Relative Boundaries in General Topology


by Tom Mattson
Tags: boundaries, relative, topology
Tom Mattson
Tom Mattson is offline
#1
Apr13-05, 08:28 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,540
Hi,

I was trying to help a student with an assignment in topology when I was stumped by a symbol that I had not seen before. Here's the problem.

a.) Let [itex](X,\square)[/itex] be a topological space with [itex]A\subseteq X[/itex] and [itex]U\subseteq A[/itex]. Prove that [itex]Bd_A(U)\subseteq A\cap Bd_X(U)[/itex].

The first thing that has got me stumped here is the subscripted boundaries. I have never seen this before, but I tried to reason it out as follows. The "ordinary" boundary of a set A is [itex]Bd(A)=[ext(A)]^c\cap[int(A)]^c[/itex], the intersection of all the points that are neither in the exterior of [itex]A[/itex] nor in the interior of [itex]A[/itex]. The first problem is how to relate the boundary of a set to a second set (and thus introduce the subscripts), so I went back to the definition of the complement of a set [itex]A[/itex], which is the difference [itex]\mathbb{U}-A[/itex], where [itex]\mathbb{U}[/itex] is the universal set. This led me to conjecture that:

[itex]Bd_A(U)=[A-ext(U)]\cap[A-int(U)][/itex]
[itex]Bd_X(U)=[X-ext(U)]\cap[X-int(U)][/itex]

Before I move on, can someone tell me if that is correct? Thanks.
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
'Math detective' analyzes odds for suspicious lottery wins
Pseudo-mathematics and financial charlatanism
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#2
Apr13-05, 09:27 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,881
Yes, [tex]Bd_A(U) is the "boundary of U relative to A" which means the boundary of U in the "relative topology". If X is a topological space and A is a subset of A, then all open sets "relative to A" are open sets in X, intersect A. The interior of U "relative to A" is simply the interior of U (relative to X) intersect A and exterior of U "relative to A" is the exterior of U (relative to X) intersect A. Since boundary points of U are points of U that are neither interior nor exterior to U, but points in the boundary of U "relative to A" must be in A, they must be neither interior nor exterior "relative to X": that is must be in the boundary of U "relative to X": in boundary of U relative to X intersect A, just as the formla says.
matt grime
matt grime is offline
#3
Apr13-05, 09:33 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,398
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ortep/topology/defs.txt

contains some definitions.

As an example, consider [0,1] as a subset of R: it's boundary os {0,1}, but in the subspace topology its boundary is empty.

If you use the definition there it should become clear how to prove this result.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
K topology strictly finer than standard topology Calculus & Beyond Homework 5
Union of boundaries Calculus & Beyond Homework 3
General Topology Calculus & Beyond Homework 6
Geometric Topology Vs. Algebraic Topology. General Math 1
General Relative-Field Theory Special & General Relativity 0