I How to define an open set using the four axioms of a neighborhood

  • Thread starter Thread starter learning physics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General topology
learning physics
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
How do I use the four axioms of a neighborhood to define an open set?
I am struggling to define an open set using the four axioms of a topological neighborhood, as per the Wikipedia article "Topological spaces."

An open set on a real number line is a set of points that contains only interior points, meaning that there is always room for some hypothetical particle to move either side of each point. Let's call this "the intuitive definition" of an open set.

An open set is defined as a neighborhood of all of its points, but I don't see how that would connect to the intuitive definition.

If a set of points is a neighborhood of all of its points, which we'll call The Large Neighborhood, it means that each point is contained in a neighborhood even smaller than The Large Neighborhood, which we'll call "small neighborhoods." Each point in The Large Neighborhood must also be contained in a neighborhood even smaller than the small neighborhoods, and so on. So, each point in The Large Neighborhood is buried underneath an infinite number of neighborhoods that are smaller than The Large Neighborhood. Still don't see how this connects to the intuitive definition.

Anyone care to help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could try this guy's YouTube series:

 
learning physics said:
TL;DR Summary: How do I use the four axioms of a neighborhood to define an open set?

I am struggling to define an open set using the four axioms of a topological neighborhood, as per the Wikipedia article "Topological spaces."

An open set on a real number line is a set of points that contains only interior points, meaning that there is always room for some hypothetical particle to move either side of each point. Let's call this "the intuitive definition" of an open set.

State this formally: U \subset \mathbb{R} is open if and only if for each x \in U there exists \delta > 0 such that (x - \delta , x + \delta) \subset U. (You can move up to \delta away from x in either direction without leaving U.)

An open set is defined as a neighborhood of all of its points, but I don't see how that would connect to the intuitive definition.

(x - \delta, x + \delta) is a neighbourhood of x.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
842