Added uniform structures for completely regular spaces. Added calculus lemma.
All checks were successful
Compile Project / Compile (push) Successful in 35s

This commit is contained in:
Bokuan Li
2026-05-15 00:39:41 -04:00
parent c1a9e11dbb
commit 6fdf6a64fd
12 changed files with 286 additions and 42 deletions

View File

@@ -1,6 +1,28 @@
\section{Complex Differentiability} \section{Complex Differentiability}
\label{section:complex-derivative} \label{section:complex-derivative}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:cauchy-circle}
Let $E$ be a separated locally convex space over $\complex$, $U \subset \complex$, and $f \in C^1(U; E)$. For any $a \in U$ and $r > 0$ such that $\overline{B(a, r)} \subset U$, let
\[
\gamma: [0, 2\pi] \to U \quad t \mapsto a + re^{it}
\]
then for any $z \in B(a, r)$,
\[
f(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma \frac{f(w)}{w - z}dw
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume without loss of generality that $a = 0$ and $r = 1$, then by the \hyperref[change of variables formula]{theorem:rs-change-of-variables},
\[
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma \frac{f(w)}{w - z}dw = \frac{1}{2\pi} \frac{f(e^{it})e^{it}}{e^{it} - z}dt
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}[Complex Analytic] \begin{definition}[Complex Analytic]
\label{definition:complex-analytic} \label{definition:complex-analytic}
Let $E$ be a separated locally convex space over $\complex$, $U \subset \complex$, and $f: U \to E$, then the following are equivalent: Let $E$ be a separated locally convex space over $\complex$, $U \subset \complex$, and $f: U \to E$, then the following are equivalent:

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
\section{Derivatives on $\mathbb R^n$}
\label{section:derivatives-euclidean}
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:derivative-sets-real}
Let $E$ be a separated topological vector space and $\sigma \subset \mathfrak{B}(\real)$ be a covering ideal, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{R}_{\sigma}(\real; E) = \mathcal{R}_{\mathfrak{B}(\real)}(\real; E)$. Hence, all forms of $\sigma$-differentiability on $\real$ are equivalent.
\item For any $U \subset \real$ open, $f: U \to E$, and $x_0 \in U$, $f$ is differentiable at $x_0$ if and only if
\[
\lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x + t) - f(x)}{t}
\]
exists. In which case, the above limit is identified with the derivative of $f$ at $0$.
\item For any $U \subset \real$ open, $f: U \to E$, and $x_0 \in U$, if $f$ is differentiable at $x_0$, then $f$ is continuous at $x_0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(1): Let $r \in \mathcal{R}_\sigma(\real; E)$. For any $R > 0$ and $U \in \cn_E(0)$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that $t^{-1}r(tR), t^{-1}r(-tR) \in U$ for all $t \in (0, \delta)$. Thus $t^{-1}r(tB(0, R)) \subset U$, and $r \in \mathcal{R}_{\mathfrak{B}(\real)}(\real; E)$.
(2): Suppose that $f$ is differentiable at $x_0$, then there exists $r \in \mathcal{R}_\sigma$ such that for any $t \in \real$ with $x_0 + t \in U$,
\begin{align*}
f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0) &= Df(x_0)(t) + r(t) \\
\frac{f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0)}{t} &= Df(x_0)(1) + t^{-1}r(t) \\
\lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0)}{t} &= Df(x_0)(1)
\end{align*}
Now suppose that $v = \lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x + t) - f(x)}{t}$ exists. Let $T: \real \to E$ be defined by $t \mapsto tv$, then
\[
\lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0) - Tt}{t} = \lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0)}{t} - v = 0
\]
and $Df(x_0) = T$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:difference-quotient-compact}
Let $E$ be a separated locally convex space, $Y$ be a Hausdorff space, and $f: (a, b) \times Y \to E$. If $f$ is differentiable in the first variable and $\frac{df}{dx} \in C((a, b) \times Y; E)$, then
\[
\frac{f(x + h, y) - f(x, y)}{h} \to \frac{df}{dx}(x, y)
\]
as $h \to 0$, uniformly on compact subsets of $(a, b) \times Y$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $[c, d] \subset (a, b)$ and $K \subset Y$ be compact, then by the \hyperref[Mean Value Theorem]{theorem:mean-value-theorem-line}, for any $(x, y) \in [c, d] \times K$ and $h \in \real$ with $x + h$,
\begin{align*}
&\frac{f(x + h, y) - f(x, y)}{h} - \frac{df}{dx}(x, y) \\
&\in \overline{\text{Conv}}\bracs{\frac{df}{dx}(x + k, y) - \frac{df}{dx}(x, y) \bigg | k \in [-h, h]}
\end{align*}
Let $\eps > 0$ such that $[c - \eps, d + \eps] \subset (a, b)$, then since $\frac{df}{dx} \in C((a, b) \times Y; E)$, $\frac{df}{dx}|_{[c - \eps, d + \eps] \times K}$ is uniformly continuous\footnote{$K$ is a compact Hausdorff space, which comes with a \hyperref[unique uniform structure]{proposition:compact-uniform-structure}. }. Since $E$ is locally convex,
\[
\frac{f(x + h, y) - f(x, y)}{h} - \frac{df}{dx}(x, y) \to 0
\]
uniformly on $[c, d] \times K$.
\end{proof}

