The definition of the product of sets












0












$begingroup$


I got a definition :




If I is a nonempty set and for each i in I we have a nonempty sets $ X_i$, then the product of these sets is defined by $$prod_{iin I}X_i={x:I rightarrow bigcup_{iin I} X_i:x(i)in X_itext{ for all } i in I}$$




The definition is from [https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319023670 ]. I think this is not easy to understand it.



Assume we want to prove :




Suppose I is a set, $X_i$ are topological spaces with subsets $A_i$ for $i in I$.
Then, there holds $operatorname{Clos}prod_{iin I}A_i=prod_{iin I}operatorname{Clos} A_i$




Then, the proof
$$prod_{iin I}operatorname{Clos} A_i$$
$$={x:I rightarrow bigcup_{iin I} operatorname{Clos} A_i : x(i)in operatorname{Clos} A_i text{ for all } i in I} $$
$$={x:I rightarrow operatorname{Clos}(bigcup_{iin I} A_i) :x(i)in operatorname{Clos} A_i text{ for all } i in I}$$
$$=operatorname{Clos} prod_{iin I}A_i$$
is right?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    I got a definition :




    If I is a nonempty set and for each i in I we have a nonempty sets $ X_i$, then the product of these sets is defined by $$prod_{iin I}X_i={x:I rightarrow bigcup_{iin I} X_i:x(i)in X_itext{ for all } i in I}$$




    The definition is from [https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319023670 ]. I think this is not easy to understand it.



    Assume we want to prove :




    Suppose I is a set, $X_i$ are topological spaces with subsets $A_i$ for $i in I$.
    Then, there holds $operatorname{Clos}prod_{iin I}A_i=prod_{iin I}operatorname{Clos} A_i$




    Then, the proof
    $$prod_{iin I}operatorname{Clos} A_i$$
    $$={x:I rightarrow bigcup_{iin I} operatorname{Clos} A_i : x(i)in operatorname{Clos} A_i text{ for all } i in I} $$
    $$={x:I rightarrow operatorname{Clos}(bigcup_{iin I} A_i) :x(i)in operatorname{Clos} A_i text{ for all } i in I}$$
    $$=operatorname{Clos} prod_{iin I}A_i$$
    is right?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      I got a definition :




      If I is a nonempty set and for each i in I we have a nonempty sets $ X_i$, then the product of these sets is defined by $$prod_{iin I}X_i={x:I rightarrow bigcup_{iin I} X_i:x(i)in X_itext{ for all } i in I}$$




      The definition is from [https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319023670 ]. I think this is not easy to understand it.



      Assume we want to prove :




      Suppose I is a set, $X_i$ are topological spaces with subsets $A_i$ for $i in I$.
      Then, there holds $operatorname{Clos}prod_{iin I}A_i=prod_{iin I}operatorname{Clos} A_i$




      Then, the proof
      $$prod_{iin I}operatorname{Clos} A_i$$
      $$={x:I rightarrow bigcup_{iin I} operatorname{Clos} A_i : x(i)in operatorname{Clos} A_i text{ for all } i in I} $$
      $$={x:I rightarrow operatorname{Clos}(bigcup_{iin I} A_i) :x(i)in operatorname{Clos} A_i text{ for all } i in I}$$
      $$=operatorname{Clos} prod_{iin I}A_i$$
      is right?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I got a definition :




      If I is a nonempty set and for each i in I we have a nonempty sets $ X_i$, then the product of these sets is defined by $$prod_{iin I}X_i={x:I rightarrow bigcup_{iin I} X_i:x(i)in X_itext{ for all } i in I}$$




      The definition is from [https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319023670 ]. I think this is not easy to understand it.



      Assume we want to prove :




      Suppose I is a set, $X_i$ are topological spaces with subsets $A_i$ for $i in I$.
      Then, there holds $operatorname{Clos}prod_{iin I}A_i=prod_{iin I}operatorname{Clos} A_i$




      Then, the proof
      $$prod_{iin I}operatorname{Clos} A_i$$
      $$={x:I rightarrow bigcup_{iin I} operatorname{Clos} A_i : x(i)in operatorname{Clos} A_i text{ for all } i in I} $$
      $$={x:I rightarrow operatorname{Clos}(bigcup_{iin I} A_i) :x(i)in operatorname{Clos} A_i text{ for all } i in I}$$
      $$=operatorname{Clos} prod_{iin I}A_i$$
      is right?







      general-topology






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 21 '18 at 14:50









      Henno Brandsma

      111k348118




      111k348118










      asked Dec 21 '18 at 13:52







      user627221





























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          No, closure does not commute with infinite unions as you want to use in the step from line 2 to line 3. The last step is also nonsense, as the closure of a product set depends on the topology we put on the product: it's not a pure set theory fact.



