- iff
- The triangle inequality holds:
Before looking further lets see some examples of metrics
- : with this metric a ball is a circle
- : , the so called manhattan distance because in manhattan you have to go along the streets locking you onto a grid, this makes balls into diamonds
- : , the maximum distance in any direction, a ball here pushes in each dimension to get to the radius, inducing a ball to be a square
Note that this shows that the metric topologies are a subset of the T2 topologies, since we know not every topology is T2, then we know that not every topology is metrizable.
We show that so let be a basis element in the box topology, therefore where then the sequence , so that as needed.
Now for the sake of contradiction suppose that in othere words there exists a sequence which is a sequence of positive sequences such that . Now we will construct a specific neighborhood of , it is form where which is the first element of the first sequence of positive sequences that converge to , with this idea it's true that as the first coordinate has as it is a little too large (and in order to be in the product you must be in each). Moving in this manner we make it so that so that but at the same time so it's not true that all but finitely many of the elements of the sequence belong to , specifically none of them are!
We already know that one of the inclusions hold so we work on the other, to that end let and pick any that induces the topology of . Then for any then is an open neighborhood of so we know so let be in that intersection and we'll prove that which would show that .
So let be a neihborhood of then is a union of balls from the metric d in other words there exists some and such that but since balls are open then there exists some such that , the reason for considering this centered ball around is that now we know that by using then for any we have that and therefore since so that all but finitely many elements of are in as needed.
Firstly note that for any we have that and also therefore since both map into so does .
If then so that , for the other direction we work with the contraposive so assume that and then we'll prove that but note that and same with because they are metrics, and therefore the max of the two is also so we are done.
Note
Now suppose that then is either equal to or suppose the latter, then and in the other case it works for by the same argument.
Let be metrizable spaces, with metrics given by respectively, and we define the following metric: we know that is a metric and so now we'll show that it induces the product topology of . Formally we are going to prove that the topology induced by equals the product topology by comparing basis elements
Let and let be a basis element from the product space and take and we claim that while that seems a bit intimidating its really just unrolling the definitions, for the inclusion suppose a point which means that expanding out more definitions that is Now be sure to note that is smaller than or equal to the leftmost thing there are that is greater than or equal to rightmost thing there. Now we want to show that which is to say that which means but this is true from what we just noted, symmetrically we also get that showing the inclusion true.
Let so consider a basis element of the induced topology of it is of the form and we claim that to see why this holds, note that if then we know that and that so that so as needed, therefore the two topologies are equal.
Let we will prove that must converge to 0. If we take any and consider the open neighborhood containing which is B _ \bar \rho \left( x, \epsilon \right) ParseError: Got function '\bar' with no arguments as subscript at position 5: B _ \̲b̲a̲r̲ ̲\rho \left( x, … then we know that there is some y \in B _ \bar \rho \left( x, \epsilon \right) \cap \mathbb{ R } ^ \infty ParseError: Got function '\bar' with no arguments as subscript at position 12: y \in B _ \̲b̲a̲r̲ ̲\rho \left( x, … where , recall that since it eventually becomes zero, specifically there is some such that for all we have that but then we know that: So for any we have that , since was arbitrary we've shown that converges to .
Now suppose that is a sequence of numbers that converge to , we will now show that so let and we consider the basis element . But since then we know there is some such that for all we have now let's construct wherein we have (so that ) then for and then for any set (also note that for this we know that . Also the sup over is equal to epsilon by our construction (coming from the first term, the rest being zeros), so we have that : which is to say that so that it intersects in a place other than so that as needed.
- is not open
To prove the first one we leverage the main mechanic of the supremum, so suppose we had a sequence such that for any then by constructing then its true that because in each component we have that since , but then note that and so in the supremum as this converges to then we must have that (it could not be less than it, or else it would not even be an upper bound). So we have , therefore they are not equal.
We will show that is not open by finding a point in it such that you can not find a basis element containing it which is contained in , to do this we use the same construction of for which we knew that . So suppose that there was some where that was contained within , but now since then there exists some such that for any , we have , now we construct an element as follows, we let for whenever we have and whenever with this construction we can show that to do this we note that whenever and that so that is an upper bound of all these distances so that the supremum over all of them is at most therefore we have that so indeed , but we also note that the reason why is that for any then we know that and thus so that . Thus in total what we've shown is that there is a point inside of such that you cannot fit a basis element around and still be contained in , therefore is not an open set.
We start with a point on the left, that is in that case we know that then if we consider any such that then we can be sure that , this is true because the sup of all distances is upper bounded by meaning that in each component we know that , so that . Now taking a point from the right, and calling it again, that is then by definition there is some such that in other words for each we have that so that so that