View File

@@ -9,3 +9,4 @@
\input{./partial.tex} \input{./partial.tex}
\input{./power.tex} \input{./power.tex}
\input{./inverse.tex} \input{./inverse.tex}
\input{./euclid.tex}

View File

@@ -209,33 +209,3 @@
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:derivative-sets-real}
Let $E$ be a separated topological vector space and $\sigma \subset \mathfrak{B}(\real)$ be a covering ideal, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{R}_{\sigma}(\real; E) = \mathcal{R}_{\mathfrak{B}(\real)}(\real; E)$. Hence, all forms of $\sigma$-differentiability on $\real$ are equivalent.
\item For any $U \subset \real$ open, $f: U \to E$, and $x_0 \in U$, $f$ is differentiable at $x_0$ if and only if
\[
\lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x + t) - f(x)}{t}
\]
exists. In which case, the above limit is identified with the derivative of $f$ at $0$.
\item For any $U \subset \real$ open, $f: U \to E$, and $x_0 \in U$, if $f$ is differentiable at $x_0$, then $f$ is continuous at $x_0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(1): Let $r \in \mathcal{R}_\sigma(\real; E)$. For any $R > 0$ and $U \in \cn_E(0)$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that $t^{-1}r(tR), t^{-1}r(-tR) \in U$ for all $t \in (0, \delta)$. Thus $t^{-1}r(tB(0, R)) \subset U$, and $r \in \mathcal{R}_{\mathfrak{B}(\real)}(\real; E)$.
(2): Suppose that $f$ is differentiable at $x_0$, then there exists $r \in \mathcal{R}_\sigma$ such that for any $t \in \real$ with $x_0 + t \in U$,
\begin{align*}
f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0) &= Df(x_0)(t) + r(t) \\
\frac{f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0)}{t} &= Df(x_0)(1) + t^{-1}r(t) \\
\lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0)}{t} &= Df(x_0)(1)
\end{align*}
Now suppose that $v = \lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x + t) - f(x)}{t}$ exists. Let $T: \real \to E$ be defined by $t \mapsto tv$, then
\[
\lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0) - Tt}{t} = \lim_{t \to 0}\frac{f(x_0 + t) - f(x_0)}{t} - v = 0
\]
and $Df(x_0) = T$.
\end{proof}

