0
$\begingroup$
  • In the third answer to this question, a justification is given for calling closed sets closed, since they are literally closed under the $\mathbb{N}$-ary operation of taking limits of (convergent) sequences.
  • And then open is declared as the complement of closed, but this doesn't seem to follow naturally from the operation motivation, in particular not every convergent sequence converges outside of an open set, so one would be tempted to say it has at least one convergent sequence converging outside of it, but then a set containing some but not all boundary points is still open.
  • We could however call a set totally open if every convergent, injective sequence converges outside the set, The natural numbers satisfy this, since they do not contain any injective convergent sequence, but do totally open sets exist in spaces where there are convergent and injective sequences ?. And if such spaces exists, can we classify them ?.
$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think it's really the right idea to think about openness in terms of limits like this. I think the intuition from openness in metric spaces is fine: for a subset $U$ to be open means every $x \in U$ has a little "room" around it (in metric spaces, some sufficiently small open ball). So for a set to be non-open at least one point "fits uncomfortably" in $U$, it does not have enough "room." $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1 at 20:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also it does not follow that taking the complement of the closed sets would produce sets which satisfy the opposite of the closed condition. Taking the set-theoretic complement just doesn't correspond to taking the logical negation. For example it's not true that the complements of subgroups are "anti-subgroups." $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1 at 20:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You also make this conceptual mistake here: "so one would be tempted to say it has at least one convergent sequence converging outside of it" - you took the logical negation so this condition defines non-closed subsets, not open subsets. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan Regarding your second comment, I'm aware that the set theoretic complement does not have anything to do with the logical negation, my question was simply exploring what interesting things you get when you do look at the logical negation, or things related to it. Perhaps I should have phrased it better $\endgroup$
    – Carlyle
    Commented Jul 2 at 6:40

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Edit: Never mind, we can do something much simpler. We can take the one-point compactification $X \cup \{ \infty \}$ of any infinite set $X$ (with the discrete topology); then a convergent sequence is either eventually constant, so converges to its constant value in $X$, or eventually leaves every finite subset of $X$, so converges to $\infty$.


Here is an example I think works but have not checked carefully, which is a variation of the Cauchy completion. Let $X$ be an infinite set and let $\widetilde{X}$ be the quotient of the space $X^{\mathbb{N}}$ of infinite sequences $x_1, x_2, \dots \in X$, equipped with the product topology (equivalently the topology of pointwise convergence), by the equivalence relation that $x \sim y$ iff $x$ and $y$ eventually agree.

The idea is that we have tried to "formally adjoin" limits to all sequences in $X$ in a maximal way. $X$ embeds into $\widetilde{X}$ as the constant sequences, and I believe if I've set things up properly that every sequence in $X$ which is eventually constant converges to its eventual value (in $X$), while every sequence in $X$ which is not eventually constant converges to "itself," regarded as an element of $X^{\mathbb{N}}$ and hence an element of $\widetilde{X}$ which is not in $X$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Am I correct in understanding that the set of not eventually constant has the discrete topology? Is this what assures it's open? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1 at 22:53
  • $\begingroup$ @CyclotomicField: you mean the set of constant sequences? Again, I haven't checked carefully, but it should have the discrete topology. I am not claiming that it's open, just that I think it satisfies the condition the OP wanted (which does not imply openness as far as I know, so I don't think "totally open" is a good name for it). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1 at 22:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .