Tag Archives: topology

Playing with interior and closure

Let’s play with the closure and the interior of sets.

To start the play, we consider a topological space \(E\) and denote for any subspace \(A \subset E\): \(\overline{A}\) the closure of \(A\) and \(\overset{\circ}{A}\) the interior of \(A\).

Warm up with the closure operator

For \(A,B\) subsets of \(E\), the following results hold: \(\overline{\overline{A}}=\overline{A}\), \(A \subset B \Rightarrow \overline{A} \subset \overline{B}\), \(\overline{A \cup B} = \overline{A} \cup \overline{B}\) and \(\overline{A \cap B} \subset \overline{A} \cap \overline{B}\).

Let’s prove it.
\(\overline{A}\) being closed, it is equal to its closure and \(\overline{\overline{A}}=\overline{A}\).

Suppose that \(A \subset B\). As \(B \subset \overline{B}\), we have \(A \subset \overline{B}\). Also, \(\overline{B}\) is closed so it contains \(\overline{A}\), which proves \(\overline{A} \subset \overline{B}\).

Let’s consider \(A,B \in E\) two subsets. As \(A \subset A \cup B\), we have \(\overline{A} \subset \overline{A \cup B}\) and similarly \(\overline{B} \subset \overline{A \cup B}\). Hence \(\overline{A} \cup \overline{B} \subset \overline{A \cup B}\). Conversely, \(A \cup B \subset \overline{A} \cup \overline{B}\) and \(\overline{A} \cup \overline{B}\) is closed. So \(\overline{A \cup B} \subset \overline{A} \cup \overline{B}\) and finally \(\overline{A \cup B} = \overline{A} \cup \overline{B}\).

Regarding the inclusion \(\overline{A \cap B} \subset \overline{A} \cap \overline{B}\), we notice that \(A \cap B \subset \overline{A} \cap \overline{B}\) and that \(\overline{A} \cap \overline{B}\) is closed to get the conclusion.

However, the implication \(\overline{A} \subset \overline{B} \Rightarrow A \subset B\) doesn’t hold. For a counterexample, consider the space \(E=\mathbb R\) equipped with the topology induced by the absolute value distance and take \(A=[0,1)\), \(B=(0,1]\). We have \(\overline{A}=\overline{B}=[0,1]\).

The equality \(\overline{A} \cap \overline{B} = \overline{A \cap B}\) doesn’t hold as well. For the proof, just consider \(A=[0,1)\) and \(B=(1,2]\). Continue reading Playing with interior and closure

Counterexamples to Banach fixed-point theorem

Let \((X,d)\) be a metric space. Then a map \(T : X \to X\) is called a contraction map if it exists \(0 \le k < 1\) such that \[d(T(x),T(y)) \le k d(x,y)\] for all \(x,y \in X\). According to Banach fixed-point theorem, if \((X,d)\) is a complete metric space and \(T\) a contraction map, then \(T\) admits a fixed-point \(x^* \in X\), i.e. \(T(x^*)=x^*\).

We look here at counterexamples to the Banach fixed-point theorem when some hypothesis are not fulfilled.

First, let’s consider \[\begin{array}{l|rcl}
f : & \mathbb R & \longrightarrow & \mathbb R \\
& x & \longmapsto & x+1 \end{array}\] For all \(x,y \in \mathbb R\) we have \(\vert f(x)-f(y) \vert = \vert x- y \vert\). \(f\) is not a contraction, but an isometry. Obviously, \(f\) has no fixed-point.

We now prove that a map satisfying \[d(g(x),g(y)) < d(x,y)\] might also not have a fixed-point. A counterexample is the following map \[\begin{array}{l|rcl} g : & [0,+\infty) & \longrightarrow & [0,+\infty) \\ & x & \longmapsto & \sqrt{1+x^2} \end{array}\] Since \[g^\prime(\xi) = \frac{\xi}{\sqrt{1+\xi^2}} < 1 \text{ for all } \xi \in [0, +\infty),\] by the mean value theorem \[\vert g(x) - g(y)| = \vert g^\prime(\xi)\vert |x-y| < |x-y| \text{ for all } x, y \in [0, +\infty).\] However \(g\) has no fixed-point. Finally, let's have a look to a space \((X,d)\) which is not complete. We take \(a,b \in \mathbb R\) with \(0 < a < 1\) and for \((X,d)\) the space \(X = \mathbb R \setminus \{\frac{b}{1-a}\}\) equipped with absolute value distance. \(X\) is not complete. Consider the map \[\begin{array}{l|rcl} h : & X & \longrightarrow & X \\ & x & \longmapsto & ax + b \end{array}\] \(h\) is well defined as for \(x \neq \frac{b}{1-a}\), \(h(x) \neq \frac{b}{1-a}\). \(h\) is a contraction map as for \(x,y \in \mathbb R\) \[\vert h(x)-h(y) \vert = a \vert x - y \vert \] However, \(h\) doesn't have a fixed-point in \(X\) as \(\frac{b}{1-a}\) is the only real for which \(h(x)=x\).

