Subspace/induced/relative Topology Definition

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter filter54321
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Topology
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of subspace, induced, or relative topology within the context of topology. Participants are exploring the formal definitions and clarifying the notation and symbols used in these definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the definition of subspace topology and presents their understanding, which involves the intersection of a subset with the topology of a larger space.
  • Another participant points out a potential misunderstanding, suggesting that the original poster seems to assume there are only finitely many open sets in the topology.
  • The original poster clarifies that the finite nature of the open sets was for illustrative purposes and references a definition from Wikipedia, noting a lack of clarity regarding the notation used for open sets.
  • A later reply asserts that the Wikipedia definition does specify what an open set is, explaining the standard set-builder notation used in the definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the clarity of the definitions and notation. There are competing views regarding the understanding of the subspace topology and the interpretation of the symbols involved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of definitions and notation, particularly regarding the role of the open sets in the topology and the assumptions about the finiteness of these sets.

filter54321
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding the definition of a Subspace/Induced/Relative Topology. The definitions I'm finding either don't define symbols well (at all).

If I understand correctly the definition is:

Given:
-topological space (A,[tex]\tau[/tex])
-[tex]\tau[/tex]={0,A,u1,u2,...un}
-subset B[tex]\subset[/tex]A

The subspace topology on B will be the intersection of B and every part of the topology of A

OR

[tex]\tau[/tex]B={0,B,B[tex]\bigcap[/tex]u1,B[tex]\bigcap[/tex]u2,...B[tex]\bigcap[/tex]un}


...I apologize in advance for my LATEX work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks correct idea for the subspace topology... but there is a serious problem in your understanding of topology: you seem to be assuming there are only finitely many open sets.
 
The u's are finite for illustrative purposes. I wanted to avoid using the form given by Wikipedia because it has insufficient textual explanation.

They have this definition, but don't specify exactly what a U is:

[tex]\tau[/tex]B={B[tex]\bigcap[/tex]U|U[tex]\in[/tex][tex]\tau[/tex]}

It seems that me that you need to say how U fits into the first topology.
 
filter54321 said:
They have this definition, but don't specify exactly what a U is:
Yes they do: they say a U is an element of [itex]\tau[/itex].

This is standard set-builder syntax for replacement: on the right of | you introduce a variable and its domain, and on the left of the | you have a function of that variable indicating what should go into the set you're building.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K