View File

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
\begin{lemma} \begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:rectifiable-piecewise-linear} \label{lemma:rectifiable-piecewise-linear}
Let $[a, b] \subset \real$, $E, F, H$ be locally convex spaces over $K \in \RC$, $E \times F \to H$ with $(x, y) \mapsto xy$ be a continuous bilinear map, $\gamma \in C([a, b]; F)$ be a rectifiable path, and $U \in \cn_F(\gamma([a, b]))$, then for any continuous seminorm $[\cdot]_G: G \to [0, \infty)$, $\eps > 0$, and $f \in C(U; E)$, there exists a piecewise linear path $\Gamma \in C([a, b]; F)$ such that: Let $[a, b] \subset \real$, $E, F, H$ be locally convex spaces over $K \in \RC$, $E \times F \to H$ with $(x, y) \mapsto xy$ be a continuous bilinear map, $\gamma \in C([a, b]; F)$ be a rectifiable path, and $U \in \cn_F(\gamma([a, b]))$, then for any continuous seminorm $[\cdot]_G: G \to [0, \infty)$, $\eps > 0$, and $f \in C(U; E) \cap PI([a, b], \gamma; E)$, there exists a piecewise linear path $\Gamma \in C([a, b]; F)$ such that:
\begin{enumerate} \begin{enumerate}
\item $\Gamma(a) = \gamma(a)$ and $\Gamma(b) = \gamma(b)$. \item $\Gamma(a) = \gamma(a)$ and $\Gamma(b) = \gamma(b)$.
\item $\braks{\int_\gamma f - \int_\Gamma f}_F < \epsilon$. \item $\braks{\int_\gamma f - \int_\Gamma f}_F < \epsilon$.
@@ -79,6 +79,55 @@
Past me made the mistake of believing that in \autoref{lemma:rectifiable-piecewise-linear}, it is possible to approximate rectifiable curves with piecewise linear curves in \textit{total variation distance}. However, this is not possible: as every piecewise linear curve is absolutely continuous, and the limit of these curves in total variation distance must also be absolutely continuous. As such, this strong approximation exists if and only if the curve is absolutely continuous. Past me made the mistake of believing that in \autoref{lemma:rectifiable-piecewise-linear}, it is possible to approximate rectifiable curves with piecewise linear curves in \textit{total variation distance}. However, this is not possible: as every piecewise linear curve is absolutely continuous, and the limit of these curves in total variation distance must also be absolutely continuous. As such, this strong approximation exists if and only if the curve is absolutely continuous.
\end{remark} \end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:rectifiable-smooth}
Let $[a, b] \subset \real$, $E, F, H$ be separated locally convex spaces over $K \in \RC$ with $H$ being complete, $E \times F \to H$ with $(x, y) \mapsto xy$ be a continuous bilinear map, $\gamma \in C([a, b]; F)$ be a piecewise linear path, and $U \in \cn_F(\gamma([a, b]))$.
Extend $\gamma$ to $\real$ by
\[
\ol \gamma : \real \to U \quad x \mapsto \begin{cases}
\gamma(a) &x \le a \\
\gamma(x) &x \in [a, b] \\
\gamma(b) &x \ge b
\end{cases}
\]
Since $\gamma$ takes values in a finite-dimensional subspace, assume without loss of generality that $F$ is a Banach space. In which case, for each $\varphi \in C_c^\infty(\real; \real)$ with $\int_\real \varphi = 1$ and $t > 0$, let
\[
\gamma_t: [a, b] \to F \quad x \mapsto \frac{1}{t}\int_{\real} \ol \gamma(y) \varphi\braks{\frac{x - y}{t}} dy
\]
then
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each $t > 0$, $\gamma_t \in C^\infty([a, b]; F)$.
\item There exists $t > 0$ such that for any $s \in (0, t)$, $\gamma_s(a) = \gamma(a)$ and $\gamma_s(b) = \gamma(b)$.
\item For any $f \in C(U; E)$,
\[
\int_\gamma f = \lim_{t \downto 0} \int_{\gamma_t} f
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By passing through a \hyperref[reparametrisation]{proposition:path-integral-change-of-variables}, assume without loss of generality that there exists $\eps > 0$ such that $\gamma$ is constant on $[a, a + \eps)$ and $(b - \eps, b]$.
(1): By the \hyperref[Mean Value Theorem]{theorem:mean-value-theorem}, for each $x, y \in [a, b]$,
\[
\norm{\frac{\varphi(x) - \varphi(y)}{x - y}}_F \le \sup_{z \in \real}\norm{D\varphi(z)}_F
\]
By the \hyperref[Dominated Convergence Theorem]{theorem:dct-bochner-vector}, $\gamma_t \in C^\infty([a, b]; F)$.
(2): For sufficiently small $t$, $\supp(\varphi) \subset (-\eps, \eps)$. In which case, by assumption, $\gamma_t(a) = \gamma(a)$ and $\gamma_t(b) = \gamma(b)$.
(3): Since $\gamma$ is piecewise $C^1$ and $\gamma_t \in C^\infty([a, b]; F)$,
\[
\int_\gamma f = \int_a^b f(t) D\gamma(t)dt = \lim_{t \downto 0}\int_a^b f(t) D\gamma_t(t) dt = \lim_{t \downto 0}\int_{\gamma_t}f
\]
by the \hyperref[Dominated Convergence Theorem]{theorem:dct-bochner-vector}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for Path Integrals] \begin{theorem}[Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for Path Integrals]

