1
$\begingroup$

I am now looking theorem 2 in paragraph 4.1 of:

Bourbaki. "Elements of Mathematics General Topology. Part 1".

THEOREM 2. Every continuous mapping $f$ of a compact space $X$ into a uniform space $X'$ is uniformly continuous.

Now I realize that I don't understand the proof.

Could you present me a more detailed proof?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do yo understand the usual proof for metric space $X'$? The formulation with uniform spaces and entourages is mostly jsut a "translation". $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Feb 5 '14 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ @HagenvonEitzen: I don't remember that proof. It seems I studied it before, but forgot details. $\endgroup$ – porton Feb 5 '14 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ Btw, shouldn't $X$ be a uniform space as well? In other words: I don't recall if compact needs Hausdorff or not in Bourbaki $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Feb 6 '14 at 7:49
  • $\begingroup$ @HagenvonEitzen: See above for an exact copy of the Bourbaki's theorem. Compactness of $X'$ is not required $\endgroup$ – porton Feb 6 '14 at 18:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @HagenvonEitzen "compact = quasicompact + Hausdorff" for Bourbaki, as it ought to be. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Feb 8 '14 at 12:01
5
+25
$\begingroup$

First, in order to make your theorem well-defined, the following theorem is needed (II.27 theorem 1 in Bourbaki):

Therem 1: Let $X$ be a compact space. Then there exists only one uniform structure on $X$ compatible with its topology, namely the neighborhoods of the diagonal $\Delta$ in $X \times X$.

In fact, your theorem then follows easily, but the proof of theorem 1 in Bourbaki may be not very clear at some points. When I read it, I tried to fill the gaps writting the following:

Lemma 2: Let $X$ be a uniform space and $\mathfrak{S}$ be the set of symmetric entourages of $X$. Then for every $V \in \mathfrak{S}$ and $M \subset X \times X$, $V \circ M \circ V$ is a neighborhood of $M$. Moreover, $$\mathrm{cl}(M)= \bigcap\limits_{V \in \mathfrak{S}} V \circ M \circ V.$$

Corollary 3: Let $X$ be a uniform space. The interiors (resp. the closures) of the entourages of $X$ define a fundamental system of entourages.

I will describe the proofs of lemma 2 and corollary 3 only if needed, because I find the proofs given in Bourbaki clear enough (II.4-5, proprosition 2 and corollary 2).

Proof of theorem 1. First let us suppose that $X$ has a compatible uniform structure $\mathcal{U}$. If $V \in \mathcal{U}$ is a symmetric entourage, we deduce from lemma 2 that $\overset{2}{V}=V \circ \Delta \circ V$ is a neighborhood of $\Delta$. Because any uniform structure admits a fundamental system of symmetric entourages, we know that any entourage of $\mathcal{U}$ is a neighborhood of $\Delta$.

By contradiction, suppose that there exists a neighborhood $V$ of $\Delta$ such that $V \notin \mathcal{U}$. Because $W \backslash V \neq \emptyset$ for every $W \in \mathcal{U}$, $\{ W \backslash V \mid W \in \mathcal{U}\}$ spans a filter $\mathfrak{F}$ on $X \times X$. By compactness, $\mathfrak{F}$ has a limit point $a \notin \Delta$. Clearly, $a$ is also a limit point of $\mathcal{U}$, hence $$a \in \bigcap\limits_{M \in \mathcal{U}} \overline{M}.$$

If $x \neq y \in X$, because $X$ is Hausdorff and because $\mathcal{U}$ admits a fundamental system of closed entourages according to corollary 3, there exist $U,W \in \mathcal{U}$ such that $U(x) \cap W(y)= \emptyset$, that is $x \notin W(y)$ or $(x,y) \notin W$, hence $(x,y) \notin \bigcap\limits_{M \in \mathcal{U}} \overline{M}$. We deduce that $$\bigcap\limits_{M \in \mathcal{U}} \overline{M} \subset \Delta,$$ a contradiction with $a \notin \Delta$.

Consequently, we just proved that if $X$ is uniformisable then the uniform structure is the set $\mathcal{U}$ of neighborhood of the diagonal $\Delta$. Now we want to prove that $\mathcal{U}$ is indeed a uniform structure. First, because $(x,y) \mapsto (y,x)$ is continuous, $\overset{-1}{V} \in \mathcal{U}$ for all $V \in \mathcal{U}$.

