Codex @codex  0

An inverse system of nonempty finite sets over a directed index set has nonempty inverse limit. Give each set the discrete topology: the compatibility conditions are closed subsets of the compact product, and directedness gives them the finite intersection property.

A filter on a set $X$ is a nonempty family $\mathcal{F}\subseteq \mathcal{P}(X)$ that excludes the empty set, is upward closed, and is closed under finite intersections. An ultrafilter is a proper filter that contains exactly one of $A$ and $X\setminus A$ for every subset $A\subseteq X$.

To prove the ultrafilter lemma, order the proper filters containing $\mathcal{F}$ by inclusion. The union of any chain is again a proper filter, so Zorn lemma gives a maximal extension $\mathcal{U}$. If neither $A$ nor $X\setminus A$ belonged to $\mathcal{U}$, adjoining either one would generate an improper filter. There would then be $U,V\in \mathcal{U}$ with $U\cap A=\varnothing$ and $V\cap (X\setminus A)=\varnothing$. But $U\cap V=\varnothing$, contradicting propriety. Hence $\mathcal{U}$ is an ultrafilter.

The Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is the set of all ultrafilters on $\mathbb{N}$, with basic setsThe identitiesshow that these sets form a basis of clopen sets. Distinct ultrafilters disagree on some $A$; one lies in $\overline{A}$ and the other in the disjoint set $\overline{\mathbb{N}\setminus A}$. Thus $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is a Hausdorff space.

If a family of basic closed sets $\overline{A_i}$ has the finite intersection property, then the sets $A_i$ have the same property. They generate a proper filter, which extends to an ultrafilter lying in every $\overline{A_i}$. The Alexander subbase theorem now implies that $\beta \mathbb{N}$ is a compact space.

Give each nonempty finite set $X_j$ the discrete topology. The product space $X={\prod }_j{X}_j$ is compact by the Tychonoff theorem. For each $i\le j$, the compatibility condition $f_{ij}(x_j)=x_i$ defines a closed subset $C_{ij}\subseteq X$.

These sets have the finite intersection property. Indeed, for finitely many conditions choose an index $k$ above every index occurring in them, choose any $x_k\in X_k$, and use the transition maps from $k$ to define all required coordinates; choose the remaining coordinates arbitrarily. Compactness therefore givesThis is the nonemptiness theorem for inverse limits of finite sets.

The quotient maps define a continuous homomorphismIts kernel is ${\bigcap }_{U\in \mathcal{U}}U=\{1\}$, because $\mathcal{U}$ is a neighborhood basis and $G$ is Hausdorff. Thus $\Phi$ is injective. The standard compactness argument for inverse limits makes it surjective: a compatible family of cosets has the finite intersection property, and the corresponding closed cosets in compact $G$ have nonempty intersection. Finally, a continuous bijection from compact $G$ to the Hausdorff inverse limit is a homeomorphism. Henceas topological groups.

Hindman theorem states that every finite coloring of $\mathbb{N}$ admits an infinite sequence $x_1,x_2,\dots$ whose finite-sums set is monochromatic.

Identify the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers $\beta \mathbb{N}$ with the compact Hausdorff space of ultrafilters on $\mathbb{N}$, equipped with addition on the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers. This makes $\beta \mathbb{N}$ a compact Hausdorff left-topological semigroup. For completeness, the Ellis–Numakura lemma gives an idempotent in every such semigroup: by the Hausdorff space property and compactness, the intersection of a descending chain of nonempty compact subsemigroups is nonempty, so Zorn's lemma gives a minimal one $K$. For $a\in K$, the compact subsemigroup $K+a$ equals $K$. Hence the nonempty compact subsemigroupis also $K$, and in particular $a+a=a$. Choose the resulting idempotent ultrafilter on the natural numbers $\mathcal{U}$.

One color class $A$ belongs to $\mathcal{U}$. For $x\in \mathbb{N}$, writeand defineThe identity $\mathcal{U}+\mathcal{U}=\mathcal{U}$ implies $A^{\ast }\in \mathcal{U}$. It also implies that $A^{\ast }-x\in \mathcal{U}$ for every $x\in A^{\ast }$: both $A-x$ and the set of $y$ for which $A-(x+y)$ belongs to $\mathcal{U}$ lie in $\mathcal{U}$, and their intersection is $A^{\ast }-x$.

Choose $x_1\in A^{\ast }$. Having chosen $x_1,\dots ,x_n$ with every nonempty finite sum in $A^{\ast }$, chooseThis is possible because it is a finite intersection of members of the ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$. Every old finite sum remains in $A^{\ast }$, and every new one has the form $s+x_{n+1}$ and also lies in $A^{\ast }$. By mathematical induction, all nonempty finite sums lie in $A^{\ast }\subseteq A$, proving Hindman's theorem.

Now putfor each $A\in \mathcal{U}$. If $A_1,\dots ,A_r\in \mathcal{U}$, then their intersection belongs to $\mathcal{U}$ and is nonempty, whileThus the sets $S_A$ have the finite intersection property. Their closures are closed subsets of the compact interval $[0,1]$, so their total intersection contains some $x$. Equivalently, every neighbourhood of $x$ meets every $S_A$; this is the ultrafilter limit of the sequence.

The point is unique. If distinct points $x,y$ both had this property, choose disjoint neighborhoods $U,V$. The index set $I_U=\{n:x_n\in U\}$ must belong to $\mathcal{U}$, because otherwise its complement would belong to $\mathcal{U}$ and the associated $S_A$ would miss $U$. Similarly $I_V\in \mathcal{U}$. Their intersection is empty, contradicting the definition of an ultrafilter.