View File

@@ -105,4 +105,4 @@
(2): Let $G(x) = \int_a^x DF(t)dt + F(a)$, then $G - F$ has derivative $0$. By the \hyperref[Mean Value Theorem]{proposition:zero-derivative-constant}, $G - F$ is constant. As $G(a) - F(a) = 0$, $G = F$. (2): Let $G(x) = \int_a^x DF(t)dt + F(a)$, then $G - F$ has derivative $0$. By the \hyperref[Mean Value Theorem]{proposition:zero-derivative-constant}, $G - F$ is constant. As $G(a) - F(a) = 0$, $G = F$.
\end{proof} \end{proof}

View File

@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
\end{theorem} \end{theorem}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
Suppose that $f \in RS([a, b], G)$. Let $U \in \cn_K(0)$, then there exits $P_0 = \seqfz{x_j} \in \scp([a, b])$ such that $S(P, c, f, G) - \int_a^b fdG \in U$ for all $(P, c) \in \scp_t([a, b])$ with $P \ge P_0$. Let Suppose that $f \in RS([a, b], G)$. Let $U \in \cn_H(0)$, then there exits $P_0 = \seqfz{x_j} \in \scp([a, b])$ such that $S(P, c, f, G) - \int_a^b fdG \in U$ for all $(P, c) \in \scp_t([a, b])$ with $P \ge P_0$. Let
\[ \[
Q_0 = [x_0, x_1, x_1, \cdots, x_n, x_n] Q_0 = [x_0, x_1, x_1, \cdots, x_n, x_n]
\] \]
@@ -69,10 +69,10 @@
then for any $(Q = \seqfz[m]{y_j}, d = \seqf[m]{d_j}) \in \scp_t([a, b])$ with $Q \ge Q_0$, then for any $(Q = \seqfz[m]{y_j}, d = \seqf[m]{d_j}) \in \scp_t([a, b])$ with $Q \ge Q_0$,
\[ \[
f(b)G(b) - f(a)G(a) - \int_a^b fdG - S(Q, d, G, f) = f(b)G(b) - f(a)G(a) - \int_a^b fdG - S(Q, d, G, f) =
\int_a^b fdG - S(Q', d', G, f) S(Q', d', f, G) - \int_a^b fdG
\] \]
by \autoref{lemma:sum-by-parts}, where $d$ and $Q'$ contain $\seqfz{x_j}$. Thus $(Q', d') \ge P_0$, and $\int_a^b fdG - S(Q', d', G, f) \in U$. by \autoref{lemma:sum-by-parts}, where $d$ and $Q'$ contain $\seqfz{x_j}$. Thus $(Q', d') \ge P_0$, and $S(Q', d', f, G) - \int_a^b fdG \in U$.
\end{proof} \end{proof}