Two algebraically complemented subspaces that are not topologically complemented

We give here an example of a two complemented subspaces \(A\) and \(B\) that are not topologically complemented.

For this, we consider a vector space of infinite dimension equipped with an inner product. We also suppose that \(E\) is separable. Hence, \(E\) has an orthonormal basis \((e_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}\).

Let \(a_n=e_{2n}\) and \(b_n=e_{2n}+\frac{1}{2n+1} e_{2n+1}\). We denote \(A\) and \(B\) the closures of the linear subspaces generated by the vectors \((a_n)\) and \((b_n)\) respectively. We consider \(F=A+B\) and prove that \(A\) and \(B\) are complemented subspaces in \(F\), but not topologically complemented. Continue reading Two algebraically complemented subspaces that are not topologically complemented

A homeomorphism of the unit ball having no fixed point

Let’s recall Brouwer fixed-point theorem.

Theorem (Brouwer): Every continuous function from a convex compact subset \(K\) of a Euclidean space to \(K\) itself has a fixed point.

We here describe an example of a homeomorphism of the unit ball of a Hilbert space having no fixed point. Let \(E\) be a separable Hilbert space with \((e_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}\) as a Hilbert basis. \(B\) and \(S\) are respectively \(E\) closed unit ball and unit sphere.

There is a unique linear map \(u : E \to E\) for which \(u(e_n)=e_{n+1}\) for all \(n \in \mathbb{Z}\). For \(x = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \xi_n e_n \in E\) we have \(u(x)= \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \xi_n e_{n+1}\). \(u\) is isometric as \[\Vert u(x) \Vert^2 = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \vert \xi_n \vert^2 = \Vert x \Vert^2\] hence one-to-one. \(u\) is also onto as for \(x = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \xi_n e_n \in E\), \(\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \xi_n e_{n-1} \in E\) is an inverse image of \(x\). Finally \(u\) is an homeomorphism. Continue reading A homeomorphism of the unit ball having no fixed point

Counterexample around Arzela-Ascoli theorem

Let’s recall Arzelà–Ascoli theorem:

Suppose that \(F\) is a Banach space and \(E\) a compact metric space. A subset \(\mathcal{H}\) of the Banach space \(\mathcal{C}_F(E)\) is relatively compact in the topology induced by the uniform norm if and only if it is equicontinuous and and for all \(x \in E\), the set \(\mathcal{H}(x)=\{f(x) \ | \ f \in \mathcal{H}\}\) is relatively compact.

We look here at what happens if we drop the requirement on space \(E\) to be compact and provide a counterexample where the conclusion of Arzelà–Ascoli theorem doesn’t hold anymore.

We take for \(E\) the real interval \([0,+\infty)\) and for all \(n \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}\) the real function
\[f_n(t)= \sin \sqrt{t+4 n^2 \pi^2}\] We prove that \((f_n)\) is equicontinuous, converges pointwise to \(0\) but is not relatively compact.

According to the mean value theorem, for all \(x,y \in \mathbb{R}\)
\[\vert \sin x – \sin y \vert \le \vert x – y \vert\] Hence for \(n \ge 1\) and \(x,y \in [0,+\infty)\)
\vert f_n(x)-f_n(y) \vert &\le \vert \sqrt{x+4 n^2 \pi^2} -\sqrt{y+4 n^2 \pi^2} \vert \\
&= \frac{\vert x – y \vert}{\sqrt{x+4 n^2 \pi^2} +\sqrt{y+4 n^2 \pi^2}} \\
&\le \frac{\vert x – y \vert}{4 \pi}
\end{align*} using multiplication by the conjugate.

Which enables to prove that \((f_n)\) is equicontinuous.

