Hattori topologies on almost topological groups

Let G be a reflexive topological group, and Gits group of characters, endowed with the compact open topology. We prove that the evaluation mapping from Gx G into the torus T is continuous if and only if G is locally compact. This is an analogue of a well-known theorem of Arens on admissible topologies on C(X) . DEFINITIONS AND REMARKS Let X, Y be topological spaces, and let Z be a subset of yX . A topology on Z is said to be admissible if the evaluation mapping from the product Z x X into Y, defined by w(f, x) = f(x), is continuous. Let (S, V) = {f E Z; f(S) C V}. The family {(S, V)}, where S runs over the collection of all compact subsets of X and V runs over a basis of open sets in Y, is a subbase for the compact open topology on Z. An admissible topology on Z must be finer than the compact open topology [8]. A result of Arens states that the existence of a coarsest admissible topology for the class of real continuous functions on a completely regular space X is equivalent to X being locally compact [1]. In this paper we are interested in reflexive topological groups. Answering in the negative a question of Megrelishvili [7], we will see that the evaluation map for those groups need not be continuous. In fact, as specified in the theorem, the continuity of the evaluation characterizes locally compact Hausdorff abelian groups among reflexive groups. We prove this result by means of convergence spaces. For an account of theory of convergence spaces the reader is referred to [3, 4]. We only give here needed definitions. Let G be a Hausdorff topological abelian group, and let FG be the set of all continuous homomorphisms from G into the unidimensional torus T. If addition is defined pointwise in FG, it becomes an abelian group. The continuous Received by the editors October 5, 1993 and, in revised form, April 25, 1994; the contents of this paper were presented to the First Ibero-American Conference on Topology and its Applications in Benicassim, Spain, on March 28-30, 1995. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 22A05.

Introduction. This article is based upon a principle which is so standard that it is almost a cliche: The first step to understanding a nonlinear phenomenon is to define and study a suitable linear approximation. To be more specific, we shall describe some applications of this to the symmetry questions of topological transformation groups. Given a topological space X, let Homeo(^) denote the set of self-homeomorphisms of X. This is a group under composition of mappings. If G is an arbitrary group, then a group action of G on I is a homomorphism Homeo( X). Frequently we wish to impose some weak assumptions on <p. For example, if G is a topological group, then we might want cp to have suitable continuity properties. The usual assumption is that the map

Let A be a lattice-ordered group. Gusic showed that A can be equipped with a C-topology which makes A into a topological group. We give a generalization of Gusic’s theorem, and reveal the very nature of a “C-group” of Gusic in this paper. Moreover, we show that the C-topological groups are topological lattice-ordered groups, and prove that every archimedean lattice-ordered vector space is a T2 topological lattice-ordered vector space under the C-topology. An easy example shows that a C-group need not be T2. A further example demonstrates that a T2 topological archimedean lattice-ordered group need not be C-archimedean, either.

Long colimits of topological groups II: Free groups and vector spaces

A note on multiplier convergent series

Incomplete infima of complete uniformities related to topological groups and topological vector spaces

In reminiscence of Ptak's open mapping theorem, a topological space satisfying the open mapping theorem is called a B r space.This paper is devoted to the study of sums and products of B r spaces in the category of topological spaces.We prove that, in general, sums and products of even two B r spaces need no longer be B r .On the other hand, for any B r space E the sum E θ E is again a B r space.Moreover, since Cech complete spaces are known to be B r , we ask whether a sum E θ F is B r provided that E is Cech complete and F is B r .It turns out that, at least in the framework of complete regularity, the answer to this question is in the positive if and only if F is a Baire space.Introduction.The notion of B r spaces has first been introduced by T. Husain in the categories of locally convex vector spaces (see [HuJ) and topological groups (see [Hu 2 ]).Originally, it goes back to V. Ptak's open mapping theorem (see [Kό], p. 35 ff).A Hausdorff topological space E is called a B r space if every continuous, nearly open bijection / from E onto any Hausdorff space F is in fact open.For a survey of the classical theory of B r spaces we refer the reader to Kόthe's book [Kό], where the locally convex case is treated.The linear topological case is investigated in the lecture notes [AEK].B r groups are considered by several authors.See for instance [Hu 2 ], [Ba], [Gr], [Su].In a purely topological context, B r spaces have first been investigated by Weston in [We], although the term B r space is not used there.Translated into the B r terminology, Weston proved that every completely metrizable topological space is a B r space.His result has been generalized by Byczkowski and Pol in [BP], who proved that every Cech complete topological space is a B r space.In [No] we have further generalized this result proving that every Hausdorff, semi-regular topological space densely containing some Cech complete sub space is in fact a B r space.We just mention another generalization of Byczkowski and Pols' result into a somewhat different direction by Wilhelm (cf.[Wi]).In the present paper we examine the invariance of the class of B r spaces under topological sums and products.It turns out that, in general, the sum of even two B r spaces need not be a B r space.A counterexample is given in §2.In §1 we obtain a positive result stating that the sum E θ E