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
\section{Compactifications}
\label{section:compactifications}
\begin{definition}[Compactification]
\label{definition:compactification}
Let $X$ be a topological space, then a \textbf{compactification} of $X$ is a pair $(Y, f)$ where
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Y$ is a compact Hausdorff space.
\item $f \in C(X; Y)$ is an embedding.
\item $f(X)$ is dense in $Y$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Stone-Čech Compactification]
\label{definition:stone-cech}
Let $X$ be a completely regular space, then there exists a pair $(\beta X, e)$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(\beta X, e)$ is a compactification of $X$.
\item[(U1)] For any $f \in C(X; [0, 1])$, there exists a unique $\beta f \in C(\beta X; [0, 1])$ such that the following diagram commutes:
\[
\xymatrix{
\beta X \ar@{->}[r]^{\beta f} & [0, 1] \\
X \ar@{->}[u]^{e} \ar@{->}[ru]_{f} &
}
\]
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if $(\beta X, e)$ is \textit{any} pair that satisfies (1) and (U1), then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(U2)] For any pair $(Y, \varphi)$ satisfying (1), there exists a unique $\beta \varphi \in C(\beta X; Y)$ such that the following diagram commutes:
\[
\xymatrix{
\beta X \ar@{->}[r]^{\beta \varphi} & Y \\
X \ar@{->}[u]^{e} \ar@{->}[ru]_{\varphi} &
}
\]
\end{enumerate}
The pair $(\beta X, e)$ is the \textbf{Stone-Čech compactification} of $X$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proof}
Let $e: X \to [0, 1]^{C(X; [0, 1])}$ be the embedding of $X$ into $[0, 1]^{C(X; [0, 1])}$ associated with $C(X; [0, 1])$ in \autoref{definition:embedding-in-cube}, and $\beta X = \ol{e(X)}$.
(1): By \autoref{theorem:tychonoff} and \autoref{proposition:product-hausdorff}, $[0, 1]^{C(X; [0, 1])}$ is a compact Hausdorff space. By definition, $e(X)$ is dense in $\beta X$.
(U1): For each $f \in C(X; [0, 1])$, $\pi_f \in C([0, 1]^{C(X; [0, 1])}; [0, 1])$ is an extension of $f$ to $e(x)$.
(U2): Let $(Y, \varphi)$ be a compactification of $X$. For each $f \in C(Y; [0, 1])$, by (U1), there exists a unique $\beta(f \circ \varphi) \in C(X; [0, 1])$ such that the following diagram commutes:
\[
\xymatrix{
X \ar@{->}[d]_{\varphi} \ar@{->}[r]^{e} & \beta X \ar@{->}[d]^{\beta (f \circ \varphi)} \\
Y \ar@{->}[r]_{f} & [0, 1]
}
\]
Let $e': Y \to [0, 1]^{C(Y; [0, 1])}$ be the embedding of $Y$ into $[0, 1]^{C(Y; [0, 1])}$ associated with $C(Y; [0, 1])$, then by (U) of the \hyperref[product topology]{definition:product-topology}, there exists $\beta(e' \circ \varphi) \in C(\beta X; [0, 1])$ such that the following diagram commutes:
\[
\xymatrix{
X \ar@{->}[d]_{\varphi} \ar@{->}[r]^{e} & \beta X \ar@{->}[d]^{\beta (e' \circ \varphi)} \\
Y \ar@{->}[r]_{e'} & [0, 1]^{C(Y; [0, 1])}
}
\]
Since $Y$ is a compact Hausdorff space, $e'(Y)$ is closed by \autoref{proposition:compact-extensions} and \autoref{proposition:compact-closed}. As $e'$ is an embedding, identify $Y$ as a subspace of $[0, 1]^{C(Y; [0, 1])}$. Given that $e(X)$ is dense in $\beta X$, the the image of $\beta (e' \circ \varphi)$ lies in $Y$ by \autoref{proposition:closure-of-image}. Therefore under the identification, the following diagram commutes:
\[
\xymatrix{
X \ar@{->}[d]_{\varphi} \ar@{->}[r]^{e} & \beta X \ar@{->}[ld]^{\beta (e' \circ \varphi)} \\
Y &
}
\]
\end{proof}

