5th week:
Lecture 9: (15.10.)
Product space. We finished the proof that product of $\mathfrak c$-many separable space is separable.
We summarized once again the reasons why the product topology defined in this way is more natural than the box product.
Sum of topological spaces. We talked briefly about
topological sum. We only explained the definition and mentioned some basic facts without going into details. (This construction is much simpler than the product - I have mentioned it mainly to show that these two constructions are, in some sense, dual to each other.)
Limit of a sequence. Definition of a limit of a sequence and some very simple examples. (And also a few remarks related to the fact that in general we do not have uniqueness.)
We proved that in Hausdorff spaces a sequences has at most one limit. (So we do not have problems with uniqueness in such spaces.)
Relation of convergence to closure and closedness, continuity and sequential continuity. (In both cases we saw that one implications is valid in arbitrary topological space. We proved that the opposite implication is true in first countable spaces - as a special case we get that it holds for metric spaces.)
The space $C(\omega)$.
We defined the space $C(\omega)$. We saw that it is homeomorphic to $\{0\}\cup\{\frac1n; n\in\mathbb N\setminus\{0\}\}$ (with Euclidean metric, i.e., as a subspace of the real line). We showed that convergence of a sequence $x\colon\mathbb N\to X$ can be characterized as continuity of the corresponding map $\overline x\colon C(\omega)\to X$.
Lecture 10: (23.10.)
Nets.
Definition of a
directed set. Definition of a
net and a limit of a net.
Limit of a net and subbase.
The net $(x_U)_{U\in\mathcal B_a}$ with $x_U\in U$ converges to $a$.
Characterization of closure and characterization of closed sets using nets. (Limits of nets completely determine the topology.)
Uniqueness of limit - characterization of Hausdorff spaces using nets.
Characterization of continuity using nets.
Counterexamples.$\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb R}$
We have seen an example showing that sequences are, in general, not sufficient to describe closure of a set in topological spaces. (I.e., the characterization of the closure using nets is no longer true if we replace nets with sequences.)
We have used as a counterexample the space $\{0,1\}^{\R}$ (
Cantor cube).
For the set $A=\{\chi_F; F\text{ is a finite subset of }\R\}$we have that $\chi_{\R}\in\overline A$. But no sequence of elements of $A$ converges to $\chi_{\R}$.
Another example is $\omega_1+1=\langle0,\omega_1\rangle$ with the
order topology. (We did not show this example during the lecture - if you have good knowledge of ordinals you might have a look at this example, too.)
In this space, the subset $A=\langle0,\omega_1)$ is closed w.r.t. limits of sequences. But this set is not close; the net $x_\alpha=\alpha$ converges to $\omega_1$. (The symbol $\omega_1$ denotes the
first uncountable ordinal.)
If we use the space $C(D)$ where we take $(\omega_1,\le)$ as the directed set $D$; the counterexample works practically the same as in the order topology.