In topology and related areas of mathematics, a subnet is a generalization of the concept of subsequence to the case of nets. The analogue of "subsequence" for nets is the notion of a "subnet". The definition is not completely straightforward, but is designed to allow as many theorems about subsequences to generalize to nets as possible.
There are three non-equivalent definitions of "subnet".
The first definition of a subnet was introduced by John L. Kelley in 1955 and later, Stephen Willard introduced his own (non-equivalent) variant of Kelley's definition in 1970.
Subnets in the sense of Willard and subnets in the sense of Kelley are the most commonly used definitions of "subnet" but they are each not equivalent to the concept of "subordinate filter", which is the analog of "subsequence" for filters (they are not equivalent in the sense that there exist subordinate filters on
whose filter/subordinate–filter relationship cannot be described in terms of the corresponding net/subnet relationship).
A third definition of "subnet" (not equivalent to those given by Kelley or Willard) that is equivalent to the concept of "subordinate filter" was introduced independently by Smiley (1957), Aarnes and Andenaes (1972), Murdeshwar (1983), and possibly others, although it is not often used.
This article discusses the definition due to Willard (the other definitions are described in the article Filters in topology#Non–equivalence of subnets and subordinate filters).
Definitions
There are several different non-equivalent definitions of "subnet" and this article will use the definition introduced in 1970 by Stephen Willard, which is as follows:
If
and
are nets in a set
from directed sets
and
respectively, then
is said to be a subnet of
(in the sense of Willard or a Willard–subnet) if there exists a monotone final function
such that
A function
is monotone, order-preserving, and an order homomorphism if whenever
then
and it is called final if its image
is cofinal in
The set
being cofinal in
means that for every
there exists some
such that
that is, for every
there exists an
such that
[note 1]
Since the net
is the function
and the net
is the function
the defining condition
may be written more succinctly and cleanly as either
or
where
denotes function composition and
is just notation for the function
Subnets versus subsequences
Importantly, a subnet is not merely the restriction of a net
to a directed subset of its domain
In contrast, by definition, a subsequence of a given sequence
is a sequence formed from the given sequence by deleting some of the elements without disturbing the relative positions of the remaining elements. Explicitly, a sequence
is said to be a subsequence of
if there exists a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers
such that
for every
(that is to say, such that
). The sequence
can be canonically identified with the function
defined by
Thus a sequence
is a subsequence of
if and only if there exists a strictly increasing function
such that
Subsequences are subnets
Every subsequence is a subnet because if
is a subsequence of
then the map
defined by
is an order-preserving map whose image is cofinal in its codomain and satisfies
for all
Sequence and subnet but not a subsequence
The sequence
is not a subsequence of
although it is a subnet because the map
defined by
is an order-preserving map whose image is
and satisfies
for all
[note 2]
While a sequence is a net, a sequence has subnets that are not subsequences. The key difference is that subnets can use the same point in the net multiple times and the indexing set of the subnet can have much larger cardinality. Using the more general definition where we do not require monotonicity, a sequence is a subnet of a given sequence, if and only if it can be obtained from some subsequence by repeating its terms and reordering them.[2]
Subnet of a sequence that is not a sequence
A subnet of a sequence is not necessarily a sequence.
For an example, let
be directed by the usual order
and define
by letting
be the ceiling of
Then
is an order-preserving map (because it is a non-decreasing function) whose image
is a cofinal subset of its codomain. Let
be any sequence (such as a constant sequence, for instance) and let
for every
(in other words, let
). This net
is not a sequence since its domain
is an uncountable set. However,
is a subnet of the sequence
since (by definition)
holds for every
Thus
is a subnet of
that is not a sequence.
Furthermore, the sequence
is also a subnet of
since the inclusion map
(that sends
) is an order-preserving map whose image
is a cofinal subset of its codomain and
holds for all
Thus
and
are (simultaneously) subnets of each another.
Subnets induced by subsets
Suppose
is an infinite set and
is a sequence. Then
is a net on
that is also a subnet of
(take
to be the inclusion map
). This subnet
in turn induces a subsequence
by defining
as the
smallest value in
(that is, let
and let
for every integer
). In this way, every infinite subset of
induces a canonical subnet that may be written as a subsequence. However, as demonstrated below, not every subnet of a sequence is a subsequence.
Applications
The definition generalizes some key theorems about subsequences:
- A net
converges to
if and only if every subnet of
converges to 
- A net
has a cluster point
if and only if it has a subnet
that converges to 
- A topological space
is compact if and only if every net in
has a convergent subnet (see net for a proof).
Taking
be the identity map in the definition of "subnet" and requiring
to be a cofinal subset of
leads to the concept of a cofinal subnet, which turns out to be inadequate since, for example, the second theorem above fails for the Tychonoff plank if we restrict ourselves to cofinal subnets.
Clustering and closure
If
is a net in a subset
and if
is a cluster point of
then
In other words, every cluster point of a net in a subset belongs to the closure of that set.
If
is a net in
then the set of all cluster points of
in
is equal to
where
for each
Convergence versus clustering
If a net converges to a point
then
is necessarily a cluster point of that net. The converse is not guaranteed in general. That is, it is possible for
to be a cluster point of a net
but for
to not converge to
However, if
clusters at
then there exists a subnet of
that converges to
This subnet can be explicitly constructed from
and the neighborhood filter
at
as follows: make
into a directed set by declaring that
then
and
is a subnet of
since the map
is a monotone function whose image
is a cofinal subset of
and
Thus, a point
is a cluster point of a given net if and only if it has a subnet that converges to
See also
Notes
- ^ Some authors use a more general definition of a subnet. In this definition, the map
is required to satisfy the condition: For every
there exists a
such that
whenever
Such a map is final but not necessarily monotone.
- ^ Indeed, this is because
and
for every
in other words, when considered as functions on
the sequence
is just the identity map on
while
Citations
- ^ Gähler, Werner (1977). Grundstrukturen der Analysis I. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin., Satz 2.8.3, p. 81
References
- Engelking, Ryszard (1989). General Topology. Heldermann Verlag, Berlin. ISBN 3885380064.
- Kelley, John L. (1991). General Topology. Springer. ISBN 3540901256.
- Runde, Volker (2005). A Taste of Topology. Springer. ISBN 978-0387-25790-7.
- Schechter, Eric (1996). Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-622760-4. OCLC 175294365.
- Willard, Stephen (2004) [1970]. General Topology. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-43479-7. OCLC 115240.
|
---|
|
Key concepts | |
---|
Results | |
---|
Properties & Types (list) | |
---|
Constructions | |
---|
Topology & Orders | |
---|
Related | |
---|