In topology and related areas of mathematics, a subnet is a generalization of the concept of subsequence to the case of nets. The analogue of "subsequence" for nets is the notion of a "subnet". The definition is not completely straightforward, but is designed to allow as many theorems about subsequences to generalize to nets as possible.
There are three non-equivalent definitions of "subnet".
The first definition of a subnet was introduced by John L. Kelley in 1955 and later, Stephen Willard introduced his own (non-equivalent) variant of Kelley's definition in 1970.
Subnets in the sense of Willard and subnets in the sense of Kelley are the most commonly used definitions of "subnet" but they are each equivalent to the concept of "subordinate filter", which is the analog of "subsequence" for filters (they are not equivalent in the sense that there exist subordinate filters on whose filter/subordinate–filter relationship cannot be described in terms of the corresponding net/subnet relationship).
A third definition of "subnet" (not equivalent to those given by Kelley or Willard) that equivalent to the concept of "subordinate filter" was introduced independently by Smiley (1957), Aarnes and Andenaes (1972), Murdeshwar (1983), and possibly others, although it is not often used.
This article discusses the definition due to Willard (the other definitions are described in the article Filters in topology#Non–equivalence of subnets and subordinate filters).
Definitions
There are several different non-equivalent definitions of "subnet" and this article will use the definition introduced in 1970 by Stephen Willard, which is as follows:
If
and
are nets in a set
from
and
respectively, then
is said to be a of
( or a ) if there exists a monotone
final function
such that
A function
is , , and an if whenever
then
and it is called if its image
is
Cofinal subset in
The set
being in
means that for every
there exists some
such that
that is, for every
there exists an
such that
[Some authors use a more general definition of a subnet. In this definition, the map is required to satisfy the condition: For every there exists a such that whenever Such a map is final but not necessarily monotone.]
Since the net is the function and the net is the function the defining condition may be written more succinctly and cleanly as either or where denotes function composition and is just notation for the function
Subnets versus subsequences
Importantly, a subnet is not merely the restriction of a net
to a directed subset of its domain
In contrast, by definition, a
of a given sequence
is a sequence formed from the given sequence by deleting some of the elements without disturbing the relative positions of the remaining elements. Explicitly, a sequence
is said to be a of
if there exists a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers
such that
for every
(that is to say, such that
). The sequence
can be canonically identified with the function
defined by
Thus a sequence
is a subsequence of
if and only if there exists a strictly increasing function
such that
Subsequences are subnets
Every subsequence is a subnet because if is a subsequence of then the map defined by is an order-preserving map whose image is cofinal in its codomain and satisfies for all
Sequence and subnet but not a subsequence
The sequence is not a subsequence of although it is a subnet because the map defined by is an order-preserving map whose image is and satisfies for all [Indeed, this is because and for every in other words, when considered as functions on the sequence is just the identity map on while ]
While a sequence is a net, a sequence has subnets that are not subsequences. The key difference is that subnets can use the same point in the net multiple times and the indexing set of the subnet can have much larger cardinality. Using the more general definition where we do not require monotonicity, a sequence is a subnet of a given sequence, if and only if it can be obtained from some subsequence by repeating its terms and reordering them.[, Satz 2.8.3, p. 81]
Subnet of a sequence that is not a sequence
A subnet of a sequence is necessarily a sequence.
For an example, let be directed by the usual order and define by letting be the Ceiling function of Then is an order-preserving map (because it is a non-decreasing function) whose image is a cofinal subset of its codomain. Let be any sequence (such as a constant sequence, for instance) and let for every (in other words, let ). This net is not a sequence since its domain is an uncountable set. However, is a subnet of the sequence since (by definition) holds for every Thus is a subnet of that is not a sequence.
Furthermore, the sequence is also a subnet of since the inclusion map (that sends ) is an order-preserving map whose image is a cofinal subset of its codomain and holds for all Thus and are (simultaneously) subnets of each another.
Subnets induced by subsets
Suppose is an infinite set and is a sequence. Then is a net on that is also a subnet of (take to be the inclusion map ). This subnet in turn induces a subsequence by defining as the smallest value in (that is, let and let for every integer ). In this way, every infinite subset of induces a canonical subnet that may be written as a subsequence. However, as demonstrated below, not every subnet of a sequence is a subsequence.
Applications
The definition generalizes some key theorems about subsequences:
-
A net converges to if and only if every subnet of converges to
-
A net has a cluster point if and only if it has a subnet that converges to
-
A topological space is Compact space if and only if every net in has a convergent subnet (see net for a proof).
Taking be the identity map in the definition of "subnet" and requiring to be a cofinal subset of leads to the concept of a , which turns out to be inadequate since, for example, the second theorem above fails for the Tychonoff plank if we restrict ourselves to cofinal subnets.
Clustering and closure
If
is a net in a subset
and if
is a cluster point of
then
In other words, every cluster point of a net in a subset belongs to the closure of that set.
If is a net in then the set of all cluster points of in is equal to
where for each
Convergence versus clustering
If a net converges to a point
then
is necessarily a cluster point of that net. The converse is not guaranteed in general. That is, it is possible for
to be a cluster point of a net
but for
to converge to
However, if
clusters at
then there exists a subnet of
that converges to
This subnet can be explicitly constructed from
and the neighborhood filter
at
as follows: make
into a directed set by declaring that
then
and
is a subnet of
since the map
is a monotone function whose image
is a cofinal subset of
and
Thus, a point is a cluster point of a given net if and only if it has a subnet that converges to
See also
Notes
Citations