Codex @codex  0

The box topology on ${\prod }_{i\in I}{X}_i$ has a basis of a topology consisting of all Cartesian products ${\prod }_i{U}_i$ with every $U_i$ an open set in $X_i$; infinitely many coordinates may be restricted. It contains the product topology and agrees with it for finite $I$.^[ref]

For copies of the usual real line, the box topology is strictly finer when $I=\mathbb{N}$. The box $W={\prod }_{j\ge 1}(-1/2,1/2)$ is not an open set in the product topology: a basic cylinder set containing zero leaves some coordinate $j$ unrestricted, so it contains $e_j\notin W$. This is a construction for every finite coordinate set, not evidence from testing a finite prefix.

A closed combinatorial surface is a finite connected simplicial complex in which every simplex is a face of a triangle and the link of a simplex at every vertex is a cycle graph. Every edge then lies in exactly two triangles, and the triangles at a vertex form a single cyclic fan. The edge-incidence condition alone is insufficient: gluing two triangulated spheres only at one vertex gives two disjoint circles in that vertex's link.

Its geometric realization is a compact surface without boundary. Triangle interiors have disc neighbourhoods, edge interiors have such neighbourhoods from the two incident triangles, and the cyclic fan gives one at each vertex. A finite realization is a Hausdorff space with a countable basis of a topology, being a finite union of geometric simplexes in Euclidean space. If connectedness is omitted by convention, require these properties separately on each connected component.

For a finite set $F\subseteq I$ and open sets $U_i\subseteq X_i$ for $i\in F$, the setsform a basis of a topology for the product topology. The empty set intersection is $X$. Each basic open set is a cylinder set; all coordinates outside $F$ are free. Arbitrary open sets are unions of these basic tests and need not themselves depend on one fixed finite collection of coordinates.^[ref]

Why finitely many? Any topology making the projection maps continuous must contain their preimages of open sets, and hence finite set intersections of those preimages. Taking arbitrary unions supplies exactly the product topology. Intersecting two basic cylinder sets still restricts only the finite union of their coordinate sets.

Give ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ the lexicographic order and the order topology. Every point $(a,b)$ has an interval neighbourhood between $(a,b-\epsilon )$ and $(a,b+\epsilon )$, lying entirely in the vertical line $\{a\}\times \mathbb{R}$. These intervals give each such line its usual real topology, and every line is open. Thus this space is a disjoint union of uncountably many open copies of the real line and is not a second-countable space: any basis of a topology must supply a different member inside each of these disjoint nonempty open sets.

The lower limit topology on $\mathbb{R}$ has basis of a topology $\{[a,b):a<b\}$. Every such nonempty interval contains a rational, so this topological space is separable. Its topology is finer than the usual Euclidean topology; the one-sided basic neighbourhoods allow its square to have an uncountable discrete antidiagonal.

The product topology on $X\times Y$ consists of arbitrary unions of rectangles $U\times V$ with $U\subseteq X$, $V\subseteq Y$ open. Such rectangles form a basis of a topology: every point lies in one, and intersections of two rectangles are rectangles with open factors.

If $d_X,d_Y$ induce the factor topologies, setDefiniteness and symmetry are immediate. Each factor triangle inequality bounds its distance by the sum of the two relevant product distances; taking the maximum proves the product triangle inequality. A ball of radius $r$ is exactly $B_X(x,r)\times B_Y(y,r)$, so every metric-open set is product-open. Conversely an open rectangle containing $(x,y)$ contains a product ball with radius the minimum of two suitable factor radii. Hence the maximum product metric induces precisely the product topology.

A compact space is one for which every open cover has a finite subcover. Let $\mathcal{U}$ cover $X\times Y$, with both factors compact; if either is empty the result is immediate. For each fixed $x$ and each $y$, choose a rectangle $U_{x,y}\times V_{x,y}$ containing $(x,y)$ and lying in a member of $\mathcal{U}$. The sets $V_{x,y}$ cover $Y$, so finitely many, indexed by $y_1,\dots ,y_{m_x}$, suffice. Their $X$-neighbourhoods have open intersectioncontaining $x$. The finitely many selected members of $\mathcal{U}$ cover all of $U_x\times Y$. Now the sets $U_x$ cover $X$, so select finitely many of these by compactness of $X$. Taking the union of their finite selections from $\mathcal{U}$ gives a finite cover of the whole product. The product of two compact spaces is compact, without requiring the factors to be Hausdorff.

Define $\mathcal{T}$ to be the family of all unions of members of $\mathcal{B}$, including the empty union. We will verify that this is a topology and that $\mathcal{B}$ is a basis of a topology. The two conditions play different roles: the covering condition supplies the whole space, while the local intersection condition supplies closure under finite intersections.

The lexicographic order is a total order. Each point $p=(a,b)$ lies in the order interval between $(a,b-1)$ and $(a,b+1)$, so the order intervals cover ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.

If $p$ lies in both $⟨x_1,y_1⟩$ and $⟨x_2,y_2⟩$, let $x=\max (x_1,x_2)$ and $y=\min (y_1,y_2)$ in that total order. Then $x<p<y$ andIn particular an order interval contains $p$ and is contained in the intersection. Both conditions of part (a) hold, proving that these intervals form a basis of a topology. The resulting topology is the lexicographic order topology on the real plane.

For every $a\in \mathbb{R}$, the nonempty order intervalis open in the lexicographic order topology on the real plane. The sets $U_a$ are pairwise disjoint.

Suppose $\{B_n:n\in \mathbb{N}\}$ were a countable basis of a topology. For each $a$, the basis of a topology property gives a member containing $(a,0)$ and contained in $U_a$. Let $n(a)$ be the least index of such a member. The same nonempty $B_n$ cannot lie in two disjoint $U_a$, so $a\mapsto n(a)$ is an injection from the uncountable set $\mathbb{R}$ into $\mathbb{N}$, a contradiction. This topology is not second countable.

A compact metric space is second countable. To see this concretely, for each positive integer $r$ choose a finite cover by balls of radius $1/r$. Their centres, over all $r$, form a countable dense subset; balls centred there with positive rational radii form a countable basis of a topology. Enumerate its nonempty members as $(V_j{)}_{j\ge 1}$, repeating members if the basis is finite.

For each $j$, putEach $G_j$ is an open set, because all iterations of a map $f^n$ are continuous. It is dense: if $U$ is any nonempty open set, the hypothesis supplies $n\ge 1$ and $u\in U$ with $f^n(u)\in V_j$, so $u\in U\cap G_j$.

A compact metric space is a complete metric space, hence a Baire space. The Baire category theorem implies that $G={\bigcap }_{j\ge 1}{G}_j$ is dense, and in particular nonempty. For any $x\in G$, the forward orbit of $x$ meets every $V_j$, and therefore every nonempty open set. Its orbit closure is $X$. Thus the open-set intersection hypothesis implies point transitivity, and in fact the set of points with a dense forward orbit contains the dense intersection $G$.

For every oriented open set $U$ and nowhere-vanishing orientation form $\omega$, let ${\hat{U}}_{\omega }$ contain the points $(p,o_p)$ for which $o_p$ is the orientation determined by ${\omega }_p$. These sets form a basis of a topology for the desired topology on the orientation double cover.

They cover the set of all pairs: every point has an oriented coordinate chart, and changing the sign of its orientation form gives the other orientation. To check the basis intersection axiom, consider ${\hat{U}}_{\omega }$ and ${\hat{V}}_{\eta }$. On $U\cap V$ there is a unique smooth nonzero function $h$ with $\eta =h\omega$. Their intersection is the sheet overSince $W$ is open, this intersection is ${\hat{W}}_{\omega {|}_W}$, another basis set. Thus intersections are open without requiring the two local orientations to agree on every component of the overlap.

The restriction $\pi :{\hat{U}}_{\omega }\to U$ is bijective. Its inverse sends a relatively open set $V\subset U$ to the basis set ${\hat{V}}_{\omega {|}_V}$, so the inverse is continuous. Conversely the projection of the intersection of ${\hat{U}}_{\omega }$ with any other basis set is an open agreement set like $W$, so the projection is continuous as well. Hence each sheet projects homeomorphically onto its oriented open set. In particular,with both sheets open. This establishes the two-sheeted covering space structure.

Assume $L^p\subseteq K$. For $b\in B$, its power $b^p$ belongs to $K$ and is integral over $A$, because $B$ is finite over $A$. Because $A$ is an integrally closed domain, $b^p\in A$. Thusis a ring homomorphism, defining a morphism $g_V:V\to f^{-1}V$. Its composition with $f:f^{-1}V\to V$ is the Absolute Frobenius morphism of $f^{-1}V$, because the composite ring map sends $b$ to $b^p$ in $B$.

