Not necesssarily locally compact and locally compact difference
A topological space is said to be locally compact if each point $xin X$ has at least one neighbourhood which is compact.
If $f$ is continuous open mapping of a locally compact space $(X,tau)$ onto a topological space $(Y,tau_1)$ then $(Y,tau_1)$ is locally compact.
If $yin Y$ then there exists a neighbourhood $V$ so that $yin V$. Suppose there exists at least an $x$ such that $f^{-1}(y)=x$ then $f^{-1}(V)$ contains $U$ that is a compact neighbourhood of $x$. Then $yin f(U)subset V$.
In the previous question it was asked:
Prove continuous image of a locally compact space is not necessarily locally compact.
Questions:
1) What is the difference in proof from the present question and the previous one? Why does it change from "not necessarily compact" to "locally compact"?
2) Is my proof right?
Thanks in advance!
general-topology proof-writing
asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:45
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
|
show 1 more comment
A topological space is said to be locally compact if each point $xin X$ has at least one neighbourhood which is compact.
If $f$ is continuous open mapping of a locally compact space $(X,tau)$ onto a topological space $(Y,tau_1)$ then $(Y,tau_1)$ is locally compact.
If $yin Y$ then there exists a neighbourhood $V$ so that $yin V$. Suppose there exists at least an $x$ such that $f^{-1}(y)=x$ then $f^{-1}(V)$ contains $U$ that is a compact neighbourhood of $x$. Then $yin f(U)subset V$.
In the previous question it was asked:
Prove continuous image of a locally compact space is not necessarily locally compact.
Questions:
1) What is the difference in proof from the present question and the previous one? Why does it change from "not necessarily compact" to "locally compact"?
2) Is my proof right?
Thanks in advance!
general-topology proof-writing
asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:45
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
1
@Jakobian : Some people define a neighborhood of $x$ to be a set whose interior contains $x$, so their neighborhoods aren't necessarily open sets. I don't care for that myself, I like neighborhoods to be open sets.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
@Jakobian No, the definition I wrote is the one the book introduce me to.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
Note that in the first question, $f$ is also assumed to be open, not just continuous. That's not the case in the second question.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:53
@MPW I know that. What I do not understand is why the fact the function being open changes to the fact that $(Y,tau_1)$ must be locally continuous.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:55
1
I guess you mean "locally compact", not "locally continuous"? Anyway, the big thing that openness of $f$ gives you is that if $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$, then $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $f(x)$. If $f$ is not open, this isn't necessarily true.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:59
|
show 1 more comment
A topological space is said to be locally compact if each point $xin X$ has at least one neighbourhood which is compact.
If $f$ is continuous open mapping of a locally compact space $(X,tau)$ onto a topological space $(Y,tau_1)$ then $(Y,tau_1)$ is locally compact.
If $yin Y$ then there exists a neighbourhood $V$ so that $yin V$. Suppose there exists at least an $x$ such that $f^{-1}(y)=x$ then $f^{-1}(V)$ contains $U$ that is a compact neighbourhood of $x$. Then $yin f(U)subset V$.
In the previous question it was asked:
Prove continuous image of a locally compact space is not necessarily locally compact.
Questions:
1) What is the difference in proof from the present question and the previous one? Why does it change from "not necessarily compact" to "locally compact"?
2) Is my proof right?
Thanks in advance!
general-topology proof-writing
asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:45
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
A topological space is said to be locally compact if each point $xin X$ has at least one neighbourhood which is compact.
If $f$ is continuous open mapping of a locally compact space $(X,tau)$ onto a topological space $(Y,tau_1)$ then $(Y,tau_1)$ is locally compact.
If $yin Y$ then there exists a neighbourhood $V$ so that $yin V$. Suppose there exists at least an $x$ such that $f^{-1}(y)=x$ then $f^{-1}(V)$ contains $U$ that is a compact neighbourhood of $x$. Then $yin f(U)subset V$.
In the previous question it was asked:
Prove continuous image of a locally compact space is not necessarily locally compact.
Questions:
1) What is the difference in proof from the present question and the previous one? Why does it change from "not necessarily compact" to "locally compact"?
2) Is my proof right?
Thanks in advance!
general-topology proof-writing
general-topology proof-writing
asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:45
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:45
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:45
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:45
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
asked Dec 27 '18 at 14:45
Pedro Gomes
1,7262720
1,7262720
1
@Jakobian : Some people define a neighborhood of $x$ to be a set whose interior contains $x$, so their neighborhoods aren't necessarily open sets. I don't care for that myself, I like neighborhoods to be open sets.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
@Jakobian No, the definition I wrote is the one the book introduce me to.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
Note that in the first question, $f$ is also assumed to be open, not just continuous. That's not the case in the second question.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:53
@MPW I know that. What I do not understand is why the fact the function being open changes to the fact that $(Y,tau_1)$ must be locally continuous.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:55
1
I guess you mean "locally compact", not "locally continuous"? Anyway, the big thing that openness of $f$ gives you is that if $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$, then $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $f(x)$. If $f$ is not open, this isn't necessarily true.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:59
|
show 1 more comment
1
@Jakobian : Some people define a neighborhood of $x$ to be a set whose interior contains $x$, so their neighborhoods aren't necessarily open sets. I don't care for that myself, I like neighborhoods to be open sets.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
@Jakobian No, the definition I wrote is the one the book introduce me to.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
Note that in the first question, $f$ is also assumed to be open, not just continuous. That's not the case in the second question.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:53
@MPW I know that. What I do not understand is why the fact the function being open changes to the fact that $(Y,tau_1)$ must be locally continuous.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:55
1
I guess you mean "locally compact", not "locally continuous"? Anyway, the big thing that openness of $f$ gives you is that if $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$, then $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $f(x)$. If $f$ is not open, this isn't necessarily true.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:59
1
1
@Jakobian : Some people define a neighborhood of $x$ to be a set whose interior contains $x$, so their neighborhoods aren't necessarily open sets. I don't care for that myself, I like neighborhoods to be open sets.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
@Jakobian : Some people define a neighborhood of $x$ to be a set whose interior contains $x$, so their neighborhoods aren't necessarily open sets. I don't care for that myself, I like neighborhoods to be open sets.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
@Jakobian No, the definition I wrote is the one the book introduce me to.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
@Jakobian No, the definition I wrote is the one the book introduce me to.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
Note that in the first question, $f$ is also assumed to be open, not just continuous. That's not the case in the second question.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:53
Note that in the first question, $f$ is also assumed to be open, not just continuous. That's not the case in the second question.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:53
@MPW I know that. What I do not understand is why the fact the function being open changes to the fact that $(Y,tau_1)$ must be locally continuous.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:55
@MPW I know that. What I do not understand is why the fact the function being open changes to the fact that $(Y,tau_1)$ must be locally continuous.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:55
1
1
I guess you mean "locally compact", not "locally continuous"? Anyway, the big thing that openness of $f$ gives you is that if $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$, then $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $f(x)$. If $f$ is not open, this isn't necessarily true.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:59
I guess you mean "locally compact", not "locally continuous"? Anyway, the big thing that openness of $f$ gives you is that if $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$, then $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $f(x)$. If $f$ is not open, this isn't necessarily true.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:59
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
As to 1, the difference is that $f$ is now also assumed to be open, when previously we only had continuity. Note that this immediately "kills" the counterexample to that first question, that uses the identity from a discrete space. This map is only open when the image space also has the discrete topology.
Your proof is sloppy and unclear, and does not explicitly use the extra assumption of openness, which is a bad sign for a proof.
Better: let $f: X to Y$ be continuous open and surjective and $X$ locally compact.
Then $Y$ is locally compact: let $y in Y$ be arbitrary. By ontoness we find $x in X$ with $f(x)=y$. By local compactness of $X$ there is a compact set $C subseteq X$ such that $C$ is a neighbourhood of $x$, i.e. there is an open subset $O$ of $X$ with $x in O subseteq C$.
