Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Uniform Spaces Where All Continuity Is Uniform

    Uploaded by

    dsouzaufrj
    7 views11 pages
    Very interesting article.

    Original Title

    Uniform Spaces Where All Continuity is Uniform

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Very interesting article.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views11 pages

    Uniform Spaces Where All Continuity Is Uniform

    Uploaded by

    dsouzaufrj
    Very interesting article.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    Kyungpook Mathematical Journal Vol.34, No.2, 247-257, December 1994 UNIFORM SPACES WHERE ALL CONTINUITY IS UNIFORM Nilson C. Bernardes Jr. and Dinamérico P. Pombo Jr.” 1. Introduction In his seminal memoir [10], Weil has proved that to every uniformiz- able space (X,C) one can associate a uniform space (X,Uc) (Ue being called the universal uniformity associated with the topology C) such that the topology induced by Ue on X is C and such that every continuous function on (X,Ue) (with values in any uniform space) is uniformly con- tinuous. Such an interesting fact shows that the following problem, whose discussion is the main goal of the present article, is natural and relevant: Under suitable conditions on the uniform space X, to characterize the property that every continuous function from X into an arbitrary uniform space is uniformly continuous. In order to reach our purpose we introduce the class of ultranormal topological spaces, which properly contains that of paracompact spaces (proposition 4 and example 1) and is properly contained in that of collec- tionwise normal spaces (proposition 3 and example 2). As a consequence, every ultranormal space is uniformizable. Our main result is theorem 1, which furnishes necessary and sufficient conditions for a metrizable (resp. a paracompact, an ultranormal) uniform space X to satisfy the desired property. We also construct examples which show the need for the hy- potheses used in our central theorem. We close the article by establishing theorem 2, which subsumes the fact that if each continuous function from a uniform space into [0,1] is uniformly continuous, then the same holds when (0,1) is replaced by an arbitrary precompact space. Throughout we shall adopt the terminology of Bourbaki (1), [2] Received January 7, 1993. * Partially supported by CNP,. 248 Nilson C. Bernardes Jr. and Dinamérico P. Pombo Jr. Definition 1. Let R be a covering of a set X. A refinement R! of R is said to be subordinated to Rif the following condition holds: If i, Va € Ri and WNVs # 9, then for each z € Vj and for each y € Va there is a U € R such that {z,y} CU. Definition 2. A topological space X is said to be quasi-ultranormal if every open covering of X has an open subordinated refinement. A topological space is said to be ultranormal if it is quasi-ultranormal and separated Proposition 1. Every closed subspace of a quasi-ultranormal space is quasi-ultranormal. Proof. Let X be a quasi-ultranormal space and let F be a closed subspace of X. Let R be an open covering of F and, for each U € R, let Vir be an open subset of X with U = FN Vy. By assumption, the open covering R= {WiU € R}U{X - F} of X has an open subordinated refinement R!. We claim that R={FAViVER} is an open refinement subordinated to R. Indeed, let Uy = FV; and Uz = F 1V2 (Vi, V2 € R’) be intersecting elements of R’, and let 7 € Us, y € Us. Since R’ is subordinated to R, there is a V € R such that {x,y} CV. Hence {2,y} C FMV, which proves that R’ is subordinated to R and concludes the proof. Proposition 2. Let X be a topological space. If every open subspace of X is quasi-ultranormal, then every subspace of X is quasi-ultranormal. Proof. Let A be a subspace of X and let R be an open covering of A. For each U € R, let Vir be an open subset of X such that U = AN Vy. Let R= (ViU ER}, and take A as the open subset UverVu of X. Since R is an open covering of A, there is an open refinement R’ subordinated to R. Arguing as in the proof of proposition 1 we show that Ri ={ANV;V ER}, is an open refinement subordinated to R, as was to be shown. Uniform spaces where alt continuity is uniform 249 ‘The following propositions guarantee that the class of ultranormal space is situated between the classes of paracompact spaces and collec- tionwise normal spaces. Proposition 3. Every ultranormal space is collectionwise normal (hence normal). In particular, every ultranormal space is uniformizable. Proof. Let X be an ultranormal space