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
\section{Embeddings in Cubes}
\label{section:embeddings-in-cubes}
\begin{definition}[Completely Regular]
\label{definition:completely-regular}
Let $X$ be a topological space, then $X$ is \textbf{completely regular} if for any $E \subset X$ closed and $x \in X \setminus E$, there exists $f \in C(X; [0, 1])$ such that $f(x) = 1$ and $f|_E = 0$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Separation of Points and Closed Sets]
\label{definition:separate-points-closed-sets}
Let $X$ be a topological space and $\cf \subset C(X; [0, 1])$, then $\cf$ \textbf{separates points and closed sets} if for any $E \subset X$ closed and $x \in X \setminus E$, there exists $f \in \cf$ such that $f(x) \not\in \ol{f(E)}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:completely-regular-separate}
Let $X$ be a $T_1$ space, then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X$ is completely regular.
\item There exists $\cf \subset C(X; [0, 1])$ that separates points and closed sets.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(2) $\Rightarrow$ (1): Let $E \subset X$ closed and $x \in X \setminus E$, then there exists $f \in \cf$ such that $x \not\in \ol{f(E)}$. By \hyperref[Urysohn's lemma]{lemma:urysohn}, there exists $\phi \in C([0, 1]; [0, 1])$ such that $\phi(f(x)) = 1$ and $\phi(f(E)) = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}[Embedding in Cube]
\label{definition:embedding-in-cube}
Let $X$ be a topological space, $\cf \subset C(X; [0, 1])$, and
\[
e: X \to [0, 1]^\cf \quad \pi_f(e(x)) = f(x)
\]
then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $e \in C(X; [0, 1]^\cf)$.
\item If $\cf$ separates points, then $e$ is injective.
\item If $X$ is $T_1$ and $\cf$ separates points and closed sets, then $e$ is an embedding.
\end{enumerate}
The mapping $e$ is the \textbf{mapping of $X$ into the cube $[0, 1]^\cf$ associated with $\cf$}.
\end{definition}
\begin{proof}[Proof, {{\cite[Proposition 4.53]{Folland}}}. ]
(1): By (U) of the \hyperref[product topology]{definition:product-topology}.
(3): Since $X$ is $T_1$, $e$ is injective by (2). Let $x \in X$ and $U \in \cn_X^o(x)$, then there exists $f \in \cf$ such that $f(x) \not\in \ol{f(U^c)}$. In which case, there exists $V \in \cn_{[0, 1]}^o(f(x))$ such that $V \cap f(U^c) = \emptyset$. Thus for any $y \in X$ with $\pi_f(e(y)) \in V$, $f(y) \not\in f(U^c)$, so $y \in U$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:completely-regular-uniformisable}
Let $X$ be a $T_1$ space, then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X$ is completely regular.
\item There exists a uniformity $\fU$ on $X$ that induces the topology on $X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (2): By \autoref{definition:uniform-separated}.
(2) $\Rightarrow$ (1): By \autoref{definition:embedding-in-cube}, $X$ embeds into $[0, 1]^{C(X; [0, 1])}$, which is a uniform space. The subspace uniformity on $X$ then induces the topology on $X$.
\end{proof}

View File

@@ -24,3 +24,5 @@
\input{./c0.tex} \input{./c0.tex}
\input{./semicontinuity.tex} \input{./semicontinuity.tex}
\input{./baire.tex} \input{./baire.tex}
\input{./cube.tex}
\input{./compactify.tex}

