Topology generated by interior operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of a topology generated by an interior operator on the power set of a set X. Participants are exploring the axioms of interior operators and attempting to demonstrate that a specific set defined by these operators forms a topology. The focus includes verifying closure under arbitrary unions and the uniqueness of the topology determined by the interior operator.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 presents the definition of an interior operator and the challenge of proving that the set τ is closed under arbitrary unions.
  • Post 2 suggests showing that if A is a subset of B, then φA is a subset of φB, as a step towards proving the closure property.
  • Post 3 expresses uncertainty about the role of axiom (IO 3) in the proof that τ is a topology, questioning whether it is necessary or implicit in the reasoning.
  • Post 4 emphasizes the need to verify that φ is indeed the interior operator of the topology and that the topology determined by φ is unique.
  • Post 5 provides a proof that φA corresponds to the interior of A with respect to the topology τ, while also raising questions about proving the uniqueness of the topology.
  • Post 6 advises that to prove uniqueness, one must show that a set U is open if and only if φU = U.
  • Post 7 summarizes the understanding that the definition of interior specified by the topology corresponds to the original interior operator, and outlines the need to derive the axioms for completeness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to establish the properties of the topology generated by the interior operator, but there is ongoing uncertainty regarding the necessity of certain axioms and the uniqueness of the topology. Multiple views are presented on how to approach these proofs.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential ambiguity in the application of axiom (IO 3) and the challenge of proving the nonexistence of contradictions in the definition of the topology. The discussion does not resolve these issues definitively.

Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
Given an interior operator on the power set of a set X, i.e. a map \phi such that, for all subsets A,B of X,

(IO 1)\enspace \phi X = X;

(IO 2)\enspace \phi A \subseteq A;

(IO 3)\enspace \phi^2A = \phi A;

(IO 4)\enspace \phi(A \cap B) = \phi A \cap \phi B,

I'm trying to show that the set

\tau = \left \{ U \in 2^X | \phi U = U \right \}

is a topology for X. I've shown everything except that \tau is closed under arbitrary unions. By (IO 2),

\phi\left ( \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda}U_\lambda \right ) \subseteq \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda}U_\lambda = \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda}\phi U_\lambda.

So all that remains is to show that

\bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda}U_\lambda = \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda}\phi U_\lambda \subseteq \phi\left ( \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda}U_\lambda \right ).

Any hints? I've used all of the axiom so far except (IO 3), so I'm guessing this must be involved somehow ... I've also done the corresponding exercise for a closure operator and got stuck on at the same point.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We know that

A_i\subseteq \bigcup A_i

Now take \phi of both sides and take unions.

You will have to show for this that

A\subseteq B~\Rightarrow~\phi A\subseteq \phi B

somehow. For this, notice that

A\subseteq B~\Leftrightarrow~A\cap B=A
 
Great, thanks micromass! That's just the hint I needed. The only thing that puzzles me now is that I don't think I used (IO 3) anywhere in showing that tau is a topology.

X is in tau by (IO 1). The empty set is in tau by (IO 2). (IO 4) gives us finite intersections directly. And I used (IO 2) to get arbitrary unions: if each U_\lambda = \phi U_\lambda, then

\phi\left ( \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda}U_\lambda \right )\subseteq \bigcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\phi U_\lambda = \bigcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}U_\lambda.

Did I use (IO 3) implicitly somewhere, without knowing it? Or is it superfluous, or what is it for?
 
Only showing that you got a topology is not good enough. There are still 2 other things to verify:

1) \phi is the interior operator of your topology. Indeed, you got a topology, but it might have a completely different interior operator than what we intend.

2) The topology determined by \phi is unique. Indeed, there might be more topologies with this same interior operator.
 
1) Ah, I see. Here's my proof that \phi A = A^\circ, the interior of A with respect to the topology \tau = \left \{ U \subseteq X \; | \;\phi U = U \right \}:

\left ( x\in A^\circ \right ) \Leftrightarrow \left ( \left ( \exists U\in\tau \right )\left [ x\in U\subseteq A \right ] \right )

\Leftrightarrow ( ( \exists U\in\tau ) [ ( x\in U ) \& ( U\subseteq A ) ] )

\Leftrightarrow \left ( \left ( \exists U\in\tau \right )\left [ (x\in \phi U )\&(\phi U \subseteq \phi A)\right ] \right )

\Rightarrow (x\in\phi A).

Conversely, by (IO 2),

(x\in\phi A) \Rightarrow (x\in A).

And by (IO 3), \phi A = \phi (\phi A), so \phi A \in\tau, so letting U = \phi A, we see that

(x\in \phi A)\Rightarrow ((\exists U\in\tau)[(x\in U \subseteq A)])

\Leftrightarrow (x\in A^\circ). \enspace\blacksquare

2) I'm not sure where to start with this one. I suppose it amounts to proving that the definition of the set

\tau = \left \{ U \subseteq X \; | \;\phi U = U \right \}

contains a contradiction, so that the set is not well defined. One can prove the existence of a contradiction by finding one, but how to prove the nonexistence of a contradiction?
 
For (2), you must take a topological space (X,\mathcal{T}) such that \phi is its interior operator. You must prove that a set U is open if and only if \phi U=U.
 
Ah, I see. I showed that an arbitrary interior operator gives a topology, defined as the sets which are invariant under this operator, and the definition of interior specified by that topology corresponds to the definition of interior specified by the arbitrary interior operator we started with. Then I'd need to show that the definition of interior, (\cdot)^\circ, specified by an arbitrary topology, \tau, is the specific interior operator, \phi, for which the elements of \tau are exactly those sets for which \phi U = U; that is, open sets are exactly those which are equal to their interior.

For this final part, suppose a set is open. Then it is the union of all of its open subsets, and thus equal to its interior. Conversely, suppose a set is equal to its interior. Then it's the union of all of its open subsets, and a union of open subsets is open, so it must be open.

(To completely show that (\cdot)^\circ is an interior operator, as defined by the axioms above, I'd also have to derive each of these axioms as a property of (\cdot)^\circ. I read such a derivation earlier and copied it in my notebook, but it won't hurt to derive it again from scratch, to reinforce the ideas...)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K