Talk:Continuous function (topology)

Mathematics Redirect‑class High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This redirect has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Balance of formality and accessibility

I have rewritten the introduction (again) in a way which is appropriate for an article on topology, but emphasising that the definition for metric spaces is exactly the same as the topological one. Using neighbourhoods rather than open sets is far clearer, because continuity is essentially about what happens near individual points. The reason the very abstract open set formalisation works is that an open set is simply any set that contains a neighbourhood of every one of its points, so continuity in terms of open sets is about continuity in parallel at every one of the points in the sets.

The reason I object to a too informal introduction is that it is easy to give a false idea of what continuity is. It is easy to define a function f on the plane which is discontinuous, but for which limits of sequences are preserved (i.e. any sequence {x_n}with a limit L is mapped to {f(x_n)} with a limit f(L). Anyone reading an informal definition about nearness could easily assume it would be enough for limits of sequences to be preserved.

There is still some stuff late in this article which I think is misleading because it ignores the fact that functions don't have to be injective. Elroch 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this claim that a discontinuous function can still preserve limits of sequences? I am under the impression that in any first countable space, a function is continuous if and only if it preserves limits of sequences. In fact, I added material asserting that fact to the article a few weeks ago. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I was thinking of the function:

f(re^{i\theta })={\frac {r}{\theta }}e^{i\theta }\ldots (0<\theta \leq 2\pi )\;

and hastily assumed it preserved limits of sequences at the origin. But it doesn't, and your general result is one I recall to be true. However my observation is true for spaces that are not first countable, which is relevant for a general topological concept. Elroch 11:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, your observation is still true for non-first countable spaces. Then you have the slightly generalized version which says that a function is continuous if and only if it preserves limits of nets (generalized sequences). Many people define continuity this way, in fact, so this view should be represented in the article. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I favour sacrificing formality for accessibility especially in the intro, but I think yours is better than the "nearness is measured..." wording for both qualities. Thanks.

As for misleading stuff later in the article, if you are referring to the statement that any neighbourhood V of f(x) contains an image f(U) of a neighbourhood U of x, rather than the statement that the inverse image of a neighourhood of f(x) contains a neighbourhood of x: my understanding is that the former is also correct even when f is not injective. Am I mistaken? -Dan 14:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing I was referring to was about the topology induced by a continuous function. I elaborated this by explaining the quotient topology and dealing with functions that are not necessarily surjective. Elroch 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about the quotient topology is a bit misleading. Every function from a set determines a final topology. Every function also determines an equivalence relation (x~y iff f(x)=f(y)). If the function is surjective, it's true that the quotient space and the final topology on the codomain are homeomorphic. I wouldn't say that they're equal though; the quotient space is a space of equivalence classes, while a general codomain need not be. I've cleaned up the section, and also included the dual case, but now we've got two long paragraphs of stuff that I'm not sure belongs in this article. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Comments

I think that it would be helpful if there were some (if they're too complicated then don't add them) proofs that the definitions were equivalent because a lot of the ideas are quite different and the proofs would help to show how they're connected. Trogsworth 16:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closeness relation definition

The definition using a closeness relation contains a link to closeness relations. However, in the linked page, closeness is only defined between a point and a set or between two sets; it is undefined what it means that two points are close. -- dnjansen 6 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.42.93 (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topological definition of continous function

Looking through the history you will see that I attempted to make a change in line with pg 4 of :

http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/site2002/Teaching/IB/MetricTopologicalSpaces/2005-2006/L1topspaces.pdf

Namely I changed :

suppose we have a function $f:X\rightarrow Y$ , where X and Y are topological spaces.

To :

suppose we have a function f : X → Y between two topological spaces {X,T_X} and {Y,T_Y}.

The motivation for the initial modification being that the map f is defined between the sets X and Y, as opposed to only being defined between the topologies T_X and T_Y.

However the change was undone. Would it be possible to get some thoughts on these two alternative expressions, please?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun r acharya (talk • contribs) 11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]