Difference between revisions of "Basis for a topology"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Missed something silly)
(Refactored page, preliminary version)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Refactor notice|grade=A|msg=Updating with findings.}}
 +
__TOC__
 +
==Definition==
 +
Let {{Top.|X|J}} be a [[topological space]] and let {{M|\mathcal{B}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))}} be any collection of subsets of {{M|X}}<ref group="Note">We could say something else instead of {{M|\mathcal{B}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))}}:
 +
* Let {{M|\mathcal{B}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{J})}} - so {{M|\mathcal{B} }} is explicitly a collection of [[open sets]], then we could drop condition {{M|1}}. Or!
 +
* Let {{M|\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{J} }}. But it is our convention to ''not'' say "let {{M|A\subseteq B}}" but "let {{M|A\in\mathcal{P}(B)}}" instead. To emphasise that the [[power-set]] is possibly in play.
 +
We do not do these because it (sort of) violates the [[Doctrine of Least Surprise]], we usually deal with subsets of the ''space'' not subsets of the ''[[set system]]'' on that space.<br/>
 +
That is a weird way of saying if we have a structure (eg [[topological space]], [[measurable space]], so forth) say {{M|(A,\mathcal{B})}} we usually deal with (collections of) subsets of {{M|A}} and specify they must be in {{M|\mathcal{B} }}.</ref>. We say {{M|\mathcal{B} }} is ''a basis for the [[topology]] {{M|\mathcal{J} }}'' if both of the following are satisfied:
 +
# {{M|1=\forall B\in\mathcal{B}[B\in\mathcal{J}]}}
 +
# {{M|1=\forall U\in\mathcal{J}\exists\{B_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}\subseteq\mathcal{B}[\bigcup_{\alpha\in I}B_\alpha=U]}}
 +
==[[Topology generated by a basis]]==
 +
{{:Topology generated by a basis/Statement}}
 +
==See also==
 +
* [[Sub-basis for a topology]]
 +
 +
==Notes==
 +
<references group="Note"/>
 +
==References==
 +
<references/>
 +
{{Topology navbox|plain}}
 +
{{Definition|Topology}}
 +
=OLD PAGE=
 
==Definition==
 
==Definition==
 
Let {{M|X}} be a set. A ''basis'' for a topology on {{M|X}} is a collection of subsets of {{M|X}}, {{M|\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(X)}} such that<ref name="Top">Topology - Second Edition - James R. Munkres</ref>:
 
Let {{M|X}} be a set. A ''basis'' for a topology on {{M|X}} is a collection of subsets of {{M|X}}, {{M|\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(X)}} such that<ref name="Top">Topology - Second Edition - James R. Munkres</ref>:

Revision as of 01:47, 22 September 2016

Grade: A
This page is currently being refactored (along with many others)
Please note that this does not mean the content is unreliable. It just means the page doesn't conform to the style of the site (usually due to age) or a better way of presenting the information has been discovered.
The message provided is:
Updating with findings.

Definition

Let [ilmath](X,\mathcal{ J })[/ilmath] be a topological space and let [ilmath]\mathcal{B}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))[/ilmath] be any collection of subsets of [ilmath]X[/ilmath][Note 1]. We say [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath] is a basis for the topology [ilmath]\mathcal{J} [/ilmath] if both of the following are satisfied:

  1. [ilmath]\forall B\in\mathcal{B}[B\in\mathcal{J}][/ilmath]
  2. [ilmath]\forall U\in\mathcal{J}\exists\{B_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}\subseteq\mathcal{B}[\bigcup_{\alpha\in I}B_\alpha=U][/ilmath]

Topology generated by a basis

Let [ilmath]X[/ilmath] be a set and let [ilmath]\mathcal{B}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))[/ilmath] be any collection of subsets of [ilmath]X[/ilmath], then:

  • [ilmath](X,\{\bigcup\mathcal{A}\ \vert\ \mathcal{A}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{B})\})[/ilmath] is a topological space with [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath] being a basis for the topology [ilmath]\{\bigcup\mathcal{A}\ \vert\ \mathcal{A}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{B})\}[/ilmath]

if and only if

  • we have both of the following conditions:
    1. [ilmath]\bigcup\mathcal{B}=X[/ilmath] (or equivalently: [ilmath]\forall x\in X\exists B\in\mathcal{B}[x\in B][/ilmath][Note 2]) and
    2. [ilmath]\forall U,V\in\mathcal{B}\big[U\cap V\neq\emptyset\implies \forall x\in U\cap V\exists B\in\mathcal{B}[x\in W\wedge W\subseteq U\cap V]\big][/ilmath][Note 3]
      • Caveat:[ilmath]\forall U,V\in\mathcal{B}\ \forall x\in U\cap V\ \exists W\in\mathcal{B}[x\in W\subseteq U\cap V][/ilmath] is commonly said or written; however it is wrong, this is slightly beyond just abuse of notation.[Note 4]