and let (F))ier be a discrete family of closed subsets of X. For each i € I, put —Ujgik. Since (Fi)ier is locally finite, each Uj is open in X ({1], chap.I, §1, propo- sition 4). By hypothesis, the open covering R = {Uj;i € I} of X has an open subordinated refinement R', For each i € I, let Vj be the union of all elements of R! which meet Fi; Vj is a neighborhood of Fj. It remains to show that VV; = @ if # j. In fact, suppose that W, € R’ meets Fi, Wa € R’ meets Fi, (where iy # iz) and WNW # 6. Let wy € WiNF, and w, € W209 F,,. Then there is a k € J such that {w,wa} C Us. But this is an absurd, since each U; meets at most one F}. Proposition 4. Every paracompact space is ultranormal. In particular, every metrizable space is ultranormal. Proof. Immediate from theorem 2 of {9}. Now we shall give an example of an ultranormal space which is not paracompact, For this purpose, we shall consider a type of space studied by Dieudonné in [4] and [5]. In the sequel we shall also see an example of a collectionwise normal space which is not ultranormal. Example 1. Let Xp be an uncountable well-ordered set with a greatest element. Let a be the smallest element of Xo and let 6 be the smallest of the elements 2 € Xo for which the interval [a,z[ is uncountable. Let X denote the interval [a,5[ endowed with the separated topology generated by the set of all left half-open intervals, bounded or not. We assert that X is ultranormal. Indeed, let R be an open covering of X. For each z € X, let [, =Ja,,b,] be an interval such that ¢ € J, and J, is contained in some clement of R. By [4], since U = Urex(Us x In) is a neighborhood of the diagonal A of X x X, there is ay € X such that 250 Nilson C. Bernardes Jr. and Dinamérico P. Pombo Jr. UD [y, 8[x[y, 6. Therefore (*) Users > [yb where K = {x € X;y € I,}. For each x € K, put J, =|y, bs]. (Je)eex is an open covering of ]y, 6[, Je C Ie(a € K) and, if 21,22 € K there is an ty € K with Jz, > Je, UJe, (by (*)). Now, by the compactness of [a,y] (4], the open covering (Is 0 (a, y])zex of [a,y] has an open subordinated refinement R. Since [a, y](=] —,y]) is open in X, the family - R=RU (Iehoek is an open covering of X which is subordinated to R. Hence, X is ultra- normal. However, X is not paracompact [5]. Remark 1. a) A product of ultranormal spaces is not necessarily ultranor- mal. For instance, let S be the set (0, +00[ endowed with the topology for which the neighborhoods of a point x are the subsets of S which contain some right halfopen interval to which z belongs. S is paracompact [8], thus ultranormal, by proposition 4. However, S x $ is not normal [8]. By proposition 3, $ x S is not ultranormal. b) It is known that the product of a paracompact space and a compact space is paracompact [5]. This result is no longer true if “paracompact” is replaced by “ultranormal”, For instance, the product Y of the ultranormal space X considered in example 1 by its Alexandroff compactification (X is clearly locally compact) is not normal ([2], chap. IX, §4; exercise 9b). By proposition 3, Y is not ultranormal. Also, as in a) above, Y is a product of ultranormal spaces. Definition 3. A uniform space X has the uniform continuity property with respect to a uniform space Y if every continuous mapping from X into Y is uniformly continuous. A uniform space has the uniform continuity property if it has the uniform continuity property with respect to every uniform space. Clearly, every discrete uniform space has the uniform continuity prop- erty. Also, by a classical result, every compact space has the uniform continuity property. We now state our main result, in whose statement “a non-trivial uni form space Z” is characterized by the property that its uniformity is d ferent from {Z x Z) Uniform spaces where all continuity is uniform 251 Theorem 1. Let X be a uniform space and consider the following prop- erties: (i) X has the uniform continuity property with respect to some conver closed non-trivial uniform subspace of a locally convez space; (ii) X has the uniform continuity property; (iii) Every equicontinuous family of mappings from X into an arbitrary uniform space is uniformly equicontinuous; (iv) The vicinities of X are all neighborhoods of the diagonal A in the product space X x X; (v) For each open covering of X there is a vicinity U of X such that, for each x € X, U(2) is contained in some element of the covering. The following implications are always true: (v) > (iv) > (iii) & (ii) > (i) If X is quasi-ultranormal, then (ii) through (iv) are equivalent. If