          You need to show two inclusions and use the definition of closure and the specific form of open sets in the product topology.



          If you have covered nets (generalised sequences) in your course, the following proof does work (modulo some minor details, but in essence):



          $x in operatorname{Clos} prod_i A_i$ iff there is some net $(a_n)_{n in N}$ where all $a_n in prod_{i in I} A_i$ and $a_n to x$ iff for all $i in I$ $(a_n)(i) to x(i)$ iff for all $i in I$, $x(i) in operatorname{Clos} A_i$ iff $x in prod_i operatorname{Clos} A_i$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$





















            0












            $begingroup$

            Your solution is making the assumptions that



            1) $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_i=Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ but you can easily see that what holds, in general, is that $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_isubseteq Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ where the equality might not hold in general, eg consider $A_i=(frac{1}{i+1},frac{1}{i}),iin mathbb{N}$ then, $bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i=(0,1]neq Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i=[0,1]$.



            2)$Closprodlimits_{iin I}A_i=Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$ which does not make much sense as now you must consider closure of a set of functions but you must know the topology on them to know how to deal with them.



            I know of a way to prove the aforementioned result in the product or box topology using the fact that $xin ClosA iff for any Uni x open in X, Ucap Xneq phi$, you can find the same in munkres at the end of the section on product topology(section-19). Though I'm pretty sure it should be provable this way also, I'm not able to come up with analogs for the product or box topology in this functional form, i.e., you have to show that $$Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048511%2fthe-definition-of-the-product-of-sets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown
























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              1












              $begingroup$

              No, closure does not commute with infinite unions as you want to use in the step from line 2 to line 3. The last step is also nonsense, as the closure of a product set depends on the topology we put on the product: it's not a pure set theory fact.



              You need to show two inclusions and use the definition of closure and the specific form of open sets in the product topology.



              If you have covered nets (generalised sequences) in your course, the following proof does work (modulo some minor details, but in essence):



              $x in operatorname{Clos} prod_i A_i$ iff there is some net $(a_n)_{n in N}$ where all $a_n in prod_{i in I} A_i$ and $a_n to x$ iff for all $i in I$ $(a_n)(i) to x(i)$ iff for all $i in I$, $x(i) in operatorname{Clos} A_i$ iff $x in prod_i operatorname{Clos} A_i$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                No, closure does not commute with infinite unions as you want to use in the step from line 2 to line 3. The last step is also nonsense, as the closure of a product set depends on the topology we put on the product: it's not a pure set theory fact.



                You need to show two inclusions and use the definition of closure and the specific form of open sets in the product topology.



                If you have covered nets (generalised sequences) in your course, the following proof does work (modulo some minor details, but in essence):



                $x in operatorname{Clos} prod_i A_i$ iff there is some net $(a_n)_{n in N}$ where all $a_n in prod_{i in I} A_i$ and $a_n to x$ iff for all $i in I$ $(a_n)(i) to x(i)$ iff for all $i in I$, $x(i) in operatorname{Clos} A_i$ iff $x in prod_i operatorname{Clos} A_i$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  No, closure does not commute with infinite unions as you want to use in the step from line 2 to line 3. The last step is also nonsense, as the closure of a product set depends on the topology we put on the product: it's not a pure set theory fact.



                  You need to show two inclusions and use the definition of closure and the specific form of open sets in the product topology.



                  If you have covered nets (generalised sequences) in your course, the following proof does work (modulo some minor details, but in essence):



                  $x in operatorname{Clos} prod_i A_i$ iff there is some net $(a_n)_{n in N}$ where all $a_n in prod_{i in I} A_i$ and $a_n to x$ iff for all $i in I$ $(a_n)(i) to x(i)$ iff for all $i in I$, $x(i) in operatorname{Clos} A_i$ iff $x in prod_i operatorname{Clos} A_i$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  No, closure does not commute with infinite unions as you want to use in the step from line 2 to line 3. The last step is also nonsense, as the closure of a product set depends on the topology we put on the product: it's not a pure set theory fact.



                  You need to show two inclusions and use the definition of closure and the specific form of open sets in the product topology.



