I'm trying to follow a proof in this video, #20 in the ThoughtSpaceZero topology series. I get the first part, but have a problem with second part, which begins at 8:16.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Let there by a topological space [itex](X,T)[/itex]. Let [itex]x[/itex] denote an arbitrary element of [itex]X[/itex].

Definition 1.Topological base. A set [itex]B \subseteq T[/itex] such that [itex](\forall T_i \in T) (\exists C \subseteq B) [T_i = \cup_C C_j][/itex].

Definition 2.Neighbourhood base for[itex]x[/itex]. A subset [itex]\beta [x][/itex] of [itex]V[x][/itex], the neighbourhoods of [itex]x[/itex], such that [itex](\forall V_i \in V[x])(\exists B_i \in \beta [x])[B_i \subseteq V_i][/itex].

Theorem. Let there be a topological space [itex](X,T)[/itex]. Let [itex]B \subseteq 2^X[/itex]. Let [itex]\beta [x] = \left \{ B_i \in B \;|\; x \in B_i \right \} \subseteq B[/itex]. Then [itex]B[/itex] is a topological base for T if and only if, for all [itex]x[/itex], the set [itex]\beta [x][/itex] is a neighbourhood base for [itex]x[/itex].

Proof. Assume [itex]B[/itex] is a base for [itex]T[/itex]. [...]

I understand that part; but I don't follow his proof of the converse. Paraphrasing here: (My comments in square brackets.)

What if [itex]U_x \notin T[/itex]? Since [itex]U_x[/itex] is a neighbourhood of [itex]x[/itex], we could replace it with a subset of itself which is open, but how would we know that this subset of [itex]U_x[/itex] is in [itex]B[/itex]? Assume that, [itex]\forall x[/itex], [itex]\beta [x][/itex] is a neighbourhood base for [itex]x[/itex]. Let [itex]U \in T[/itex]. Then [itex](\forall x \in U) (\exists U_x \in \beta [x])[U_x \subseteq U][/itex], by the definition of a neighbourhood base. [Because [itex]U[/itex], as an open set, is a neighbourhood of [itex]x[/itex], being a superset of itself.]But remember that the neighbourhood base is a subset of the base, by definition: [itex]\beta [x] \subseteq B[/itex].[By definition of what? Of the suggestively labelled set [itex]\beta [x][/itex]? Or was this part of the definition of a neighbourhood base? I'm guessing that "base (unqualified) = topological base" here, and that the reference to [itex]B[/itex] might be an accidental anticipation of the conclusion yet to be proved.] So [itex]U_x \in B[/itex]. So [itex]U = \cup_{x \in U} U_x[/itex], so [itex]B[/itex] is a [topological] base.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Topological and neighbourhood bases

Loading...

Similar Threads for Topological neighbourhood bases |
---|

I Definition of a neighborhood |

I I want to study topology |

A Charge quantization due to topology |

I R is disconnected with the subspace topology |

I Topology and mappings |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**