View File

@@ -71,4 +71,12 @@
Let $V$ be an entourage of $Y$. For each $x \in X$, let $U_x$ be an entourage of $X$ such that $(f(y), f(z)) \in V$ for all $y, z \in (U_x \circ U_x)(x)$. Since $X$ is compact, there exists $\seqf{x_j} \subset X$ such that $X = \bigcup_{j = 1}^nU_{x_j}(x_j)$. Let $V$ be an entourage of $Y$. For each $x \in X$, let $U_x$ be an entourage of $X$ such that $(f(y), f(z)) \in V$ for all $y, z \in (U_x \circ U_x)(x)$. Since $X$ is compact, there exists $\seqf{x_j} \subset X$ such that $X = \bigcup_{j = 1}^nU_{x_j}(x_j)$.
Let $U = \bigcap_{j = 1}^n U_{x_j}$, then for any $(x, y) \in U$, there exists $1 \le j \le n$ such that $x \in U_{x_j}(x_j)$. In which case, $x, y \in (U_{x_j} \circ U_{x_j})(x_j)$, so $(f(x), f(y)) \in V$. Let $U = \bigcap_{j = 1}^n U_{x_j}$, then for any $(x, y) \in U$, there exists $1 \le j \le n$ such that $x \in U_{x_j}(x_j)$. In which case, $x, y \in (U_{x_j} \circ U_{x_j})(x_j)$, so $(f(x), f(y)) \in V$.
\end{proof} \end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:compact-uniform-structure}
Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space, then there exists a unique uniformity on $X$ that induces its topology.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{proposition:completely-regular-uniformisable}, there exists a uniformity on $X$ that induces its topology. By \autoref{proposition:uniform-continuous-compact}, $X$ admits a unique uniformity.
\end{proof}

View File

@@ -270,19 +270,16 @@ V = (\bracs{x} \times V)(x) = (U \cup (\bracs{x} \times V))(x) = W(x) \in \cn(x)
\item $X$ is T1. \item $X$ is T1.
\item $X$ is Hausdorff. \item $X$ is Hausdorff.
\item $X$ is regular. \item $X$ is regular.
\item $X$ is completely regular.
\item $\Delta = \bigcap_{U \in \fU}U$. \item $\Delta = \bigcap_{U \in \fU}U$.
\end{enumerate} \end{enumerate}
If the above holds, then $X$ is \textbf{separated}. If the above holds, then $X$ is \textbf{separated}.
\end{definition} \end{definition}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
$(1) \Rightarrow (5)$: Let $x, y \in X$ with $x \ne y$. Assume without loss of generality that there exists $U(x) \in \cn(x)$ such that $y \not\in U$. In which case, $(x, y) \not\in U$ and $\Delta \supset \bigcap_{U \in \fU}U$. (1) $\Rightarrow$ (6): Let $x, y \in X$ with $x \ne y$. Assume without loss of generality that there exists $U(x) \in \cn(x)$ such that $y \not\in U$. In which case, $(x, y) \not\in U$ and $\Delta \supset \bigcap_{U \in \fU}U$.
$(5) \Rightarrow (2)$: By \autoref{proposition:goodentourages}, $\ol \Delta \subset \bigcap_{U \in \fU}\ol U = \Delta$, so $\ol \Delta$ is closed. By (6) of \autoref{definition:hausdorff}, $X$ is Hausdorff. (6) $\Rightarrow$ (5): Let $E \subset X$ be closed and $x \in X \setminus E$. Since $\Delta = \bigcap_{U \in \fU}U$, there exists $U \in \fU$ such that $U(x) \subset E^c$. By \autoref{theorem:uniform-pseudometric}, there exists a pseudometric $d: X \times X \to [0, \infty)$ such that $d(x, E) > 0$. Thus the function $y \mapsto d(x, y)$ is a continuous function that separates $x$ and $E$.
$(1) \Rightarrow (4)$: $X$ is T1 and satisfies (2) of \autoref{definition:regular} by \autoref{proposition:uniform-neighbourhoods}, so $X$ is regular.
$(4) \Rightarrow (3) \Rightarrow (2) \Rightarrow (1)$: (T3) $\Rightarrow $ (T2) $\Rightarrow$ (T1) $\Rightarrow$ (T0).
\end{proof} \end{proof}