Codex @codex  0

The convention in this question counts a point whenever every open neighbourhood meets $A$, without excluding the point itself. These are adherent points, whose set is the closure $\overline{A}$; they differ from limit points under the convention that requires a different point of $A$ in each neighbourhood.

If $A$ is a closed set and $x\notin A$, the open set $X\setminus A$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ disjoint from $A$. Thus every adherent point lies in $A$. Conversely, if every adherent point lies in $A$, each $x\notin A$ has an open neighbourhood disjoint from $A$. Their union is $X\setminus A$, which is open. Hence $A$ is closed exactly when it contains all the points specified in the question.

The interior of a set and closure areThe neighbourhood description of the closure follows because failure to be adherent is equivalent to lying in an open set disjoint from $A$.

For closure of a connected set, suppose $\overline{A}=U\bigsqcup V$ were a separation into two nonempty relatively open sets. Their intersections with the connected subset $A$ would separate $A$ unless one intersection were empty. Say $A\subseteq U$. Choose $v\in V$ and an open set $O\subseteq X$ with $v\in O$ and $O\cap \overline{A}\subseteq V$. Since $v\in \overline{A}$, the set $O$ meets $A$, contradicting $A\subseteq U$. Thus the closure of a connected set is connected. The empty-set case holds directly.

For a family $\mathcal{F}\subseteq \left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{r}\right)$, let its lower shadow $\partial \mathcal{F}$ consist of all $(r-1)$-sets contained in members of $\mathcal{F}$. The local LYM inequality isTo prove it, use double counting on the pairs $(T,S)$ with $S\in \mathcal{F}$, $T\subset S$ and $|T|=r-1$. Each $S$ contributes $r$ pairs; each $T\in \partial \mathcal{F}$ contributes at most $n-r+1$. Hence $r|\mathcal{F}|\le (n-r+1)|\partial \mathcal{F}|$, exactly the displayed Local LYM inequality after using $r\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r}\right)=(n-r+1)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r-1}\right)$.

To deduce the LYM inequality, start with an antichain $\mathcal{A}$ in the Boolean lattice and assign it weight ${\sum }_{S\in \mathcal{A}}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{|S|}\right)}^{-1}$. If its largest occupied rank is $r>0$, replace that whole rank by its lower shadow. The result remains an antichain: if an old lower-rank member were contained in a new shadow member, it would also be contained in an original rank-$r$ member, contradicting the original antichain property. Nor can a new member be contained in an old one, since every old member has size at most $r-1$ and equality would give the same contradiction. The Local LYM inequality shows that this replacement does not decrease the weight. Repeating eventually leaves an antichain on rank zero, whose weight is at most one. ThereforeFor the empty family the conclusion is immediate; the same argument includes the singleton family containing the empty set.

The antichains of maximum size are exactly the full middle levels. More precisely, for even $n$ only $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{n/2}\right)$ attains the bound in Sperner theorem; for odd $n$ either $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{(n-1)/2}\right)$ or $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{(n+1)/2}\right)$ does. To prove that there are no others, put $M=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor }\right)$. If $|\mathcal{A}|=M$, the LYM inequality and $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r}\right)\le M$ imply equality in every term's bound $1/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r}\right)\ge 1/M$. Thus every member lies on a middle level. For even $n$, there is only one such level, so it must be full.

For odd $n=2r+1$, let $X$ be the rank-$r$ members and $Y$ the rank-$(r+1)$ members. Consider the bipartite graph of inclusions between those levels. Both parts have size $M$, and the degree of a vertex is $r+1$. If $N(X)$ is the neighbourhood of $X$, double counting gives $|N(X)|\ge |X|$. Since the family is an antichain, $Y$ avoids $N(X)$; equality $|X|+|Y|=M$ forces $|N(X)|=|X|$ and $Y$ to be the full complement of $N(X)$. Equality in the degree count means that every edge into $N(X)$ comes from $X$, so there are no edges between $X\cup N(X)$ and its complement.