We also have for \(n \ge 1\) and \(x \in [0,+\infty)\)
\vert f_n(x) \vert &= \vert f_n(x) – f_n(0) \vert \le \vert \sqrt{x+4 n^2 \pi^2} -\sqrt{4 n^2 \pi^2} \vert \\
&= \frac{\vert x \vert}{\sqrt{x+4 n^2 \pi^2} +\sqrt{4 n^2 \pi^2}} \\
&\le \frac{\vert x \vert}{4 n \pi}

Hence \((f_n)\) converges pointwise to \(0\) and for \(t \in [0,+\infty), \mathcal{H}(t)=\{f_n(t) \ | \ n \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}\}\) is relatively compact

Finally we prove that \(\mathcal{H}=\{f_n \ | \ n \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}\}\) is not relatively compact. While \((f_n)\) converges pointwise to \(0\), \((f_n)\) does not converge uniformly to \(f=0\). Actually for \(n \ge 1\) and \(t_n=\frac{\pi^2}{4} + 2n \pi^2\) we have
\[f_n(t_n)= \sin \sqrt{\frac{\pi^2}{4} + 2n \pi^2 +4 n^2 \pi^2}=\sin \sqrt{\left(\frac{\pi}{2} + 2 n \pi\right)^2}=1\] Consequently for all \(n \ge 1\) \(\Vert f_n – f \Vert_\infty \ge 1\). If \(\mathcal{H}\) was relatively compact, \((f_n)\) would have a convergent subsequence with \(f=0\) for limit. And that cannot be as for all \(n \ge 1\) \(\Vert f_n – f \Vert_\infty \ge 1\).

A topological vector space with no non trivial continuous linear form

We consider here the \(L^p\)- spaces of real functions defined on \([0,1]\) for which the \(p\)-th power of the absolute value is Lebesgue integrable. We focus on the case \(0 < p < 1\). We'll prove that those \(L^p\)-spaces are topological vector spaces on which there exists no continuous non-trivial linear forms (i.e. not vanishing identically). Continue reading A topological vector space with no non trivial continuous linear form

Distance between a point and a hyperplane not reached

Let’s investigate the following question: “Is the distance between a point and a hyperplane always reached?”

In order to provide answers to the question, we consider a normed vector space \((E, \Vert \cdot \Vert)\) and a hyperplane \(H\) of \(E\). \(H\) is the kernel of a non-zero linear form. Namely, \(H=\{x \in E \text{ | } u(x)=0\}\).

The case of finite dimensional vector spaces

When \(E\) is of finite dimension, the distance \(d(a,H)=\inf\{\Vert h-a \Vert \text{ | } h \in H\}\) between any point \(a \in E\) and a hyperplane \(H\) is reached at a point \(b \in H\). The proof is rather simple. Consider a point \(c \in H\). The set \(S = \{h \in H \text{ | } \Vert a- h \Vert \le \Vert a-c \Vert \}\) is bounded as for \(h \in S\) we have \(\Vert h \Vert \le \Vert a-c \Vert + \Vert a \Vert\). \(S\) is equal to \(D \cap H\) where \(D\) is the inverse image of the closed real segment \([0,\Vert a-c \Vert]\) by the continuous map \(f: x \mapsto \Vert a- x \Vert\). Therefore \(D\) is closed. \(H\) is also closed as any linear subspace of a finite dimensional vector space. \(S\) being the intersection of two closed subsets of \(E\) is also closed. Hence \(S\) is compact and the restriction of \(f\) to \(S\) reaches its infimum at some point \(b \in S \subset H\) where \(d(a,H)=\Vert a-b \Vert\). Continue reading Distance between a point and a hyperplane not reached

A separable space that is not second-countable

In topology, a second-countable space (also called a completely separable space) is a topological space having a countable base.

It is well known that a second-countable space is separable. For the proof consider a second-countable space \(X\) with countable basis \(\mathcal{B}=\{B_n; n \in \mathbb{N}\}\). We can assume without loss of generality that all the \(B_n\) are nonempty, as the empty ones can be discarded. Now, for each \(B_n\), pick any element \(b_n\). Let \(D=\{b_n;n \in \mathbb{N}\}\). \(D\) is countable. We claim that \(D\) is dense in \(X\). To see this let \(U\) be any nonempty open subset of \(X\). \(U\) contains some \(B_p\), hence \(b_p \in U\). So \(D\) intersects \(U\) proving that \(D\) is dense.

What about the converse? Is a separable space second-countable? The answer is negative and I present below a counterexample. Continue reading A separable space that is not second-countable

A connected not locally connected space

In this article, I will describe a subset of the plane that is a connected space while not locally connected nor path connected.

Let’s consider the plane \(\mathbb{R}^2\) and the two subspaces:
\[A = \bigcup_{n \ge 1} [(0,0),(1,\frac{1}{n})] \text{ and } B = A \cup (\frac{1}{2},1]\] Where a segment noted \(|a,b|\) stands for the plane segment \(|(a,0),(b,0)|\). Continue reading A connected not locally connected space