                  If you have covered nets (generalised sequences) in your course, the following proof does work (modulo some minor details, but in essence):



                  $x in operatorname{Clos} prod_i A_i$ iff there is some net $(a_n)_{n in N}$ where all $a_n in prod_{i in I} A_i$ and $a_n to x$ iff for all $i in I$ $(a_n)(i) to x(i)$ iff for all $i in I$, $x(i) in operatorname{Clos} A_i$ iff $x in prod_i operatorname{Clos} A_i$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Dec 21 '18 at 15:05

























                  answered Dec 21 '18 at 14:45









                  Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma

                  111k348118




                  111k348118























                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      Your solution is making the assumptions that



                      1) $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_i=Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ but you can easily see that what holds, in general, is that $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_isubseteq Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ where the equality might not hold in general, eg consider $A_i=(frac{1}{i+1},frac{1}{i}),iin mathbb{N}$ then, $bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i=(0,1]neq Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i=[0,1]$.



                      2)$Closprodlimits_{iin I}A_i=Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$ which does not make much sense as now you must consider closure of a set of functions but you must know the topology on them to know how to deal with them.



                      I know of a way to prove the aforementioned result in the product or box topology using the fact that $xin ClosA iff for any Uni x open in X, Ucap Xneq phi$, you can find the same in munkres at the end of the section on product topology(section-19). Though I'm pretty sure it should be provable this way also, I'm not able to come up with analogs for the product or box topology in this functional form, i.e., you have to show that $$Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$$






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        Your solution is making the assumptions that



                        1) $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_i=Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ but you can easily see that what holds, in general, is that $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_isubseteq Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ where the equality might not hold in general, eg consider $A_i=(frac{1}{i+1},frac{1}{i}),iin mathbb{N}$ then, $bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i=(0,1]neq Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i=[0,1]$.



                        2)$Closprodlimits_{iin I}A_i=Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$ which does not make much sense as now you must consider closure of a set of functions but you must know the topology on them to know how to deal with them.



                        I know of a way to prove the aforementioned result in the product or box topology using the fact that $xin ClosA iff for any Uni x open in X, Ucap Xneq phi$, you can find the same in munkres at the end of the section on product topology(section-19). Though I'm pretty sure it should be provable this way also, I'm not able to come up with analogs for the product or box topology in this functional form, i.e., you have to show that $$Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$$






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          0












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          Your solution is making the assumptions that



                          1) $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_i=Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ but you can easily see that what holds, in general, is that $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_isubseteq Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ where the equality might not hold in general, eg consider $A_i=(frac{1}{i+1},frac{1}{i}),iin mathbb{N}$ then, $bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i=(0,1]neq Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i=[0,1]$.



                          2)$Closprodlimits_{iin I}A_i=Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$ which does not make much sense as now you must consider closure of a set of functions but you must know the topology on them to know how to deal with them.



                          I know of a way to prove the aforementioned result in the product or box topology using the fact that $xin ClosA iff for any Uni x open in X, Ucap Xneq phi$, you can find the same in munkres at the end of the section on product topology(section-19). Though I'm pretty sure it should be provable this way also, I'm not able to come up with analogs for the product or box topology in this functional form, i.e., you have to show that $$Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$$






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          Your solution is making the assumptions that



                          1) $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_i=Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ but you can easily see that what holds, in general, is that $bigcuplimits_{iin I}ClosA_isubseteq Closbigcuplimits_{iin I}A_i$ where the equality might not hold in general, eg consider $A_i=(frac{1}{i+1},frac{1}{i}),iin mathbb{N}$ then, $bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i=(0,1]neq Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i=[0,1]$.



                          2)$Closprodlimits_{iin I}A_i=Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow Closbigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$ which does not make much sense as now you must consider closure of a set of functions but you must know the topology on them to know how to deal with them.



                          I know of a way to prove the aforementioned result in the product or box topology using the fact that $xin ClosA iff for any Uni x open in X, Ucap Xneq phi$, you can find the same in munkres at the end of the section on product topology(section-19). Though I'm pretty sure it should be provable this way also, I'm not able to come up with analogs for the product or box topology in this functional form, i.e., you have to show that $$Clos{x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}A_i|x(i)in A_i forall iin I}={x:Irightarrow bigcuplimits_{iin mathbb{N}}ClosA_i|x(i)in ClosA_i forall iin I}$$







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 21 '18 at 15:34









                          MustangMustang

                          3367




                          3367






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048511%2fthe-definition-of-the-product-of-sets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Tonle Sap (See)

                              I get strange results when I access the Sqlitedatabase with Unity C# via XAMPP

                              Guatemaltekische Davis-Cup-Mannschaft