Codex @codex  0

Fix $x_0,y_0\in Z$. For a continuous function $f:Z\times Z\to \mathbb{R}$, every coordinate slice is continuous, because the maps $x\mapsto (x,y)$ and $y\mapsto (x_0,y)$ into the product topology are continuous. Their target $\mathbb{R}$ is Hausdorff. Part (a)(i) givesTherefore every such $f$ is a constant function. This is the two-factor case of continuous maps from products of cofinite spaces to Hausdorff spaces are constant.

The second coordinate projection ${\pi }_2:Z\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous and nonconstant. If a homeomorphism $H:Z\times Z\to Z\times \mathbb{R}$ existed, ${\pi }_2\circ H$ would be a nonconstant continuous function, contradicting the preceding conclusion. Hence

For the half-plane, put $H_{+}=[0,\infty )$ as a set, so $K=\mathbb{R}\times H_{+}$. Its two ambient topologies give different answers:In $Z\times Z$, if $K$ were closed, its inverse image under the continuous map $y\mapsto (x_0,y)$ would be closed in $Z$. That inverse image is $H_{+}$, which is neither a finite set nor all of $Z$, so it is not closed in the cofinite topology. Thus $K$ is not closed.

To establish compactness, note that the subspace topology on any subset $A$ of a topological space with the cofinite topology is again cofinite. An open cover of a nonempty such $A$ has a nonempty member omitting at most finitely many points; finitely many more members cover those points. Hence every subset of a cofinite space is compact. In particular both $Z$ and $H_{+}$ with its cofinite subspace topology are compact. The subspace topology on $K\subseteq Z\times Z$ is their product topology, as one checks by tracing basis rectangles. The product of two compact spaces is compact, so $K$ is compact here.

For clarity, the finite-product compactness result needs no Hausdorff condition. Given an open cover of $A\times B$, cover each point by a basis rectangle lying in one covering member. For fixed $a\in A$, use compactness of $B$ to select finitely many rectangles whose second factors cover $B$, and intersect their first factors to get an open neighbourhood $U_a$ of $a$. Those finitely many original members cover $U_a\times B$. Finally finitely many $U_a$ cover $A$, producing a finite subcover of $A\times B$.

In $Z\times \mathbb{R}$, the second coordinate projection hasSince the ray is closed in the usual real line, $K$ is closed. It is not compact: its image under a continuous map under ${\pi }_2$ is $[0,\infty )$, which is not compact. For an explicit obstruction, the open intervals $(-1,n)$, $n\ge 1$, cover this ray but have no finite subcover.

Finally consider the diagonal $W$ in $Z\times \mathbb{R}$. DefineThis is a bijection. The identity function from the usual real line to $Z$ is continuous: each nonempty cofinite open set is the complement of a finite set, and finite sets are closed in the usual real line. Both coordinates of $\phi$ are therefore continuous, so $\phi$ is continuous for the product topology and the subspace topology of $W$. Its inverse is the restricted second coordinate projection, which is continuous. ThereforeFor the second conclusion, $Z$ is compact whereas $W\cong \mathbb{R}$ is not compact; homeomorphisms preserve compactness. The diagonal in a product with cofinite and Euclidean topologies thus inherits the usual topology, despite one cofinite factor.

$X$ is not compact. In the subspace topology on $X=[0,1]$, consider the open coverThe intervals are basic open sets in the ambient Sorgenfrey line, and $\{1\}=X\cap [1,2)$ is open in $X$. Every $x<1$ belongs to one of those intervals, while the singleton covers $1$.

A finite subcover would have to include $\{1\}$. Among its finitely many other members, let $N$ be the largest index. Their union is $[0,1-1/N)$, leaving $1-1/N$ uncovered. Selecting no such member also fails to cover $0$. Hence no finite subcover exists.

Let $K\subseteq X$ be compact, with $X$ a Hausdorff space. The empty set is closed, so suppose $K\ne \varnothing$. Fix $x\in X\setminus K$. For each $y\in K$, the Hausdorff property supplies disjoint open neighbourhoods $U_y$ of $y$ and $V_y$ of $x$.

The $U_y$ form an open cover of $K$. Choose a finite subcover $U_{y_1},\dots ,U_{y_m}$ and put $V={\bigcap }_{r=1}^m{V}_{y_r}$. This is an open neighbourhood of $x$. If a point of $V$ belonged to $K$, it would belong to some $U_{y_r}$ as well as $V_{y_r}$, a contradiction. Hence $V\subseteq X\setminus K$. Every point of the complement has such an open neighbourhood, so $X\setminus K$ is open and $K$ is closed.

Let $(V_j{)}_{j\in J}$ be an open cover of $f(K)$ by open subsets of $Y$. The continuity of $f$ makes each preimage $f^{-1}(V_j)$ open in $X$, and these preimages cover $K$. By compactness, choose $j_1,\dots ,j_m$ withApplying $f$ gives $f(K)\subseteq {\bigcup }_{r=1}^m{V}_{j_r}$. Thus every open cover of $f(K)$ has a finite subcover, proving the continuous image of a compact space theorem. A cover by sets open in $f(K)$ gives the same argument after expressing them as intersections with ambient open sets.

Give the nonempty subset $A\subseteq X$ its subspace topology. It is compact if every open cover admits a finite subcover. Equivalently, whenever $A\subseteq {\bigcup }_{j\in J}{U}_j$ with each $U_j$ open in $X$, there are $j_1,\dots ,j_m$ such that $A\subseteq U_{j_1}\cup \cdots \cup U_{j_m}$.