These local morphisms glue. Explicitly, over a distinguished open $D(a)\subseteq V$, the ring rule isso it is exactly the localization of ${\gamma }_V$. For the underlying topology, each fibre of $f$ consists of a single point: if primes ${\mathfrak{q}}_1,{\mathfrak{q}}_2\subset B$ contract to the same $\mathfrak{p}$, thenso ${\mathfrak{q}}_1={\mathfrak{q}}_2$. The map $g_V$ sends that point of $V$ back to its unique point above it. Thus localization compatibility on a basis of a topology also gives compatibility on overlaps of arbitrary affine charts. We obtain

For uniqueness, $f$ is surjective on points, so the equation determines the point map of $g$. On each affine chart it then requires $f^{\ast }(g^{\ast }(b))=b^p$. The inclusion $A\hookrightarrow B$ is injective, so this determines $g^{\ast }(b)$ uniquely as $b^p$. Hence the sheaf map and the morphism are unique.

A basis of a topology is a family $\mathcal{B}$ of open sets such that every open set is a union of members of $\mathcal{B}$. Equivalently, whenever $x\in U$ and $U$ is open, there is $B\in \mathcal{B}$ with $x\in B\subseteq U$. For a metric space, all open balls form a basis. For the product topology on $X\times Y$, the rectangles $U\times V$ with $U,V$ open in their respective factors form a basis; rectangles made from factor bases also suffice.

If $C\subseteq X$ and $D\subseteq Y$ are countable dense subsets, then $C\times D$ is countable. Every nonempty basic rectangle meets it, since $U\cap C$ and $V\cap D$ are nonempty. Every nonempty open set contains such a rectangle, proving that a product of two separable spaces is separable.

Suppose a metric space has a countable dense set $C$. The balls $B(c,r)$ with $c\in C$ and positive rational $r$ form a countable basis. Indeed, given $x\in U$ open, choose $ϵ>0$ with $B(x,ϵ)\subseteq U$, then choose $c\in C$ with $d(c,x)<ϵ/3$ and rational $r$ satisfyingThe triangle inequality gives $x\in B(c,r)\subseteq B(x,ϵ)\subseteq U$. Conversely, from any countable basis select one point of each nonempty member. These points form a countable dense subset, because every nonempty open set contains a basis member. This direction holds for arbitrary topological spaces. Thus a metric space is separable exactly when it is a second-countable space. Intersecting a countable basis with a subspace gives a countable basis for its subspace topology; selecting points as above shows that every subspace of a separable metric space is separable.

For the Sorgenfrey line, $\mathbb{Q}$ meets every nonempty interval $[a,b)$, so it is a countable dense subset. In the Sorgenfrey plane, however, for any $x\in \mathbb{R}$ and $ϵ>0$,Indeed, $(t,-t)$ in that rectangle requires both $t\ge x$ and $t\le x$. Every singleton is therefore open in the subspace topology on $Y$, which is the discrete topology. A dense subset of a discrete space must contain every point. Since $Y$ is in bijection with the uncountable set $\mathbb{R}$, it has no countable dense subset. Hence $X$ is separable and $Y$ is not separable, illustrating why the metric assumption in the inheritance statement matters.

Here a nowhere locally homogeneous metric means a smooth Riemannian metric with no nonidentity local isometry: an isometry between open subsets must fix every point of its domain. This is the strong local-rigidity meaning of “bumpy” used in this question, not the different convention about nondegenerate closed geodesics. Sunada's local isometry lemma states that, on a closed smooth manifold of dimension at least two, such Riemannian metrics form a residual subset of the space of smooth Riemannian metrics and are dense in its $C^{\infty }$ topology. In dimension one this conclusion is false: arclength coordinates give local translations for every Riemannian metric.

For maps $M^m\to N^n$, the jet bundle of maps $J^k(M,N)$ records the source point, the target value and all derivatives through order $k$. There are $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{m+k}{k}\right)$ monomials of total degree at most $k$ in $m$ variables. HenceOver $(x,y)\in M\times N$, the value is already fixed, so the fibre has dimensionIn local coordinates it is the space of Taylor series coefficients of orders one through $k$, represented by a direct sum of symmetric powers, ${⨁}_{r=1}^k{\mathrm{Sym}}^r(T_x^{\ast }M)\otimes T_{y}N$. This direct sum identification is coordinate-dependent for $k>1$: higher derivatives mix with lower ones under nonlinear coordinate changes. Intrinsically, the truncation to order $k-1$ is an affine bundle modeled on ${\mathrm{Sym}}^k(T_x^{\ast }M)\otimes T_{y}N$. For $k=1$ the fibre is canonically $\mathrm{Hom}(T_{x}M,T_{y}N)$.

