Definition of a subbasis of a topology

V0ODO0CH1LD
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
One of the definitions of a subbasis ##\mathcal{S}## of a set ##X## is that it covers ##X##. Then the collection of all unions of finite intersections of elements of ##\mathcal{S}## make up a topology ##\mathcal{T}## on ##X##. That means the collection of all finite intersections of elements of ##\mathcal{S}## is a basis ##\mathcal{B}## for the topology ##\mathcal{T}##.

But one of the defining characteristics of a basis is that it also must cover ##X##, although if the subbasis is the collection of all singletons in ##X##, which definitely covers ##X##, then the basis ##\mathcal{B}## would have only the empty set; wouldn't it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If \mathcal S = \{ \{x\}: \enspace x\in X\} as you describe, then the set of all finite intersections of members of \mathcal S is just \mathcal B = \mathcal S \cup \{\emptyset, X\}. This is a basis for the topology \mathcal T = \left\{ \bigcup \hat{\mathcal B}: \enspace \hat{\mathcal B} \subseteq \mathcal B \right\}= \{A: \enspace A\subseteq X \} which some call the discrete topology.
 
How does the intersection of singletons of a set give you the whole set? I can see that they give you the empty set, but not the whole set itself. Or are you just throwing the whole set into complete the basis??
 
V0ODO0CH1LD said:
How does the intersection of singletons of a set give you the whole set? I can see that they give you the empty set, but not the whole set itself. Or are you just throwing the whole set into complete the basis??

It doesn't give ##X##. But the process to form a topology given a subbasis ##\mathcal{S}## is the following:
1) First adjoin ##\emptyset## and ##X##.
2) Take all finite intersections
3) Take all unions

So this is why he had the set ##X##, since you need to adjoin it according to (1).

However, you seem to have a bit of another definition of a subbasis. You demand that a subbasis covers ##X##. This is not the standard definition, I believe. But if you follow your definition than the steps are:
1) Adjoin ##\emptyset##
2) Take all finite intersections
3) Take all unions.
 
It's not that important, but I was using the convention that the intersection of no sets is the whole space. i.e. Given a universe X, for any collection \mathcal A \subseteq 2^X of sets, one common definition of the intersection is \bigcap \mathcal A:= \{x\in X: \enspace x\in A \text{ for every } A\in\mathcal A\}. If this is the definition you like, then \bigcap\emptyset=X. Other people adopt the convention that "\bigcap \emptyset" is just undefined.
 
A sphere as topological manifold can be defined by gluing together the boundary of two disk. Basically one starts assigning each disk the subspace topology from ##\mathbb R^2## and then taking the quotient topology obtained by gluing their boundaries. Starting from the above definition of 2-sphere as topological manifold, shows that it is homeomorphic to the "embedded" sphere understood as subset of ##\mathbb R^3## in the subspace topology.
Back
Top