# Category-theoretic limit related to topological limit?

Is there any connection between category-theoretic term 'limit' (=universal cone) over diagram, and topological term 'limit point' of a sequence, function, net...?

To be more precise, is there a category-theoretic setting of some non-trivial topological space such that these different concepts of term 'limit' somehow relate?

This question came to me after I saw ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be7rx29eMr4 ) a surprising fact that generalised metric spaces can be seen as categories enriched over preorder $([0,\infty],\leq)$.

-

2
Similar question on MO (without satisfactory answer). With some fleshing out, this answer in a linked question might lead to something. – t.b. Aug 29 '11 at 22:51
I seems that suggestion wouldn't work. If my objects are open sets and morphisms inclusions, then limit of any family of objects is just interior of intersection of that family. – rafaelm Aug 29 '11 at 23:10
It struck me as naive as well... However I think that what one really should consider would be filters modulo some equivalence relation. A filter then should have a limit point $p$ if and only if it is equivalent to the associated principal ultrafilter (the neighborhood filter of $p$). – t.b. Aug 29 '11 at 23:15

## 2 Answers

The connection is well-known (in particular I'm claiming no originality; I don't recall where I found this, though !): Let $(X,\mathcal O)$ be a topological space, $\mathcal F(X)$ the poset of filters on $X$ with respect to inclusions, considered as a (small, thin) category in the usual way. Given $x\in X$ and $F\in\mathcal F(X)$ let $\mathcal U_X(x)$ denote the neighbourhood filter of $x$ in $(X,\mathcal O)$ and $\mathcal F_{x,F}(X)$ the full subcategory of $\mathcal F(X)$ generated by $\{G\in\mathcal F(X):F\cup\mathcal U_X(x)\subseteq G\}$, let $E:\mathcal F_{x,F}\hookrightarrow\mathcal F(X)$ be the obvious (embedding) diagram, $\Delta$ the usual diagonal functor and $\lambda:\Delta(F)\rightarrow E$ the natural transformation where $\lambda(G):F\hookrightarrow G$ is the inclusion for each $G\in\mathcal F_{x,F}$. It is not hard to see that $F$ tends to $x$ in $(X,\mathcal O)$ iff $\lambda$ is a limit of $E$. Kind regards - Stephan F. Kroneck.

-

Ah, yes, thanks for spelling it out! It is essentially what I thought it should be (I don't know why I mentioned an equivalence relation in my comment above) only excuse: it was late :) – t.b. Sep 8 '11 at 11:22
Tnx, I'll accept now and check later :) don't know much about filters yet. – rafaelm Sep 8 '11 at 18:36
This construction works out perfectly. Tnx again. :) – rafaelm Sep 10 '11 at 20:20
@ rafaelm: no problem; as written, I cannot claim any dues; kind regards - Stephan F. Kroneck. – bonnbaki Sep 11 '11 at 19:56
Let me think. So $\lambda$ is a limit of $E$ iff $F$ is the intersection of all filters $G$ with $F \cup U_X(x) \subseteq G$ iff $U_X(x) \subseteq F$ iff $F$ converges to $x$. So this is really just a trivial reformulation. But quite amusing. – Martin Brandenburg Jan 29 at 0:10

Let $\rm X$ and $\rm Y$ be $\rm T_1$ topological spaces. Let $f : \rm X \to Y$ be any function and let $x \in \rm X$.

Then because $\rm X$ is a $\rm T_1$ topological space, if $\mathcal V_x$ is the filter of neighborhoods of $x$, we have $$\lim_{\mathcal V_x} \mathrm V = \bigcap_{\mathrm V \in \mathcal V_x} \mathrm V = \{x\}.$$

Now suppose $f$ is continuous at $x$. That means that the filter $f(\mathcal V_x)$ is finer than $\mathcal V_{f(x)}$. This implies that $$\{f(x)\} \subset \lim_{\mathcal V_x} f(\mathrm V) \subset \bigcap_{\mathrm W \in \mathcal V_{f(x)}} \mathrm W = \{f(x)\}$$

Conclusion : if $f$ is continous at $x$ then $$\lim_{\mathcal V_x} f(\mathrm V) = f(\lim_{\mathcal V_x}\mathrm V).$$

More generally, if $\mathfrak F$ is any ultrafilter converging to $x$ :

• if $\bigcap \mathfrak F = \emptyset$, then $\bigcap f(\mathfrak F) = \emptyset$ ;

• or $\bigcap \mathfrak F = \{x\}$ and because $\mathcal V_{f(x)} \subset f(\mathcal V_x) \subset f(\mathfrak F)$, we have $\bigcap f(\mathfrak F) = \{f(x)\}$.

So in both cases, $$\lim_{\mathfrak F}f(\mathrm V) = f(\lim_{\mathfrak F} \mathrm V).$$

-
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 54, "mathjax_display_tex": 4, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9328374862670898, "perplexity_flag": "head"}