2

I followed the link and link to prove that $\mathbb{R}^J$ is open, and the following is my attempt:

Under uniform topology, $\mathbb{R}^J$ is metrizable with uniform metric, and is therefore normal. This gives that for any $x\in \mathbb{R}^J$ and a closed set $A$, we can find an open neighbourhood $U$ of $x$ in $\mathbb{R}^J$ such that $U\cap A=\emptyset$.

Since $\mathbb{R}^J$ with uniform metric is normal, given $x$ and $U$ as above, by Urysohn's Lemma there exists a continuous function $f:\mathbb{R}^J\rightarrow[0,1]$ such that $f(x)=0$ and $f(y)=1$ for all $y\in\mathbb{R}^J\setminus U$, since $\{x\}$ and $\mathbb{R}^J\setminus U$ are closed sets.

Since box topology is finer than uniform topology, $f$ defined above is also continuous in $\mathbb{R}^J$ with box topology. We also have $A\subseteq \mathbb{R}^J\setminus U$, so we have a continuous function $f$ such that $f(x)=0$ and $f(y)=1$ for all $y\in A$. This shows that $\mathbb{R}^J$ with box topology is completely regular.

My concern is that the closed set $A$ should be closed in the box topology. This only tells us that $\mathbb{R}^J\setminus A$ is open in box topology, but since uniform topology is coarser, we do not know whether it is open in uniform topology. I am thinking that as long as $A\cap U=\emptyset$, it does not matter. Will this be valid?

  • $A = \mathbb{R}^J \setminus (\mathbb{R}^J\setminus A)$, and $\mathbb{R}^J\setminus A$ is open, so $A$ is closed. Also, the Urysohn map is $X\to [0, 1]$, and not ${0, 1}$. –  Apr 10 '20 at 07:09
  • fixed the Urysohn map. For the closed $A$, that is my issue though: there are 2 closed sets involved, say $A_1$ in the box topology which we need for this proof, and $A_2$ in the uniform topology which is like the stepping stone for us. How do I know that I can take both of them to be the same closed set? because A closed in box topology need not to be closed in uniform topology for the proof. On the other hand, if $A$ is closed in uniform topology, then it is closed in box topology, but shouldn't this closed set $A$ be chosen from the box topology? – Kenny Wong Apr 10 '20 at 07:18
  • 1
    You cannot use the argument with the uniform topology, because that would also imply that box products of metrisable spaces would be normal, which is known to be false. – Henno Brandsma Apr 10 '20 at 07:42
  • you mean $\mathbb{R}^J$ with box topology is normal? I don't think that is where I am trying to go... the result I want is that it is completely regular. – Kenny Wong Apr 10 '20 at 07:52
  • It’s not known to be normal, for uncountable $J$ it’s certainly not, for countable $J$ it would be under CH. my point is: using Urysohn functions from coarser topologies cannot work as a proof strategy. – Henno Brandsma Apr 10 '20 at 08:08
  • i see. then in that case i have no idea why the link i have attached attempted to do the same for $\mathbb{R}^\omega$. will that proof be valid? is it that they have the homeomorphism to help and thats why it can work? – Kenny Wong Apr 10 '20 at 08:18
  • @KennyWong that linked proof is invalid too. – Henno Brandsma Apr 10 '20 at 10:57
  • @HennoBrandsma . Does Martin's Axiom imply that the box topology on $\Bbb R^{\Bbb N}$ is normal? – DanielWainfleet Apr 11 '20 at 23:16
  • @DanielWainfleet AFAIK that's still unknown. MA implies that every countable product of compact first countable Hausdorff spaces is paracompact (see M.E. Rudin's "Lecture Notes in Set theoretic Topology" for an exposition), CH allows us to take spaces of character $\le \mathfrak{c}$ as well. CH also shows the $\Bbb R^\omega$ case via a theorem on countable box products of locally compact $\sigma$-compact metrisable spaces (Kunen). But my last source that mentions the problem is Rudin herself in 1990, in a survey paper, where it is asked whether $\Box^\omega (\omega+1)$ is normal in ZFC. – Henno Brandsma Apr 12 '20 at 05:44

1 Answers1

2

Let $X_i, i \in I$ be any family of completely regular Hausdorff spaces, and let $\Box_{i \in I} X_i$ be the set $\prod_{i \in I} X_i$ in the box topology. Then $\Box_{i \in I} X_i$ is completely regular and Hausdorff too.

Proof: the Hausdorffness is quite simple: if $x=(x_i)_i$ and $y=(y_i)_i)$ are distinct points in $\Box_{i \in I} X_i$, then there is at least one index $i_0$ such that $x_{i_0} \neq y_{i_0}$. As $X_{i_0}$ is Hausdorff we can find $U$ and $V$ disjoint in that space such that $x_{i_0} \in U$ and $y_{i_0} \in V$, and then $\pi_{i_0}^{-1}[U]$ and $\pi^{-1}[V_{i_0}]$ are disjoint open (projections are continuous on the box product) neighbourhoods of $x$ and $y$ resp.