Every principal G-bundle over X is classified up to equivalence by a homotopy class X -> BG, where BG is the classifying space of G. On the other hand, for every nice topological space X Milnor constructed a strict model of its loop space (Omega) over tildeX, that is a group. Moreover, the morphisms of topological groups (Omega) over tildeX -> G generate all the G-bundles over X up to equivalence. In this paper, we show that the relation between Milnor's loop space and the classifying space functor is, in a precise sense, an adjoint pair between based spaces and topological groups in a homotopical context. This proof leads to a classification of principal bundles over a fixed space, that is dual to the classification of bundles with a fixed group. Such a result clarifies the deep relation that exists between the theory of bundles, the classifying space construction and the loop space, which are very important in topological K-theory, group cohomology, and homotopy theory.

The topological properties of "weak mixing" and "strong mixing" for topological transformation groups have been introduced and investigated and many analogous results have been derived. Let us adopt the following definitions and notations. We will restrict our attention to topological transformation groups (X, T) with compact metrizable phase space X. We call a topological transformation group ergodic if the only closed proper invariant subset is nowhere dense or, equivalently, there exists a point in X the orbit-closure of which is the whole space X. Such a point is called a transitive point. We call a topological transformation group weakly mixing if (X, T)x (X, T) is ergodic and strongly mixing if for any two open sets U and V, there is a compact subset K of T such that t ~ T ~ K implies Ut n V # ;J. Let ~'(X) be the set of all bounded complex-valued functions on X which are continuous on a co-meager set. (We identify functions which coincide on a co-meager set.) Let us define a cascade to be a topological transformation group with the discrete additive group of integers as phase group. In this situation, it is also denoted by (X, ~b), with ~b a homeomorphism of X. If Y is an invariant subset of X, then (Y, ~b) is also a cascade and we say that (Y, ~b) is a subcascade of (X, ~b). Let us consider the following properties of a topological transformation group (X, T):

Abstract. A topological group H is called ω -narrow if for every neighbourhood V of it’s identity element there exists a countable set A such that V A = H = AV. A semigroup G is called a generalized group if for any x ∈ G there exists a unique element e(x) ∈ G such that xe(x) = e(x)x = x and for every x ∈ G there exists x − 1 ∈ G such that x − 1x = xx − 1 = e(x). Also let G be a topological space and the operation and inversion mapping are continuous, then G is called a topological generalized group. If {e(x) | x ∈ G} is countable and for any a ∈ G, {x ∈ G|e(x) = e(a)} is an ω-narrow topological group, then G is called an ω-narrow topological generalized group. In this paper, ω-narrow and resolvable topological generalized groups are introduced and studied

§ i. General principal bundles i. F-structures Let P=(P,~,B,G) be a principal bundle where P and B are topological spaces and @ is a topological group. Let 0: F+G be a continuous homomorphism from a topological group F onto G with kernel K • 0 will be called central, if (i) K is discrete (ii) K is contained in the center of F Thus, in particular, K is abelian. It is easy to check that (ii) follows from (i) if F is connected. Thus every covering projection P: F÷G (F connected) satisfies the conditions above. Throughout this paper we shall assume that p is central. A r-structure on P is a F-principal bundle P=(P,~,B,F) together with a strong bundle map ~: P÷P which is equivariant under the right actions of the structure groups; that is

Totally Lindelöf and totally ω-narrow paratopological groups

First, we discuss the behavior of boundedness in uniform spaces with respect to subspaces, projective limits, and suprema in relation to precompactness. A special uniformly isomorphic embedding of un arbitrary uniform space in a bounded uniform space is presented and examined in 2.6. Hejcman’s characterization (by B-conservativity) of uniform spaces in which boundedness can be tested by a single pseudometric is proved in a new way, see 3.13, using a version 3.1 of the metrization lemma. We comment briefly on boundedness in topological vector spaces. In topological groups we investigate a hierarchy of partly new notions of boundedness, strongly interrelated among themselves, and exhibit various situations in which certain of these notions coincide. Boundedness respecting subspaces of a uniform space prove useful. Many examples illustrate and complement the general theory, see, e.g., Example 6.4.

As I noted in Sect.6.7, historically one source of the uniform measure concept had been the study of convolution of measures on topological vector spaces and on topological groups. In this chapter I explore the connection between uniform measures and convolution in a fairly general setting that includes convolution on topological groups as a special case.

Among the twenty-three mathematical problems that Hilbert posed at the Second International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris in 1900 (see [10]), the fifth problem is concerned with Lie’s theory of transformation groups, and in its second part deals with what Hilbert calls “infinite groups,” but which are not groups in the modern use of the term. The questions in this second part of the fifth problem concern functional equations and difference equations and have, for example, connections with the work of N.H. Abel. These questions lie completely outside the theory of transformation groups, and we do not discuss them here any further. We refer the reader to [1] for the “state of the art” of 1989 in this area of research. We recall that a topological transformation group consists of a topological group G, a topological space X, and a continuous action of G on X, that is, a continuous map