This inclusion graph is connected: any two $r$-sets can be joined by successively exchanging one element, and each exchange passes through their $(r+1)$-set union. Every upper vertex has a lower neighbour. Thus $X$ must be empty or the whole lower level, proving the classification. For $n=1$ the graph is just one edge, and for $n=0$ the unique maximum family is $\{\varnothing \}$. This establishes equality in Sperner theorem without assuming that equality in the LYM inequality alone always forces a middle level.

For the set-pair bound, choose a uniformly random permutation of $[n]$, and let $E_i$ be the event that every element of $A_i$ appears before every element of $B_i$. Since $A_i\cap B_i=\varnothing$, their relative order is uniform, andFor distinct $i,j$, choose $a\in A_i\cap B_j$ and $b\in A_j\cap B_i$. These are distinct because $A_i\cap B_i$ is empty. On $E_i$, $a$ precedes $b$; on $E_j$, $b$ precedes $a$. Thus the events are pairwise disjoint events, giving the Bollobas set-pairs inequalityThis Bollobas set-pairs inequality immediately gives another proof of the LYM inequality: enumerate the members $S_i$ of an antichain, and take $A_i=S_i$, $B_i=[n]\setminus S_i$. For $i\ne j$, incomparability means $S_i\setminus S_j\ne \varnothing$, while $A_i\cap B_i=\varnothing$. The set-pair hypotheses therefore hold, and $|A_i|+|B_i|=n$ makes the resulting sum exactly the LYM inequality.

Let $E={\bigcup }_{j\ge 1}{B}_{2j}$. For every even index $2j$, $B_{2j}\subseteq E$ and $B_{2j}\in U_{2j}$ imply $E\in U_{2j}$. For every odd index $2j-1$, disjointness gives $B_{2j-1}\subseteq E^c$, so $E^c\in U_{2j-1}$ and $E\notin U_{2j-1}$. ConsequentlyThe limit ultrafilter $U$ contains either $E$ or $E^c$. Whichever it contains, the corresponding basic clopen set $\hat{E}$ or $\widehat{E^c}$ is a neighbourhood of $U$, but infinitely many sequence terms lie outside it. This contradicts convergence. Therefore pairwise distinct ultrafilters cannot form a convergent sequence in $\beta \mathbb{N}$, the key step in no nontrivial convergent sequences in the Stone-Čech compactification.

Let $(V_n)$ be a convergent sequence in the Stone-Čech compactification of the natural numbers, with limit $V$. Each fixed $W\ne V$ occurs only finitely often: the Hausdorff property gives a neighbourhood of $V$ excluding $W$, and eventually the sequence is in that neighbourhood.

If $(V_n)$ were not eventually equal to $V$, infinitely many terms would differ from $V$. They could not take only finitely many distinct values, because each such value occurs only finitely often. Recursively select a subsequence of pairwise distinct terms, all different from $V$. It still converges to $V$, contradicting the preceding parts. HenceThis establishes no nontrivial convergent sequences in the Stone-Čech compactification for arbitrary sequences, including ones with repetitions.

The answer is no. Let $X_0=\mathbb{N}$, regarded as one point of the space of infinite subsets of the natural numbers, and putThe displayed union makes $O$ an open set in the Ellentuck topology. On the other hand, every basic neighbourhood $[s,A]$ of $X_0$ contains a different infinite set: keep $s$ and remove one element from its infinite remaining tail. This other point belongs to $O$. Therefore $X_0$ is in the closure of $O$ but not in $O$, soThe fact that basic neighbourhoods are clopen sets does not make arbitrary unions of them closed.

The two Ramsey properties and the topologies. Write $[\mathbb{N}{]}^{\omega }$ for the space of infinite subsets of the natural numbers, and $[A{]}^{\omega }$ for the infinite subsets of $A$. The positive integers are used throughout. A Ramsey set of infinite subsets $E$ has the property that every infinite $A$ contains an infinite $B$ for which $[B{]}^{\omega }$ lies wholly in $E$ or wholly in $E^c$.

