definition of convergence of sequences in general topological spaces, however sequences aren't always sufficient when talking about convergence. The usual definition for convergence of a sequence in general topological spaces is the following:

Definition: A sequence $(x_{n})$ in a topological space $X$ is said to converge to a point $x\in X$, if for every open neighbourhood $U\subseteq X$ of $x$ there is an $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for every $m\geq N$ one has that $x_{m}\in U$.

This is exactly the definition you gave in your question. However, if your topological space is not Hausdorff, then a sequence may converge to multiple points. For example let $X$ be the underlying set of $\mathbb{R}$ and equip it with the indiscrete topology. That is, the only open sets are $\mathbb{R}$ and $\emptyset$. Then given any sequence $(X_{n})$ in $X$ we have that $(x_{n})$ converges to every point of $X$.

If $X$ is assumed to be Hausdorff then a sequence can converge to at most one point.

Prop: Let $X$ be a Hausdorff space and $(x_{n})$ a sequence that converges to the points $x$ and $y$. Then $x=y$.

If $x\neq y$ then there are disjoint open sets $U,V\subseteq X$ that contain $x$ and $y$ respectively, say $x\in U$. Because $(x_{n})$ converges to $x$ we have that $U$ contains all but finitely many of the $x_{n}$. This implies that there are infinitely many of the $x_{n}$ that are not in $V$, an open neighbourhood of $y$. This contradicts $(x_{n})$ converging to $y$. Therefore $x$ and $y$ must be the same.

Interestingly enough, convergence of sequences is, in general, insufficient when talking about limits. By this I mean that if $X$ is a topological space and $x\in X$ is a limit point of a set $A\subseteq X$ then you can not say that there is a sequence $(x_{n})$ in $A$ that converges in $X$ to $x$. An easy example is the the set $X=\omega_{1}+1$, the set of all countable ordinials together with the first uncountable ordinal, equipped with the order topology. The element $\omega_{1}$ is a limit point of the set of countable orders in this topology, but there is no sequence of countable ordinals in $X$ that converges to $\omega_{1}$.

Even worse (better) there are spaces where limits of ordinal indexed sequences are not enough. I believe that the token example is the Tychonoff plank in which there is a an element that is in the closure of a set, but no ordinal indexed sequence in that set converges to that point.

The most general notion of convergence within a space is that of the convergence of nets. In a topological space $X$, a point $x\in X$ is a limit point of a set $A\subseteq X$ if and only if there is a net in $A$ that converges to $x$. Instead of adding more definitions to this already long post, I will refer you to wikipedia.

$\endgroup$

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.