I think I finally managed to prove this exercise from Kelley’s general topology on page 77.

I would appreciate feedback on it.

Let $X$ be the set of all pairs of $Bbb N_0$ with the topology described as follows:

For each point $(m,n)$ other than $(0,0)$ the set ${(m,n)}$ is open.

A set $U$ is a neighbourhood of $(0,0)$ifffor all except a finite number of integers $m$ the set ${n:(m,n)notin U} $ is finite.

(Visualizing $X$ in the Euclidean plane, a neighbourhood of $(0,0)$ contains all but a finite number of the members of all but a finite number of columns.)

(b) Each point of $X$ is the intersection of a countable family of closed neghbourhoods

*Proof*

Since any point other than $(0,0)$ is open, complement of the union of all open points is $(0,0)$. Hence it is closed.

So let $(a,b)$ be any point in $X$, let $mathcal U$ be a countable family of neighbourhoods of $(0,0)$ s.t:

- Every member of $mathcal U$ contains $(a,b)$;
- each member excludes finite amount of columns and finite points from column of $(a,b)$ which no other member excludes.

Then $cap^infty {U:, Uinmathcal U} = (a,b).$

Mathematics Asked on November 21, 2021

1 AnswersIt has a few problems. I think that you have the right idea for showing that ${langle 0,0rangle}$ is the intersection of a countable family of closed nbhds of $langle 0,0rangle$, but you’ve not stated it very clearly. For convenience let $D=Xsetminus{langle 0,0rangle}$. For each $langle m,nranglein D$ let $$U(m,n)=Xsetminus{langle m,nrangle};;$$ $U(m,n)$ is a nbhd of $langle 0,0rangle$, and since the point ${langle m,nrangle}$ is open, $U(m,n)$ is closed set. Clearly the family ${U(m,n):langle m,nranglein D}$ is countable, and

$$begin{align*} &bigcapbig{U(m,n):langle m,nranglein Xsetminus{langle 0,0rangle}big}\ &quad=bigcapbig{Xsetminus{langle m,nrangle}:langle m,nranglein Xsetminus{langle 0,0rangle}big}\ &quad=Xsetminusbigcupbig{{langle m,nrangle}:langle m,nranglein Xsetminus{langle 0,0rangle}big}\ &quad=Xsetminus(Xsetminus{langle 0,0rangle})\ &quad={langle 0,0rangle};, end{align*}$$

so ${langle 0,0rangle}$ is the intersection of a countable family of closed nbhds of $langle 0,0rangle$.

Your argument for the other points, however, definitely does not work: the members of your family $mathscr{U}$ are all nbhds of $langle 0,0rangle$, so their intersection contains $langle 0,0rangle$ and therefore **cannot** be ${langle a,brangle}$.

Note that in any case the intersection is a

set, not a point. If you had a family $mathscr{U}$ that actually worked, its intersection would still not be $langle a,brangle$: it would be ${langle a,brangle}$, the set whose only member is the point $langle a,brangle$.

In fact if $langle m,nranglein D$, all you need to do is let $V={langle m,nrangle}$ and let $mathscr{V}={V}$. Certainly $V$ is a nbhd of $langle m,nrangle$, $mathscr{V}$ is countable, and $bigcapmathscr{V}={langle m,nrangle}$, so it only remains to verify that $V$ is a **closed nbhd** of $langle m,nrangle$. But $V=Xsetminus U(m,n)$, and we already observed that $U(m,n)$ is open nbhd, so $V$ is closed, and we’re done.

Answered by Brian M. Scott on November 21, 2021

2 Asked on July 28, 2020 by lucas

0 Asked on July 27, 2020 by strictly_increasing

numerical calculus numerical methods ordinary differential equations probability theory stochastic differential equations

1 Asked on July 27, 2020 by gulzar

2 Asked on July 26, 2020 by outlier

Get help from others!

Recent Answers

- Niel de Beaudrap on How does one go about constructing a mixed entangled state?
- Roger Vadim on Coronavirus RNA structures?
- harwiltz on In Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient, are all weights of the policy network updated with the same or different value?
- nagaK on Can you explain me this CNN architecture?
- DaftWullie on How does one go about constructing a mixed entangled state?

Recent Questions

- Can you explain me this CNN architecture?
- In Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient, are all weights of the policy network updated with the same or different value?
- Coronavirus RNA structures?
- How does one go about constructing a mixed entangled state?
- Prove that $Apreceq B$ implies $A=Psi(B)$ for some channel $Psi$

© 2021 InsideDarkWeb.com. All rights reserved.