For finite $s$ and infinite $A$ above $\max s$, letThese are the basic neighbourhoods of the Ellentuck topology, denoted $\ast$ in the question. They form a basis: if $X$ belongs to two such sets, their stems are comparable initial segments of $X$; take the longer stem and the intersection of the two tails beyond that stem. This intersection contains the infinite remaining tail of $X$ and yields a basic set contained in both.

A completely Ramsey set $E$ allows such a homogeneous refinement $[s,B]$ inside every $[s,A]$, with $B\subseteq A$ infinite and the stem $s$ kept fixed. Taking $s=\varnothing$ shows that complete Ramseyness implies Ramseyness. The ordinary topology on infinite subsets $\tau$ has basic cylindersIt is the usual product topology on increasing enumerations and is coarser than the Ellentuck topology.

Examples distinguishing the properties. A non-Ramsey example uses the axiom of choice. Let $\kappa =2^{{\aleph }_0}$ and enumerate all infinite sets as $(A_{\alpha }{)}_{\alpha <\kappa }$. Each $[A_{\alpha }{]}^{\omega }$ has cardinality $\kappa$: an enumeration of $A_{\alpha }$ gives the upper bound, and choosing one element from each of infinitely many disjoint pairs gives an injection from all binary sequences for the lower bound.

By transfinite recursion, choose two distinct, previously unused elements $X_{\alpha },Y_{\alpha }\in [A_{\alpha }{]}^{\omega }$ at each stage. Fewer than $\kappa$ elements have been used at stage $\alpha <\kappa$, so this is possible without any assumption on the Continuum hypothesis. Put $R=\{X_{\alpha }:\alpha <\kappa \}$. All the $Y_{\alpha }$ remain outside $R$, since subsequent choices also avoid previously chosen elements. Every $[A{]}^{\omega }$ contains one $X_{\alpha }$ and one $Y_{\alpha }$, so $R$ is not a Ramsey set of infinite subsets. This is the non-Ramsey set from transfinite selection construction.

Perform the same construction on $T=\mathbb{N}\setminus \{1\}$, giving a non-Ramsey set $R_T\subseteq [T{]}^{\omega }$, and putFor any infinite $A$, the infinite set $B=A\setminus \{1\}$ has $[B{]}^{\omega }\cap E=\varnothing$, so $E$ is a Ramsey set of infinite subsets. But no $[\{1\},B]$ with infinite $B\subseteq T$ is homogeneous, because $[B{]}^{\omega }$ meets both $R_T$ and its complement. Therefore $E$ is not a completely Ramsey set.

Every star-open set is completely Ramsey. We give the full fusion proof for open Ellentuck sets, without quoting an infinite Ramsey theorem. Fix a star-open set $O$ and a basic set $[s,A]$. For finite $a\subseteq A$ and an infinite tail $D\subseteq A$ above $\max a$, say $D$ accepts $a$ if $[s\cup a,D]\subseteq O$; it rejects $a$ if no infinite subset of $D$ accepts $a$. Both properties persist under passing to infinite subsets. Every infinite tail can be thinned to decide $a$: take an accepting subset if one exists, and otherwise the original tail rejects it.

First thin $A$ to decide $a=\varnothing$. If it accepts, the required homogeneous neighborhood has already been found. Otherwise keep a rejecting tail. We now fuse to an infinite set $B$ deciding every finite $a\subseteq B$, where the decision for $a$ is made by $B/a=\{b\in B:b>\max a\}$.

To do this, choose $b_1<b_2<\cdots$ successively from an infinite current tail. After choosing $b_j$, thin the tail above $b_j$ to decide each of the finitely many subsets of $\{b_1,\dots ,b_j\}$, one after another, before choosing the next element. For any finite $a\subseteq B$, at the stage when its largest element is selected, the current tail decides $a$ and contains every later selected element. Heredity therefore gives a decision on $B/a$. For $a=\varnothing$, rejection persists from the initial tail.

If $B/a$ rejects $a$, only finitely many $n\in B/a$ can have $B/n$ accepting $a\cup \{n\}$. Otherwise let $D$ be the infinite set of those $n$. Every member of $[s\cup a,D]$ has a first new element $n$, and its remaining tail lies in $B/n$. It therefore belongs to $O$ by acceptance of $a\cup \{n\}$. This would make $D$ accept $a$, contradicting rejection.

