Processing math: 100%

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Chapter 1, Exercise 1.10: Topological properties of dimension

(a) If Y is any subset of a topological space X, then \dim Y\leq\dim X.

(b) If X is a topological space which is covered by a family of open sets \{U_i\}, then \dim X=\sup\dim U_i.

(c) Give an example of a topological space X and a dense open subset U with \dim U<\dim X.

(d) If Y is a closed subset of an irreducible finite-dimensional topological space X, and if \dim Y=\dim X, then Y=X.

(e) Give an example of a noetherian topological space of infinite dimension.

(a) This is quite trivial: any closed irreducible chain in Y is also such a chain in X, and as such cannot be longer than \dim X.

(b) By (a), each \dim U_i is \leq\dim X and thus \sup\dim U_i\leq X. Consider some chain X_0\subset\dots\subset X_n in X, where n=\dim X. This has maximal length, thus X_0 must be a minimal closed irreducible subset of X. Thus X_0 is a point (more precisely, a singleton). We have X_0\in U_i for some i. Then X_j\cap U_i\neq\emptyset for each j\leq n, since each X_j contains X_0, as does U_i. Further, each U_i\cap X_j\subseteq X_j is irreducible and dense in X_j by Exercise 1.6, and we see that X_j\neq X_{j-1}. Thus we can construct a chain U_i\cap X_0\subset\dots\subset U_i\cap X_n of closed distinct irreducible sets in U_i, but this chain must have length \leq\sup\dim U_i.

(c) When looking for strange counterexamples involving "small" dense sets, the usual place to look is the Sierpinski space X=\{0,1\} with open sets \emptyset,\{1\},\{0,1\}. Note that the longest applicable chain in X is \{1\}\subset\{0,1\}, so \dim X=2, but \dim\{1\}=1 in X. Now, the only closed set containing \{1\} is X itself, so \{1\} is dense but \dim\{1\}<\dim\{0,1\}.

(d) Suppose Y\neq X, and Y_0\subset\dots\subset Y_n is a maximal chain in Y (so n=\dim Y). Then Y_0\subset\dots\subset Y_n\subset X is a longer chain in X satisfying the hypotheses since X is irreducible.

(e) Take any well-ordered set S and give it the topology with closed sets being all initial segments. For example, choose S=\mathbb N=\{0,1,2,\dots\}. This satisfies a descending chain condition, since every chain will eventually reach \{0\}. However, it is infinite-dimensional since \{0\}\subset\{0,1\}\subset\dots is a valid infinite ascending chain.

5 comments:

  1. 1.10a is incorrect. Dimension is defined on a topological space, so the dimension of Y\subset X is its dimension under its induced topology. A chain Z_0\subset\cdots Z_n\subseteq Y can be irreducible and closed in Y, and not in X. In fact, \overline{Z}_i - closure taken in X - are closed and irreducible in X. That fixes the proof, but proving they're irreducible takes a little effort:

    Choose any pair of closed sets A and B with A\cup B=\overline{Z} (note A\subseteq \overline{Z}. From elementary topology, \overline{Z}\cap Y=Z (taking the closure of Z closed in Y can't add any points from Y), so we also have (A\cap Y)\cup(B\cap Y)=Z. These sets are closed in Y, so by Z irreducible in Y, choose WLOG A\cap Y=Z. So A is a closed set containing Z: it contains Z and all limit points of Z. So \overline{Z}\subseteq A. ie, A cannot be a proper subset.

    \overline{Z}\cap Y=Z also implies that the sequence \overline{Z_0}\subset\cdots \overline{Z_n}\subset Y STAYS proper.

    -David

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think in the proof of (c) we have dim X = 1 and dim {1} as 0, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think in (b) you have not established that U_j\cap X_i \neq U_j\cap X_{i+1}. What if X_{i+1} - X_i lives entirely outside U_j? I believe the following additional logic is necessary: if U_j does not meet X_{i+1}-X_i, then X_i \cup (U_j^c \cap X_{i+1})=X_{i+1} gives a decomposition of X_{i+1} into two closed subsets, contradicting that X_{i+1} is assumed irreducible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In part (b), how do you know that points are closed? [I think your proof still goes through, though]

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would say in (c) that dim X=1 and dim{1} is undefined since {1} does not contain any irreducible closed subsets (maybe some convention of -infty, etc.)

    ReplyDelete