Now $$y = f(x) in f[O] subseteq f[C]$$
which shows that $f[C]$, which is compact (as $f$ is continuous!) is a neighbourhood of $y$ (as $f[O]$ is open (by openness of $f$!) inside $f[C]$ containing $y$). So $Y$ is locally compact at $y$, and as $y$ was arbitary, everywhere.
Note that we now used all the assumptions on $f$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
Henno Brandsma
105k347114
add a comment |
1) The second question is asking you for an example of topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ and of a function $fcolon Xlongrightarrow Y$ such that:
$f$ is continuous;
$f$ is surjective;
$X$ is locally compact;
$Y$ is not locally compact.
2) You did not justify the assertion that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$. And $f$ doesn't need to have an inverse; therefore, the equality $f^{-1}(y)=x$ makes no sense.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
José Carlos Santos
151k22123224
How should I prove the first? How should I write a proof of the first question so that it does not apply to the second one?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:58
I write instead $f(x)=y$? How should I justify the assertion $f(U)$ is a neighbourhood of $y$?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 15:14
1
You write: take $x$ such that $f(x)=y$. And $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$ because $U$ contains an open set $O$ such that $xin O$ and $Osubset U$. Therefore, since $f$ is open (you did not use this hypothesis) $f(O)$ is open and $yin f(O)subset f(U)$. This proves that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 27 '18 at 15:18
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053996%2fnot-necesssarily-locally-compact-and-locally-compact-difference%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
As to 1, the difference is that $f$ is now also assumed to be open, when previously we only had continuity. Note that this immediately "kills" the counterexample to that first question, that uses the identity from a discrete space. This map is only open when the image space also has the discrete topology.
Your proof is sloppy and unclear, and does not explicitly use the extra assumption of openness, which is a bad sign for a proof.
Better: let $f: X to Y$ be continuous open and surjective and $X$ locally compact.
Then $Y$ is locally compact: let $y in Y$ be arbitrary. By ontoness we find $x in X$ with $f(x)=y$. By local compactness of $X$ there is a compact set $C subseteq X$ such that $C$ is a neighbourhood of $x$, i.e. there is an open subset $O$ of $X$ with $x in O subseteq C$.
Now $$y = f(x) in f[O] subseteq f[C]$$
which shows that $f[C]$, which is compact (as $f$ is continuous!) is a neighbourhood of $y$ (as $f[O]$ is open (by openness of $f$!) inside $f[C]$ containing $y$). So $Y$ is locally compact at $y$, and as $y$ was arbitary, everywhere.
Note that we now used all the assumptions on $f$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
Henno Brandsma
105k347114
add a comment |
As to 1, the difference is that $f$ is now also assumed to be open, when previously we only had continuity. Note that this immediately "kills" the counterexample to that first question, that uses the identity from a discrete space. This map is only open when the image space also has the discrete topology.
Your proof is sloppy and unclear, and does not explicitly use the extra assumption of openness, which is a bad sign for a proof.
Better: let $f: X to Y$ be continuous open and surjective and $X$ locally compact.
Then $Y$ is locally compact: let $y in Y$ be arbitrary. By ontoness we find $x in X$ with $f(x)=y$. By local compactness of $X$ there is a compact set $C subseteq X$ such that $C$ is a neighbourhood of $x$, i.e. there is an open subset $O$ of $X$ with $x in O subseteq C$.
Now $$y = f(x) in f[O] subseteq f[C]$$
which shows that $f[C]$, which is compact (as $f$ is continuous!) is a neighbourhood of $y$ (as $f[O]$ is open (by openness of $f$!) inside $f[C]$ containing $y$). So $Y$ is locally compact at $y$, and as $y$ was arbitary, everywhere.
Note that we now used all the assumptions on $f$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
Henno Brandsma
105k347114
add a comment |
As to 1, the difference is that $f$ is now also assumed to be open, when previously we only had continuity. Note that this immediately "kills" the counterexample to that first question, that uses the identity from a discrete space. This map is only open when the image space also has the discrete topology.
Your proof is sloppy and unclear, and does not explicitly use the extra assumption of openness, which is a bad sign for a proof.