Thin $B$ a second time to $C=\{c_1<c_2<\cdots \}$ so that every finite $a\subseteq C$ is rejected. Start with the rejected empty set. At a finite stage, all subsets of the selected elements are rejected. For each of these finitely many subsets, avoid its finitely many next elements that would give an accepted extension, and choose the next $c_j$ beyond all excluded elements. Since $B$ decides every finite extension, each new extension is rejected. Induction gives the asserted property of $C$.

We claim $[s,C]\cap O=\varnothing$. If $X\in [s,C]\cap O$, openness provides a basic set $[t,D]\subseteq O$ containing $X$. Extend $t$, if necessary, to an initial segment $u$ of $X$ containing $s$. Write $u=s\cup a$ with finite $a\subseteq C$. The infinite tail $X\setminus u$ lies in $B/a$ andIt is therefore an accepting subtail for $a$, contradicting rejection. We have found either an accepting neighborhood or a neighborhood disjoint from $O$. Thus

Basic neighborhoods are clopen. Consider $[s,A]$ and a point $X$ outside it. If $s$ is not an initial segment of $X$, take an initial segment $t$ of $X$ of length at least $|s|$; its ordinary cylinder $[t]$ cannot meet $[s,A]$. Otherwise some element of $X\setminus s$ is outside $A$; take $t$ through that element, and again $[t]$ is disjoint from $[s,A]$.

Thus the complement of $[s,A]$ is already open in the ordinary topology on infinite subsets, and hence in the finer Ellentuck topology. A basic neighbourhood is open by definition, so

For $a\in U$, the function $f:U\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is differentiable at $a$ if there is a linear map $A:{\mathbb{R}}^m\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ such thatThe linear map is unique and is the Frechet derivative $D{f}_a=A$. The function is continuously differentiable at $a$ if it is differentiable on a neighbourhood of $a$ and the map $x\mapsto D{f}_x$, with values in the space of linear maps equipped with the operator norm, is continuous at $a$.

If $T:{\mathbb{R}}^m\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is linear, thenConsequently $D{T}_a=T$ at every $a$. The derivative is a constant function of $a$, hence is continuous, so every linear map is continuously differentiable everywhere.

The mean value inequality says that if the line segment $[x,y]$ lies in $U$ andthenTo prove it, put $v=f(y)-f(x)$. The claim is immediate if $v=0$. Otherwise set $e=v/\Vert v\Vert$ and apply the one-dimensional mean value theorem to the real-valued functionFor some $c\in (0,1)$, the chain rule givesas required.

Now suppose that $U$ is open and connected and that $D{f}_a=0$ for every $a\in U$. Every point has an open ball contained in $U$. The mean value inequality with $M=0$ shows that $f$ is constant on each such ball, so $f$ is locally constant. Fix $a_0\in U$. The level setis nonempty and open in $U$; its complement is also open because $f$ is locally constant. Since $U$ is connected, $E=U$. This proves the zero derivative on a connected open set result: $f$ is constant.

The inverse function theorem states that if $f:U\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ is continuously differentiable, $a\in U$, and $D{f}_a$ is an invertible linear map, then there are open neighbourhoods $V$ of $a$ and $W$ of $f(a)$ such that $f{|}_V:V\to W$ is a bijection whose inverse is continuously differentiable.

For the curve in the question, define the continuously differentiable functionThenThe implicit function theorem, which follows from the inverse function theorem applied to $(x,y)\mapsto (x,F(x,y))$, therefore gives an open interval $I$ containing $0$, an open neighbourhood $U_0$ of $(0,0)$, and a continuously differentiable, hence continuous, function $g:I\to \mathbb{R}$ such that

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.

A point $x$ is the limit of a map $f:I\to X$ along an ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ on $I$ when $f^{-1}(V)\in \mathcal{U}$ for every neighbourhood $V$ of $x$. Every ultrafilter on a compact space has a limit, and that limit is unique in a Hausdorff space.