See also

Notes

  1. We could say something else instead of [ilmath]\mathcal{B}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))[/ilmath]:
    • Let [ilmath]\mathcal{B}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{J})[/ilmath] - so [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath] is explicitly a collection of open sets, then we could drop condition [ilmath]1[/ilmath]. Or!
    • Let [ilmath]\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{J} [/ilmath]. But it is our convention to not say "let [ilmath]A\subseteq B[/ilmath]" but "let [ilmath]A\in\mathcal{P}(B)[/ilmath]" instead. To emphasise that the power-set is possibly in play.
    We do not do these because it (sort of) violates the Doctrine of Least Surprise, we usually deal with subsets of the space not subsets of the set system on that space.
    That is a weird way of saying if we have a structure (eg topological space, measurable space, so forth) say [ilmath](A,\mathcal{B})[/ilmath] we usually deal with (collections of) subsets of [ilmath]A[/ilmath] and specify they must be in [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath].
  2. By the implies-subset relation [ilmath]\forall x\in X\exists B\in\mathcal{B}[x\in B][/ilmath] really means [ilmath]X\subseteq\bigcup\mathcal{B} [/ilmath], as we only require that all elements of [ilmath]X[/ilmath] be in the union. Not that all elements of the union are in [ilmath]X[/ilmath]. However:
    • [ilmath]\mathcal{B}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))[/ilmath] by definition. So clearly (or after some thought) the reader should be happy that [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath] contains only subsets of [ilmath]X[/ilmath] and he should see that we cannot as a result have an element in one of these subsets that is not in [ilmath]X[/ilmath].
    Thus [ilmath]\forall B\in\mathcal{B}[B\in\mathcal{P}(X)][/ilmath] which is the same as (by power-set and subset definitions) [ilmath]\forall B\in\mathcal{B}[B\subseteq X][/ilmath].
  3. We could of course write:
    • [ilmath]\forall U,V\in\mathcal{B}\ \forall x\in \bigcup\mathcal{B}\ \exists W\in\mathcal{B}[(x\in U\cap V)\implies(x\in W\wedge W\subseteq U\cap V)][/ilmath]
  4. Suppose that [ilmath]U,V\in\mathcal{B} [/ilmath] are given but disjoint, then there are no [ilmath]x\in U\cap V[/ilmath] to speak of, and [ilmath]x\in W[/ilmath] may be vacuously satisfied by the absence of an [ilmath]X[/ilmath], however:
    • [ilmath]x\in W\subseteq U\cap V[/ilmath] is taken to mean [ilmath]x\in W[/ilmath] and [ilmath]W\subseteq U\cap V[/ilmath], so we must still show [ilmath]\exists W\in\mathcal{B}[W\subseteq U\cap V][/ilmath]
      • This is not always possible as [ilmath]W[/ilmath] would have to be [ilmath]\emptyset[/ilmath] for this to hold! We do not require [ilmath]\emptyset\in\mathcal{B} [/ilmath] (as for example in the metric topology)

References

OLD PAGE

Definition

Let [ilmath]X[/ilmath] be a set. A basis for a topology on [ilmath]X[/ilmath] is a collection of subsets of [ilmath]X[/ilmath], [ilmath]\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(X)[/ilmath] such that[1]:

  1. [ilmath]\forall x\in X\exists B\in\mathcal{B}[x\in B][/ilmath] - every element of [ilmath]X[/ilmath] belongs to at least one basis element.
  2. [ilmath]\forall B_1,B_2\in\mathcal{B},x\in X\ \exists B_3\in\mathcal{B}[x\in B_1\cap B_2\implies(x\in B_3\wedge B_3\subseteq B_1\cap B_2)][/ilmath][Note 1] - if any 2 basis elements have non empty intersection, there is a basis element within that intersection containing each point in it.

Note that:

  • The elements of [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath] are called basis elements[1]

Topology generated by [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath]

If [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath] is such a basis for [ilmath]X[/ilmath], we define the topology [ilmath]\mathcal{J} [/ilmath] generated by [ilmath]\mathcal{B} [/ilmath][1] as follows:

  • A subset of [ilmath]X[/ilmath], [ilmath]U\subseteq X[/ilmath] is considered open (equivalently, [ilmath]U\in\mathcal{J} [/ilmath]) if:
    • [ilmath]\forall x\in U\exists B\in\mathcal{B}[x\in B\wedge B\subseteq U][/ilmath][Note 2]

Claim: This [ilmath]\mathcal{(J)} [/ilmath] is indeed a topology




TODO: Do this, see page 81 in Munkres - shouldn't be hard!


See also

Notes

  1. This is a great example of a hiding if-and-only-if, note that:
    • [ilmath](x\in B_3\wedge B_3\subseteq B_1\cap B_2)\implies x\in B_1\cap B_2[/ilmath] (by the implies-subset relation) so we have:
      • [ilmath](x\in B_3\wedge B_3\subseteq B_1\cap B_2)\implies x\in B_1\cap B_2\implies(x\in B_3\wedge B_3\subseteq B_1\cap B_2)[/ilmath]
    • Thus [ilmath](x\in B_3\wedge B_3\subseteq B_1\cap B_2)\iff x\in B_1\cap B_2[/ilmath]
    This pattern occurs a lot, like with the axiom of extensionality in set theory.
  2. Note that each basis element is itself is open. This is because [ilmath]U[/ilmath] is considered open if forall x, there is a basis element containing [ilmath]x[/ilmath] with that basis element [ilmath]\subseteq U[/ilmath], if [ilmath]U[/ilmath] is itself a basis element, it clearly satisfies this as [ilmath]B\subseteq B[/ilmath]

    TODO: Make this into a claim


References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Topology - Second Edition - James R. Munkres