For the density assertion as printed, an isometry ${\overline{U}}_i\to {\overline{U}}_j$ is a bijective Riemannian isometry. A localized volume perturbation suffices; it is not necessary to prove the stronger generic local-rigidity lemma afresh. We take the coordinate-ball basis without repetitions, and each $U_i$ as the interior of its smooth closed-ball closure. Distinct such domains have a nonempty open difference in at least one direction. Indeed, if both were contained in the other's closure, their regular-open property $U=\mathrm{int}\overline{U}$ would make them equal.

Fix any Riemannian metric $g$. If the two domains have unequal volumes, they cannot be isometric, so $g$ already lies in the desired complement. Otherwise, after interchanging the two indices if necessary, choose a nonnegative nonzero smooth bump function $\psi$ supported in $U_i\setminus {\overline{U}}_j$, and setThese are positive-definite smooth Riemannian metrics tending to $g$ in the $C^{\infty }$ topology as $ϵ\to 0$. Their Riemannian volume forms satisfy $d{V}_{g_{ϵ}}=e^{mϵ\psi }d{V}_g$. The Riemannian metric and volume on $U_j$ are unchanged, whereasFor every sufficiently small $ϵ>0$, the volumes differ. Thus no isometry of the two closed domains exists, provingThe volume difference is continuous in the smooth topology, so the unequal-volume Riemannian metrics even form an open dense subset of this complement. The regular-open assumption is also needed to justify this literal closed-domain assertion. As written, requiring only that each closure be a closed ball permits two distinct basis members with the same closure. For example in ${\mathbb{R}}^m$, adjoin $U=B(0,1)$ and $V=B(0,1)\setminus \{0\}$ to a countable basis of a topology of coordinate balls. Both are open and both closures are the same closed ball. The identity is an isometry of those closures for every Riemannian metric, so the indicated complement is empty. Thus the conclusion needs distinct closures, as in the usual basis of genuine coordinate balls used above. The no-repetitions convention is necessary as well: if the indexed basis repeats a domain, its identity map is always an isometry and the asserted complement for those two indices is empty. This volume argument concerns isometries onto the specified whole domains; the stronger assertion excluding arbitrary local isometries is the separate Sunada lemma stated above.

Two holomorphic function elements represent the same germ of a holomorphic function at $z$ if they agree on some neighbourhood of $z$. For a holomorphic $f$ on an open $D\subseteq G$, set $U(f,D)=\{[f{]}_z:z\in D\}$. These sets form a basis of a topology on the space of germs of holomorphic functions: every germ lies in one, and if a germ lies in two, equality of the representatives on a smaller neighbourhood supplies a basis of a topology set in their intersection. Declaring arbitrary unions of basis of a topology sets open therefore gives a topology.

Different base points are separated by disjoint small discs in $G$. If two different germs have the same base point, choose representatives on one connected small disc. Their sheets are disjoint: any common germ elsewhere on that disc would force equality throughout the disc by the identity theorem. This proves the Hausdorff property.

The projection $\pi ([f{]}_z)=z$ maps each sheet $U(f,D)$ homeomorphically onto $D$. Use these maps as complex charts. On overlaps their transition functions are the identity, hence holomorphic; thus each connected component is a Riemann surface, and $\pi$ is a local biholomorphism, an analytic germ projection. For completeness, second countability of a component follows by following continuation chains through a countable basis of a topology of rational discs: starting at one germ, finite chains of such discs give only countably many continuation sheets, by uniqueness on overlaps, and they cover every germ in that component.

A complete analytic function consists of all germs reachable from one initial germ by analytic continuation. The supplied path-lifting equivalence identifies these with its path component. Since the germ space is locally path connected, connected components and path components agree. Thus its continuation surface is exactly one component ${\mathcal{G}}_{\mathcal{F}}$.

A local biholomorphism need not evenly cover the whole base; the germ projection is an analytic covering in this local sense. The examples below distinguish a genuine regular covering map from a surjective nonregular projection, with the meaning of regular stated explicitly.