Better: let $f: X to Y$ be continuous open and surjective and $X$ locally compact.
Then $Y$ is locally compact: let $y in Y$ be arbitrary. By ontoness we find $x in X$ with $f(x)=y$. By local compactness of $X$ there is a compact set $C subseteq X$ such that $C$ is a neighbourhood of $x$, i.e. there is an open subset $O$ of $X$ with $x in O subseteq C$.
Now $$y = f(x) in f[O] subseteq f[C]$$
which shows that $f[C]$, which is compact (as $f$ is continuous!) is a neighbourhood of $y$ (as $f[O]$ is open (by openness of $f$!) inside $f[C]$ containing $y$). So $Y$ is locally compact at $y$, and as $y$ was arbitary, everywhere.
Note that we now used all the assumptions on $f$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
Henno Brandsma
105k347114
As to 1, the difference is that $f$ is now also assumed to be open, when previously we only had continuity. Note that this immediately "kills" the counterexample to that first question, that uses the identity from a discrete space. This map is only open when the image space also has the discrete topology.
Your proof is sloppy and unclear, and does not explicitly use the extra assumption of openness, which is a bad sign for a proof.
Better: let $f: X to Y$ be continuous open and surjective and $X$ locally compact.
Then $Y$ is locally compact: let $y in Y$ be arbitrary. By ontoness we find $x in X$ with $f(x)=y$. By local compactness of $X$ there is a compact set $C subseteq X$ such that $C$ is a neighbourhood of $x$, i.e. there is an open subset $O$ of $X$ with $x in O subseteq C$.
Now $$y = f(x) in f[O] subseteq f[C]$$
which shows that $f[C]$, which is compact (as $f$ is continuous!) is a neighbourhood of $y$ (as $f[O]$ is open (by openness of $f$!) inside $f[C]$ containing $y$). So $Y$ is locally compact at $y$, and as $y$ was arbitary, everywhere.
Note that we now used all the assumptions on $f$.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
Henno Brandsma
105k347114
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
Henno Brandsma
105k347114
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
Henno Brandsma
105k347114
answered Dec 27 '18 at 17:45
Henno Brandsma
105k347114
105k347114
add a comment |
add a comment |
1) The second question is asking you for an example of topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ and of a function $fcolon Xlongrightarrow Y$ such that:
$f$ is continuous;
$f$ is surjective;
$X$ is locally compact;
$Y$ is not locally compact.
2) You did not justify the assertion that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$. And $f$ doesn't need to have an inverse; therefore, the equality $f^{-1}(y)=x$ makes no sense.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
José Carlos Santos
151k22123224
How should I prove the first? How should I write a proof of the first question so that it does not apply to the second one?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:58
I write instead $f(x)=y$? How should I justify the assertion $f(U)$ is a neighbourhood of $y$?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 15:14
1
You write: take $x$ such that $f(x)=y$. And $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$ because $U$ contains an open set $O$ such that $xin O$ and $Osubset U$. Therefore, since $f$ is open (you did not use this hypothesis) $f(O)$ is open and $yin f(O)subset f(U)$. This proves that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 27 '18 at 15:18
add a comment |
1) The second question is asking you for an example of topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ and of a function $fcolon Xlongrightarrow Y$ such that:
$f$ is continuous;
$f$ is surjective;
$X$ is locally compact;
$Y$ is not locally compact.
2) You did not justify the assertion that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$. And $f$ doesn't need to have an inverse; therefore, the equality $f^{-1}(y)=x$ makes no sense.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
José Carlos Santos
151k22123224
How should I prove the first? How should I write a proof of the first question so that it does not apply to the second one?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:58
I write instead $f(x)=y$? How should I justify the assertion $f(U)$ is a neighbourhood of $y$?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 15:14
1
You write: take $x$ such that $f(x)=y$. And $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$ because $U$ contains an open set $O$ such that $xin O$ and $Osubset U$. Therefore, since $f$ is open (you did not use this hypothesis) $f(O)$ is open and $yin f(O)subset f(U)$. This proves that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 27 '18 at 15:18
add a comment |
1) The second question is asking you for an example of topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ and of a function $fcolon Xlongrightarrow Y$ such that:
$f$ is continuous;
$f$ is surjective;
$X$ is locally compact;
$Y$ is not locally compact.
