I am currently reading this paper https://blms.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/5/624.abstract and I have some difficulties to understand two steps of the proof of the main theorem.
Let $G$ be a non discrete topological group.
First of all, the authors indicate by $w(X_1,...,X_n)$ a free word. They don't say what it means exactly but I suppose the correct definition is the following:
$\textbf {Definition}$ A free word $w(X_1,...,X_n)$ is a function $w:G^n\to G$ such that $w(X_1,...,X_n)=X_{i_1}^{a_1}...X_{i_k}^{a_k}$ where $k\ge 1$, $i_1,...,i_k\in \{1,...,n\}$ and $a_1,...,a_k$ are integers different from $0$.
Now define for every $n\ge 2$: $F_n=\{ (g_1,...,g_n) \in G^n: \{g_1,...,g_n\}$ freely generates a free subgroup of G}, $F_\infty=\{(g_i)_1^\infty \in G^\infty: \{g_i\}_1^\infty $freely generates a free subgroup of G }
$\textbf {Warning}$ The ranks of the free groups generated by the elements of $F_n$ and $F_\infty$ are respectively $\textbf {at most } n$ and $\textbf{at most } \infty$. About this see If I say $\{g_1,\dots,g_n\}$ freely generates a subgroup of $G$, does that mean the elements $g_i$ are all distinct?
Now for every word $w$ define $C(w)=\{(g_1,...,g_n)\in G^n: w(g_1,...,g_n)=1\}$ and for every $n$-uple$ K=(k_1,...,k_n) $, where $ k_i$ are naturals,define $C(w,K)=\{(g_i)_1^\infty \in G^\infty: w(g_{k_1},...,g_{k_n})=1 $and the $g_{k_j} $are all distinct}.
$\textbf {Problem 1} $Prove that $F_n=G^n\setminus\bigcup_w C(w)$
$\textbf {Problem 2}$ Prove that $F_\infty=G^\infty\setminus\bigcup_{w,K} C(w,K)$
I know that the idea is that if the word is $1$ then we can in some way deny the definition of free group but I need your help for the details.
[Warning: I do not have access to the article itself and am basing everything below only on what you have written.]
First, a minor point: your definition of "free word" isn't quite right: you need to also require that $i_j\neq i_{j+1}$ for each $j$.
In context it seems clear that $F_n$ is meant to be defined as the set of tuples $(g_1,\dots,g_n)\in G^n$ such that $\{g_1,\dots,g_n\}$ freely generates a subgroup and the $g_i$ are all distinct (that is, in the language of my answer to the previous question, $(g_1,\dots,g_n)$ freely generates a subgroup). Indeed, with your interpretation the claim is not true: if for instance $g\in G$ generates a free subgroup then $(g,g)$ would be in $F_2$ by your interpretation, but it is in $C(w)$ where $w(X_1,X_2)=X_1X_2^{-1}$.
With the interpretation that the $g_i$ must all be distinct, the claim is easy to prove. Indeed, fix $(g_1,\dots,g_n)\in G^n$ and let $H$ be the free group on generators $x_1,\dots,x_n$. There is then a unique homomorphism $\varphi:H\to G$ that sends $x_i$ to $g_i$. Since $H$ is freely generated by the $x_i$, each free word on the $x_i$ is a non-identity element of $H$ (and conversely each non-identity element of $H$ can be represented uniquely as a free word on the $x_i$). Since $\varphi(w(x_1,\dots,x_n))=w(g_1,\dots,x_n)$, the set of non-identity elements of the kernel of $\varphi$ is in bijection with the set of $w$ such that $(g_1,\dots,g_n)\in C(w)$. But $(g_1,\dots,g_n)$ freely generates a subgroup iff $\varphi$ is injective (and hence an isomorphism between $H$ and the subgroup generated by the $g_i$). Thus $(g_1,\dots,g_n)$ freely generates a subgroup iff it is not in any $C(w)$.
For $F_\infty$, your interpretation does make the equation $F_\infty=G^\infty\setminus\bigcup_{w,K} C(w,K)$ true, since the definition of $C(w,K)$ only considers the case that the $g_{k_j}$ are all distinct. However, it seems rather strange to me that this would be intended. I would guess that the definition of $F_\infty$ is meant to require the $g_i$ to all be distinct, and that in defining $C(w,K)$ you should require the $k_j$ to be distinct rather than the $g_{k_j}$. With this interpretation, the proof of the second claim is nearly identical to the proof of the first claim: you now take $H$ to be free on $x_1,x_2,\dots$, and define $\varphi:H\to G$ sending $x_i$ to $g_i$. For any $(w,K)$ (with the $k_j$ all distinct), the element $w(x_{k_1},\dots,x_{k_n})\in H$ is not the identity (and conversely every non-identity element of $H$ has a unique representation of this form). So there is a nontrivial element of the kernel of $\varphi$ iff there is a $w$ and $K$ such that $(g_i)\in C(w,K)$.
Alternatively, it is plausible that actually your interpretation is the intended one for both the $F_n$ and for $F_\infty$, in which case the definition of $C(w)$ should be changed to require that for all $i$ such that $X_i$ appears in $w$, the $g_i$ are distinct. I can't say for sure without seeing the context in the article.