Does Every Topology Have a Minimal Subset Basis?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Topology
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Every topology T does not necessarily have a minimal subset basis B, as established in the forum discussion. The attempt to prove this using Zorn's Lemma reveals that while a collection of bases can be partially ordered, it does not guarantee the existence of a minimal basis. Henno Bradsma's insights indicate that while metric spaces may have a minimal subbase, not all topological spaces possess this property. Specifically, finite spaces have a unique minimal base, but the general assertion for bases in spaces like R is false.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic topology concepts, including bases and subbases.
  • Familiarity with Zorn's Lemma and its applications in set theory.
  • Knowledge of metric spaces and their properties.
  • Awareness of Alexandrov spaces and their characteristics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the application of Zorn's Lemma in topology and its limitations.
  • Explore the properties of metric spaces and minimal subbases.
  • Investigate Alexandrov spaces and their implications for open sets.
  • Study counterexamples to the existence of minimal bases in various topological spaces.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in topology, set theorists, and students seeking to deepen their understanding of basis and subbasis concepts in topological spaces.

mathboy
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
I can't seem to find this result in any of my textbooks. Given any basis B for a topology T on X, is there a minimal subset M of B that also is a basis for T (in the sense that any proper subset of M is not a basis for T)? If so, is Zorn's Lemma needed to prove this?
Is the same true of subbases?

Attempt at proof using Zorn's Lemma:
Let B be a basis for a topology T on X. Let A be the collection of all bases for T that is a subcollection of B. A is not empty because B is in A. Partially order A by set containment (i.e. D < E iff D contains E). Let C = {C_i} be a totally ordered subcollection of A. Let K = n(C_i) (intersection). We must show that K is a basis for T. Let U be a T-open set, and let x be in U. Since each C_i is a basis for T, then for each i, there exists C in C_i such that x is in C is a subset of U. Wait, C needs not be the same, and C needs not be in K.

Is the assertion false? What's a counterexample?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
How about this weaker assertion: Every topology T contains a minimal basis B for T (in the sense that any proper subset of B is not a basis for T).

This must be true, right? And the same for subbases? But Zorn's Lemma still doens't work.
 
My question even stumped topologist Henno Bradsma. He said:

"I found a result that a metric space has a minimal subbase (proved by van Emde Boas).
So probably not all spaces have them...
All finite spaces have a unique minimal base. This is all U_x, where U_x = /\{U: U open and x in U},
for x in X. Note that this argument works in all spaces where all intersections of open sets are open
(sometimes called Alexandrov spaces), so e.g. it's true in discrete spaces.
I think no base for R can be minimal, e.g., so the general result for bases seems false to me.

Henno"
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K