Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Here, $\mathbb{R}_l$ is the lower limit topology on $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}_K$ is the K-topology on $\mathbb{R}$. I understand the proof that these topologies are strictly finer than $\mathbb{R}$, but I am at a loss to begin how to show they aren't comparable. This is from Munkres book.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

To show that they are not comparable, you just need to find an open set in each that is not open in the other. (As in Munkres, I will denote the set $\{ \frac{1}{n} : n \in \mathbb{Z}_+ \}$ by $K$.)

  • The set $[2,3)$ is open in $\mathbb{R}_l$, but not in $\mathbb{R}_K$.
  • $\mathbb{R} \setminus K$ is open in $\mathbb{R}_K$, but not in $\mathbb{R}_l$. (Every open set in $\mathbb{R}_l$ containing $0$ meets the set $K$.)
share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your response! When determining whether or not the set is open, can I go by the criterion used in section 13, namely, $U$ is open if for each element in U, there is a basis element $B$ such that x is an element of $B$ and $B$ is a subset of $U$? –  Domonic Mei Sep 16 '12 at 22:14
    
@Domonic: Of course you can use that characterization! (And quite often that is exactly what one would do.) –  Arthur Fischer Sep 17 '12 at 2:02
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.