2) You did not justify the assertion that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$. And $f$ doesn't need to have an inverse; therefore, the equality $f^{-1}(y)=x$ makes no sense.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
José Carlos Santos
151k22123224
1) The second question is asking you for an example of topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ and of a function $fcolon Xlongrightarrow Y$ such that:
$f$ is continuous;
$f$ is surjective;
$X$ is locally compact;
$Y$ is not locally compact.
2) You did not justify the assertion that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$. And $f$ doesn't need to have an inverse; therefore, the equality $f^{-1}(y)=x$ makes no sense.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
José Carlos Santos
151k22123224
edited Dec 27 '18 at 15:52
answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
José Carlos Santos
151k22123224
answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
José Carlos Santos
151k22123224
answered Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
José Carlos Santos
151k22123224
151k22123224
How should I prove the first? How should I write a proof of the first question so that it does not apply to the second one?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:58
I write instead $f(x)=y$? How should I justify the assertion $f(U)$ is a neighbourhood of $y$?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 15:14
1
You write: take $x$ such that $f(x)=y$. And $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$ because $U$ contains an open set $O$ such that $xin O$ and $Osubset U$. Therefore, since $f$ is open (you did not use this hypothesis) $f(O)$ is open and $yin f(O)subset f(U)$. This proves that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 27 '18 at 15:18
add a comment |
How should I prove the first? How should I write a proof of the first question so that it does not apply to the second one?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:58
I write instead $f(x)=y$? How should I justify the assertion $f(U)$ is a neighbourhood of $y$?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 15:14
1
You write: take $x$ such that $f(x)=y$. And $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$ because $U$ contains an open set $O$ such that $xin O$ and $Osubset U$. Therefore, since $f$ is open (you did not use this hypothesis) $f(O)$ is open and $yin f(O)subset f(U)$. This proves that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 27 '18 at 15:18
How should I prove the first? How should I write a proof of the first question so that it does not apply to the second one?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:58
How should I prove the first? How should I write a proof of the first question so that it does not apply to the second one?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:58
I write instead $f(x)=y$? How should I justify the assertion $f(U)$ is a neighbourhood of $y$?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 15:14
I write instead $f(x)=y$? How should I justify the assertion $f(U)$ is a neighbourhood of $y$?
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 15:14
1
1
You write: take $x$ such that $f(x)=y$. And $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$ because $U$ contains an open set $O$ such that $xin O$ and $Osubset U$. Therefore, since $f$ is open (you did not use this hypothesis) $f(O)$ is open and $yin f(O)subset f(U)$. This proves that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 27 '18 at 15:18
You write: take $x$ such that $f(x)=y$. And $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$ because $U$ contains an open set $O$ such that $xin O$ and $Osubset U$. Therefore, since $f$ is open (you did not use this hypothesis) $f(O)$ is open and $yin f(O)subset f(U)$. This proves that $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $y$.
– José Carlos Santos
Dec 27 '18 at 15:18
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053996%2fnot-necesssarily-locally-compact-and-locally-compact-difference%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
@Jakobian : Some people define a neighborhood of $x$ to be a set whose interior contains $x$, so their neighborhoods aren't necessarily open sets. I don't care for that myself, I like neighborhoods to be open sets.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
@Jakobian No, the definition I wrote is the one the book introduce me to.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:52
Note that in the first question, $f$ is also assumed to be open, not just continuous. That's not the case in the second question.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:53
@MPW I know that. What I do not understand is why the fact the function being open changes to the fact that $(Y,tau_1)$ must be locally continuous.
– Pedro Gomes
Dec 27 '18 at 14:55
1
I guess you mean "locally compact", not "locally continuous"? Anyway, the big thing that openness of $f$ gives you is that if $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$, then $f(U)$ is a neighborhood of $f(x)$. If $f$ is not open, this isn't necessarily true.
– MPW
Dec 27 '18 at 14:59