It is connected if it has no separation of a topological space: there are no disjoint nonempty open subsets $B,C$ of $A$ with $A=B\cup C$. Here openness is relative to the subspace topology; equivalently, the only clopen sets of $A$ are $\varnothing$ and $A$.

The product topology of two compact spaces is compact, without a Hausdorff condition. Refine an open cover locally by basis rectangles. For fixed $a\in A$, compactness of $B$ selects finitely many rectangles whose second factors cover $B$. Their first factors have an open finite intersection $U_a$ containing $a$, and the finitely many original covering members cover $U_a\times B$. Use compactness of $A$ to choose finitely many $U_a$ covering $A$. The associated finitely many original members form a finite subcover of $A\times B$. Repeating the argument proves the finite-factor case of Tychonoff's theorem.

A uniformly continuous function has one input tolerance valid throughout its domain of a function. For $f:D\to \mathbb{R}$, with $D\subseteq \mathbb{R}$, uniform continuity meansChoose the output tolerance $\epsilon$ first, then a positive $\delta$ valid for every pair of function inputs. It may depend on $\epsilon$, the function and its domain of a function, but not on the pair’s location. The absolute values measure input and output distance.^[ref]

Compare the quantifier order with the epsilon-delta definition of continuity:Both lines end with $|x-a|<\delta \Rightarrow |f(x)-f(a)|<\epsilon$. In the first, $\delta$ can depend on the point $a$; in the second, it is chosen before $a$. Thus uniform continuity implies continuity at every point. Each requested $\epsilon$ gets its own shared tolerance.

For an exact example, take the polynomial function $f(x)=x^2$ on the closed interval $D=[0,2]$. For every pair of function inputs in that interval, polynomial factorization givesConsequently $\delta =\epsilon /4$ works everywhere on this domain of a function. With $\epsilon =0.4$, the common tolerance is $\delta =0.1$. Near the right endpoint, for example, $x=1.92$ and $y=2$ have input distance $0.08$ and output distance $4-1.92^2=0.3136<0.4$. The bound is sufficient; it does not claim the largest admissible input window at each point.

On the whole real line, the same polynomial function is a continuous function but fails uniform continuity. Take the sequences $x_n=n$ and $y_n=n+1/n$, for positive integers $n$. ThenFor any proposed $\delta >0$, choose an integer $n>1/\delta$. The inputs are closer than $\delta$, yet their outputs violate the fixed tolerance $\epsilon =1$. The sequences need not themselves have a finite limit: their mutual distance is what tends to zero. This is the obstruction captured by the sequential criterion for uniform continuity. Restricting the domain of a function to $[0,2]$ removes these escaping pairs.

A uniformly continuous function need not be a bounded function. The identity function $f(x)=x$ on the real line has $|f(x)-f(y)|=|x-y|$, so $\delta =\epsilon$ always works, although its image of a function is the unbounded real line. Uniform continuity controls changes between nearby inputs, not the overall size of outputs. Likewise, an unbounded domain of a function does not by itself prevent uniform continuity.

The square root $g(x)=\sqrt{x}$ supplies a different common tolerance on the interval $[0,\infty )$. Assuming $x\ge y\ge 0$, put $u=\sqrt{x}$ and $v=\sqrt{y}$. Since $0\le u-v\le u+v$,Interchanging the inputs when necessary provesThus $\delta ={\epsilon }^2$ guarantees uniform continuity on the entire domain of a function, including zero. For $\epsilon =0.4$, any input distance below $0.16$ suffices. The pairs $(0,0.09)$ and $(4,4.09)$ both have input distance $0.09$; their output distances are respectively $0.3$ and $0.09/(\sqrt{4.09}+2)<0.0225$. The common guarantee accommodates quite different local sensitivities.

This Hölder continuity bound allows a curved tolerance rule. It is weaker than a Lipschitz bound: at zero the output change divided by the input change isNo finite Lipschitz constant works near zero, even though uniform continuity does. A Lipschitz function does have uniform continuity, choosing $\delta =\epsilon /L$ when its Lipschitz bound $L$ is positive; when $L=0$ it is a constant function.^[ref]

For general metric spaces, replace the absolute values by the respective distance functions. The Heine-Cantor theorem gives an existence guarantee: every continuous function on a compact metric space is uniformly continuous. In particular, continuity on a finite closed interval provides a common tolerance, even when no simple formula for it is known.^[ref]

For a short proof outline, fix $\epsilon >0$. Continuity gives each point $a$ an open ball of radius $r_a>0$ within which outputs differ from $f(a)$ by less than $\epsilon /2$. The open balls of half these radii still cover the domain of a function. Compactness supplies a finite subcover. Take $\delta$ to be the smallest half-radius in this finite set. Two inputs closer than $\delta$ lie together in one of the original open balls, so the triangle inequality bounds their output distance by $\epsilon$. The beautiful step is that the compact set turns local choices into finitely many choices, whose minimum stays positive.

A shared tolerance also makes uniformly continuous functions preserve Cauchy sequences: after choosing $\delta$ for $\epsilon$, all sufficiently late input pairs are closer than $\delta$, so all corresponding output pairs are closer than $\epsilon$. Unlike a convergent sequence argument, this does not require an input limit inside the domain of a function. It is why uniform continuity is useful for extending a function toward missing endpoints and for the decay argument below.