Let $p=(p_i)_i$ be a point in $\Box_{i \in I} X_i$ and $U=\prod_i U_i$ be a basic neighbourhood of $p$ (each $U_i$ is thus an open set in $X_i$ containing $p_i$). It suffices to be find a continuous $f: \Box_{i \in I} X_i \to [0,1]$ such that $f(p)=0$ and $f(x)=1$ for all $x \notin U$. To this end, pick (as each $X_i$ is completely regular) a continuous $f_i: X_i \to [0,1]$ with $f(p_i)=0$ and $f_i[X\setminus U_i]=\{1\}$ for every $i \in I$.

Now define $f(x) = \sup \{f_i(x_i): i \in I\}$ which maps into $[0,1]$ (which is closed under taking sups). To see that $f$ is continuous it suffices to check that all sets of the form $(r,1]$, $r<1$ and $[0,s), s >0$, have open pre-image under $f$, i.e. all its points are interior points:

If $y \in f^{-1}[(r,1]]$ we know that $\sup \{f_i(y_i): i \in I\} > r$, which implies that $r$ is not an upper bound for $\{f_i(y_i): i \in I\}$, so for some $j \in I$, $f_j(y_j) > r$. But then $\pi_j^{-1}[f_j^{-1}[(r,1]]]$ contains $y$ and all points $x$ in it have $f_j(x_j) >r$ too and hence $f(x)>r$. So $y \in \pi_j^{-1}[f_j^{-1}[(r,1]]] \subseteq f^{-1}[(r,1]]$ and as $y$ is arbitrary, the latter set is open, as required.

If $y \in f^{-1}[[0,s)]$ we know that for all $i$: $f_i(y_i) \le f(y) < s$ so we can pick $t \in [0,1]$ such that $f(y) < t < s$ as well. Then for all $x \in W:=\prod_{i \in I} f_i^{-1}[[0,t)]$, which is box open by definition and continuity of the $f_i$, we have $f_i(x_i) < t$ so that $f(x)\le t < s$ and so $y \in W \subseteq f^{-1}[[0,s)]$, and so the latter set is again open as required.

There is an easier proof if you know about uniform structures: all $X_i$ are uniformisable by a uniformity given by entourages $\mathcal{D}_i$, and then it’s easy to check that $\mathcal{D}$ on $\prod_{i \in I} X_i$ given by $$(x,y) \in \mathcal{D} \iff \forall i \in I: (x_i,y_i) \in \mathcal{D}_i$$ is a uniformity on the product that is compatible with the box topology. (This too is not the product in the category of uniform spaces, just as in the topology category). The complete regularity of $\Box_{i \in I} X_i$ is then an immediate consequence. It turns out (see the chapter on box products by Scott Williams in the Handbook of Set-theoretic Topology) that a box product of topological groups is again a topological group and completeness (in the uniformities) is also preserved in the box product.

The strategy using the uniform metric topology on $\Bbb R^J$ cannot really work: we have to start with $U$ box-open and $x \in U$ and we need the Urysohn function for $U$. Suppose we could find a uniform-open $V$ such that $x \in V \subseteq U$. Then in the metric (hence completely regular) topology we can find a function $f: \Bbb R^J \to [0,1]$ with $f(x)=0, f[X\setminus V]=\{1\}$, continuous for the uniform topology, so also for the finer box topology and then indeed this $f$ would work. But e.g. in $\Bbb R^\omega$, the box open neighbourhood $\prod_{n \ge 1} (-\frac1n, \frac1n)$ of $0$ does not contain a uniform-metric ball around $0$, which shows we cannot work on our earlier optimistic assumption. Moreover, a meta-argument: we could have also applied this idea to closed sets and Urysohn-functions for them, while it is known (van Douwen) that there is a countable box product of completely metrisable spaces that is not not normal. The normality of $\Bbb R^\omega$ in the box topology is still open, AFAIK. (it is true under CH, e.g.) It might be undecidable. But complete regularity is no problem...

Henno Brandsma
  • 242,131
  • Is there a typo for $\in ^{−1}[(,1]]\subseteq ^{−1}[(,1]]$. As $^{−1}_j\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ not $\mathbb{R}^J$ so $\notin ^{−1}[(,1]]$ – icefire112233 Apr 13 '20 at 16:16
  • @icefire112233 no, it is correct and follows from the previous. $f^{-1} \subseteq \Bbb R$ is a nonsensical statement. – Henno Brandsma Apr 13 '20 at 16:19
  • Sorry for the notation, what I meant to say was $f_j^{-1}:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$.

    But still, since $f_j:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$, $f^{-1}_j:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$. However, $y\in \mathbb{R}^j$. Thus, $y\notin f_j^{-1}((r,1])$.

    – icefire112233 Apr 13 '20 at 16:39
  • @icefire112233 there was indeed a missing projection map. Watch out not to treat $f_j^{-1}$ as a function, it’s not. – Henno Brandsma Apr 13 '20 at 16:49
  • Thank you. Will be more careful next time. – icefire112233 Apr 13 '20 at 16:51