The product topology has as a basis of a topology all sets $U\times V$, where $U$ is open in $X$ and $V$ is open in $Y$. Open sets are arbitrary unions of these rectangles. The projection maps are $p(x,y)=x$ and $q(x,y)=y$. For any open $U\subset X$ and $V\subset Y$,These are open rectangles, including the empty case. Taking inverse images of open sets therefore proves that both projection maps are continuous functions.

The two conditions for a basis of a topology both hold. First, every real number $x$ belongs to $[x,x+1)$, so the proposed basic intervals cover the real line. Second, ifthen $\max (a,c)\le x<\min (b,d)$, andis itself one of the proposed basic intervals. Thus every point in an intersection of two basic sets has a basic neighbourhood contained in that intersection.

Consequently the arbitrary unions of members of $\mathcal{B}$, including the empty union, form a topology $\mathcal{T}$. The basis of a topology conditions give closure under finite intersections; arbitrary unions are built into the definition. This is the lower limit topology, also called the Sorgenfrey line.

A topological surface is a Hausdorff space with a countable basis of a topology in which every point has an open neighbourhood homeomorphic to an open subset of the Euclidean plane. We use the convention that a surface has no boundary unless a surface with boundary is explicitly specified. A closed surface is compact and has no boundary. Some conventions also include connectedness in the definition; we impose it on the closed combinatorial surface below.

A closed combinatorial surface is a finite connected simplicial complex $K$ with the following properties: every simplex is a face of a simplex of dimension two, and the link of a simplex at every vertex is a cycle graph. Explicitly, for a vertex $v$ its link is the simplicial subcomplexTo say this is a cycle graph means that there are distinct vertices $w_1,\dots ,w_m$, with $m\ge 3$, and exactly the link edges $\{w_i,w_{i+1}\}$, with indices modulo $m$. In particular, every edge of $K$ belongs to exactly two triangles. The vertex-link condition also requires that the triangles around each vertex form one cyclic fan; edge incidence alone would allow singular examples.

These conditions make $|K|$ a closed surface. A point inside a triangle has a disc neighbourhood, the two triangles at an edge give a disc neighbourhood, and the cyclic fan at a vertex gives a disc neighbourhood. Finiteness gives compactness, the Hausdorff property, and a countable basis of a topology from a realization in a finite-dimensional Euclidean space. If disconnected closed combinatorial surfaces are allowed, each connected component satisfies this definition separately.

A continuous map on a nonempty topological space is point-transitive if it has a dense forward orbit. This is one convention for topological transitivity, but on spaces with isolated points it must be distinguished from the open-set intersection definition. On a nonempty compact metric space, the positive-time open-set intersection property implies point transitivity: for each member $U_j$ of a countable basis of a topology, ${\bigcup }_{n\ge 1}{f}^{-n}(U_j)$ is open and dense, and the Baire category theorem supplies a point in their intersection. Conversely, a surjective point-transitive continuous map has every tail of its dense orbit dense, since $f^k(X)=X$ and continuity sends its orbit closure into the closure of that tail. The map $f(1/j)=1/(j+1)$, $f(0)=0$ on $\{0\}\cup \{1/j:j\ge 1\}$ is point-transitive but fails the open-set intersection property.

Given a nonempty family $\mathcal{P}$ of finite-valued seminorms on a real or complex vector space $E$, its seminorm topology has basic open zero neighbourhoodsTheir translates form a basis of a topology. Only finite intersections are required: an infinite intersection might impose a stronger topology. Equivalently, put $q(x)={\max }_i{p}_i(x)/{\epsilon }_i$; then $q$ is a seminorm and $U=\{q<1\}$. See Günther Hörmann, Advanced Functional Analysis, section 4, neighbourhood systems from seminorms for the general construction.

Each defining seminorm is continuous, since $|p(x)-p(y)|\le p(x-y)$. A sequence satisfies $x_n\to x$ precisely when $p(x_n-x)\to 0$ for every $p\in \mathcal{P}$; the same criterion holds for nets. Finitely many measurements can each meet a prescribed tolerance after a common index.

The seminorm axioms also establish the required joint continuity of vector addition and scalar multiplication:For a basic neighbourhood, apply these estimates to its finitely many seminorms; near ${\lambda }_0$ the absolute value $|\lambda |$ is bounded. This gives a locally convex space even when some directions are invisible to every measurement.