By contradiction, suppose that there exists $A \in \mathcal{U}$ such that $\overset{2}{W} \backslash A \neq \emptyset$ for all $W \in \mathcal{U}$. Then $\{ \overset{2}{W} \backslash A \mid W \in \mathcal{U} \}$ spans a filter $\mathfrak{F}$ on $X \times X$. By compactness, it has a limit point $(x,y ) \notin \Delta$. Because $X$ is normal, there exist two disjoint closed subspaces $V_1,V_2$ and two disjoint open subspaces $U_1,U_2$ satisfying $x \in V_1 \subset U_1$ and $y \in V_2 \subset U_2$.

Let $U_3= X \backslash (V_1 \cup V_2)$ and $W= \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^3 U_i \times U_i$. Then $W$ is a neighborhood of $\Delta$, hence $W \in \mathcal{U}$ and $\overset{2}{W} \cap (V_1 \times V_2) \neq \emptyset$. Therefore, there exists $z \in X$ such that $(x,z),(z,y) \in W$. But $x \in V_1 \subset U_1$ implies $z \in U_1$ and $z \in U_1 $ implies $y \in U_1$. Thus, $y \in U_1 \cap V_2 \subset U_1 \cap U_2 = \emptyset$, a contradiction.

Consequently, we justed proved that for all $V \in \mathcal{U}$ there exists $W \in \mathcal{U}$ such that $\overset{2}{W} \subset V$. Therefore, $\mathcal{U}$ is a uniform structure.

To conclude, it is sufficient to prove that $\mathcal{U}$ is compatible with the topology of $X$. For convenience, let $\mathcal{T}_c$ be the compact topology of $X$ and let $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{U}}$ be the topology induced by $\mathcal{U}$.

Let $x \in X$ and let $V$ be a neighborhood of $x$ for $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{U}}$; in particular, there exists $W \in \mathcal{U}$ such that $W(x) \subset V$. Let $$\pi_x : \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} (X, \mathcal{T}_c) & \to & (X \times X, \mathcal{T}_c \times \mathcal{T}_c) \\ y & \mapsto & (x,y) \end{array} \right. .$$

Because $\pi_x$ is continuous and that $W(x)=\pi_x^{-1}(W)$, we deduce that $W(x)$ is a neighborhood of $x$ for $\mathcal{T}_c$; since $W(x) \subset V$, $V$ is also a neighborhood of $x$ for $\mathcal{T}_c$. Thus, $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{U}}$ is finer that $\mathcal{T}_c$; in particular, $\mathrm{Id} : (X, \mathcal{T}_c) \to (X, \mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{U}})$ is continuous.

Moreover, we saw that $\bigcap\limits_{U \in \mathcal{U}} \overline{U} \subset \Delta$; in fact, clearly $\bigcap\limits_{U \in \mathcal{U}} \overline{U}= \Delta$, that is $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{U}}$ is Hausdorff. Therefore, $\mathrm{Id}$ is closed, and in fact a homeomorphism by compactness : $\mathcal{T}_c \simeq \mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{U}}$. $\square$

Theorem 4: Let $X$ be a compact space, $X'$ be a uniform space and $f : X \to X'$ be a continuous map. Then $f$ is uniformly continuous.

Proof. $f$ is uniformly continuous iff $g^{-1}(V')$ is an entourage of $X$ for every entourage of $V'$ of $X'$, where $g:= f \times f : X \times X \to X' \times X'$. According to corollary 3, we may suppose that $V'$ is open. Because $g$ is continuous, we deduce that $g^{-1}(V')$ is an open neighborhood of the diagonal $\Delta \subset X \times X$, so it is an entourage of $X$ according to theorem 1. $\square$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I've asked for a detailed proof of theorem 4, not any theorems it (directly or indirectly) depends on. It seems you haven't elaborated theorem 4 enough $\endgroup$ – porton Feb 10 '14 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ But theorem 4 is easy once theorem 1 is proved. Where is your problem? $\endgroup$ – Seirios Feb 10 '14 at 16:48
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Moreover, each sentence contains a "according to", so I really do not see what I could elaborate more. $\endgroup$ – Seirios Feb 10 '14 at 16:55

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.