X is paracompact, then (ii) through (v) are equivalent. If X is metrizable, then (i) through (v) are equivalent. Proof. Let U denote the set of vicinities of X. (v) = (iv) : Let U be a neighborhood of A in X x X. For each 2 € X there is an open subset Uz of X such that ¢ € Up and Uz x Us CU. Since (Uz)zex is an open covering of X, the hypothesis ensures the existence of aU’ EU such that each U'(2) is contained in some U,, Consequently, Uzex (U"(a) x U'(2)) C Urex (Uz x Uz) CU. Now, if (y,) € U’, then (y,z) € U'(y) x U'(y). Therefore U’ CU, which proves that U € U. (iv) = (iii) : Suppose that Y is a uniform space and that H is an equicontinuous family of mappings from X into Y. Let V be a symmetric vicinity of Y. By assumption, for each z € X there is an open neigh- borhood U; of x such that (f(z), f(z’) € V for 2! € Uz and f € H. ‘Therefore (f(z), f(2")) € V? for z,2" € Uz and f € H, that is, (f x f)(Us x Uz) CV? for f € H and x € X. ‘The set U = Usex(Us X Uz) is a neighborhood of A in X x X, hence an element of UU (by hypothesis), and (f x f)(U) C V? for every f € H. Thus His uniformly equicontinuous. (iii) > (ii) > (i) : Obvious. (ii) > (iii) : Suppose that X has the uniform continuity property and let (f;)ier be an equicontinuous family of mappings from X into a uniform 252 Nilson C. Bernardes Jr. and Dinamérico P. Pombo Jr. space Y. For each vicinity V of Y, put Uy = {(f,9) € FUGY) x FUG); (f(), g(@) € V for all i € I}, where F(;¥) denotes the set of all mappings from J into Y. It is easily seen that, as V runs through the set of all vicinities of Y, the sets U, form a. fundamental system of vicinities for a uniformity 2’ on F(I;Y). Consider F(I;¥) endowed with WU’, Define h: X + FUSY) by A(z)(i) = filx), x €X,i€ J. The equicontinuity of (f,)ier implies the continuity of k. By hypothesis, h is uniformly continuous, and therefore (fi)ier is uniformly equicontinuous. Assume that X is quasi-ultranormal and satisfies (ii). To establish (iv) it is enough to prove that the set V of all neighborhoods of A is a uniformity on X (indeed, in this case, the uniformizability of X implies that the topology induced by V on X is finer than that of X). In order to do so, it suffices to show that for each U € V there is a W € V with W? CU. Fix aU € V. Each x € X has an open neighborhood V, such that Ve x Ve CU. So V = Usex(Vy x Vz) belongs to V and V CU. By assumption, the open covering (V,)zex of X has an open subordinated refinement (Wi)ier. Put W = Uier(Wi x W,). W €V and, if (2,y) € W?, there are iy, i2 € J such that (x.y) € (Wi, x Wi) 0 (Wi, x Wi,)s hence there is a z € W;, 0 Wj, such that (x,z) € Wi, x Wi, and (z,y) € W,, x Wiz. Therefore W;, 0 Wi, # 0, and consequently there is a w € X such that (2,y) € Vy x Ve. Thus W? C V(C U), as desired. Assume that X is paracompact and remember the following fact ({7], chap.5, theorem 28): A regular space Y is paracompact if and only if, for every open covering R of Y, there is a neighborhood V of the diagonal of Y x ¥ such that the covering (V(y))yey is finer than R. Now, if X satisfies (ii), then every neighborhood of A in X xX belongs to U (for X is ultranormal by proposition 4). By what we have just mentioned, X satisfies (v) Finally, assume that is metrizable, and let d be a metric on X compatible with its uniformity. Suppose that X has the uniform continuity Uniform spaces where all continuity is uniform 253 property with respect to a convex closed non-trivial uniform subspace C of a locally convex space, and that (v) is false. Then there is an open covering R of X such that, for each U € U, there is an « € X such that U(2) is not contained in any element of R. In particular, for each n € N*, there is an x, € X such that B(x,;1/n) is not contained in any element of R. Therefore there is a y, € X with 0. 0 is such that. B(x;5) C W, then there is an n € N, n > 2/8, so that rq € B(x;6/2). Hence B(rq;1/n) C B(x;6) CW, a contradiction. As a consequence, the sequences (2n)neN= and (Yn)neN= are locally finite. Let us now construct, by induction, a sequence (1n)neN* of positive integers and two sequences (2/,)nen+ and (y/,nen+ satisfying the following properties for all n € N°: Map > My (**) T= tm, and ¥, = Yong x, (resp. y}.) is different from y (resp. x4) if j #n. For this purpose, put x} = x1,y; = y; and m, = 1. Suppose that, for a certain k € N™, we have defined, for each n € N*, n < k, a4, y, € X and m,, € N*, such that (™*) is valid for 1 Mg SO that amy, (TSP. Yngys) i8 different from yf (resp. 2°) for all 1

    You might also like