Definition of a Topological Space

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of a topological space, specifically focusing on the conditions that define open sets, including the implications of arbitrary unions and finite intersections of these sets. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects of set theory and topology.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the requirement for the whole space and the empty set to be open is redundant, as it is implied by the properties of arbitrary unions and finite intersections of open sets.
  • Another participant questions the interpretation of the empty intersection, suggesting that it is still the empty set and not the whole set.
  • A different participant clarifies that the original poster likely refers to an intersection over no sets, where the statement about belonging to the intersection is vacuously true.
  • Another participant agrees and elaborates on the nature of arbitrary unions and intersections, mentioning potential issues with the empty intersection in general contexts and referencing Russell's paradox.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations regarding the implications of the empty intersection and its relationship to the definition of a topological space. There is no consensus on whether the redundancy of the condition regarding the whole space and the empty set is universally accepted.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the context in which the empty intersection is considered, particularly in relation to set theory and topology. The discussion also touches on potential paradoxes that arise in broader contexts.

Jamma
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Just a small (and, really, quite useless) little nugget here:

In the definition of a topological space, we require that arbitrary unions and finite intersections of open sets are open. We also need that the whole space and the empty set are also open sets.

However, this last condition is actually redundant - the empty union is empty and, in the context of subsets of some set, the empty intersection is the whole set, so that the whole space and the empty set are open is actually implied by the first two properties!

Of course, I wouldn't suggest not including the last condition in the definition when teaching topology, just thought it was interesting to point out :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't the empty intersection still the empty set? You mean to say [tex]\emptyset\cap\emptyset=S[/tex]? (Where S is the whole set)
 
I think the OP means "intersection over no sets".

A point x belongs to an intersection if and only if it belongs to each of the sets over which the intersection is taken. If the intersection is over no sets, there are no conditions to check. The statement "x belongs to the intersection" is then vacuously true.
 
Exactly.

An arbitrary union indexed over some set is the set of points x which have the property that they belong to one of the indexed sets. Hence, the empty union is always empty.

The empty intersection is a little more troublesome in the general context. As you say, the condition is vacuously true, so you get issues with Russell's paradox and so on. These are all fixed if in the context of a universe, or if you are talking about subsets of a particular set (e.g. the set of elements in your topological space).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(set_theory)#Nullary_intersection
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
620
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K