1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Topology: Indiscrete/Discrete Topology

  1. Sep 5, 2009 #1
    I am reading from my text, and was just wondering if someone could provide additional information on the following examples.

    0.1 Examples. For any set X each of the following defines a topology for X.

    (1) [tex]T_{*} = {A \subseteq X|a \in A \Rightarrow X \subseteq A},[/tex] Indiscrete Topology.

    (2) [tex]T^{*} = {A \subseteq X|a \in A \Rightarrow {a} \subseteq A},[/tex] Discrete Topology.

    I was wondering how we can have the following statement (from above),
    (1) [tex]a \in A \Rightarrow X \subseteq A[/tex]
    (2) [tex]a \in A \Rightarrow {a} \subseteq A[/tex]


  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 6, 2009 #2
    This is a really set-theoretic definition approach to defining these topologies, and they threw me off at first too. The indiscrete topology of X is the topology containing only the empty set and X itself. This agrees with their definition because if A=empty set, then nothing's in there so the implication to the right of the bar is "true" (I think some might say vacuously true, but I don't like the term). So A=empty set is in the topology. If X=A, then X is automatically a subset of A and thus in the topology. These are the only two subsets of X that satisfy their definition.

    The discrete topology of X is just the collection of all subsets of X, i.e. the topology equals the power set of X. This again agrees with their definition because any subset A of X will satisfy the property that if [itex]a\in A[/itex], then [itex]a\subseteq A[/itex].

    I think defining these topologies in this way and not explaining them is very poor writing. I don't see any reason why they would do so, because the definitions I gave (which was what I was taught and is in the book Topology by Munkres) are perfectly rigorous. Their definitions certainly give no immediate insight as to what the topologies actually consist of.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook