Definition of a subbasis of a topology

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter V0ODO0CH1LD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Topology
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition of a subbasis of a topology, particularly focusing on its properties, the relationship between subbases and bases, and the implications of different definitions of intersections. Participants explore the conditions under which a subbasis covers a set and how this affects the resulting topology.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that a subbasis ##\mathcal{S}## must cover the set ##X## and that the collection of all unions of finite intersections of elements of ##\mathcal{S}## forms a topology ##\mathcal{T}## on ##X##.
  • Another participant clarifies that if the subbasis is the collection of all singletons in ##X##, the basis formed would include the empty set and the whole set, leading to a discrete topology.
  • Several participants question how the intersection of singletons can yield the whole set, with some suggesting that the whole set is included by convention in the process of forming a topology.
  • One participant points out that the definition of a subbasis requiring it to cover ##X## may not align with standard definitions, suggesting an alternative approach to forming a topology from a subbasis.
  • A participant introduces a convention regarding the intersection of no sets, stating that it can be defined as the whole space, while noting that others may consider it undefined.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definition of a subbasis and the implications of intersections, indicating that there is no consensus on whether a subbasis must cover ##X## or how intersections should be defined.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of subbasis and intersection, as well as the implications of these definitions on the resulting 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
497
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K