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.

Dear reader of this post,

I have a question concerning the equivalence of two definitions of open subsets (in metric spaces). To avoid confusion, I will state the two definitions and then ask my questions.

The definition I found is: Given a metric space $X$ and let $S \subset Y \subset X$. $S$ is an open subset of $Y$ if $\forall p \in S, \exists r > 0 \ | \ d(p,q)<r, q \in X \rightarrow q \in S$. In contrast, I simply defined $S$ to be an open subset of $Y$ if it is open and a subset of $Y$. The two definition however seem (at least to me) to be quite different because for the set $S$ to be open one only considers whether $S$ consists solely of interior points or not. The first definition however checks the existence of a neighbourhood of $p$ such that all points which are element of the largest set $X$ are also part of the smallest set $S$.

I have the following questions in particular:

  • Is it really true that the definition of a open subset is not a combination of two definitions of an open set and a subset?
  • The part "$q \in X$" of the first definition appears a bit strange to me. Is it correct that we do not considers points in Y but instead of the larger set $X$? What is then an open subset if one considers two sets instead of three?

I am looking forward for your replies.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

A simple example is $X=\mathbb R^2$ and $Y=\mathbb R\times\{0\}$. Then the standard definition makes the open sets of $Y$ the same as the open sets of $\mathbb R$, while your definition would have no open subsets of $Y$.

If $Y$ is open in $X$, then the two definitions coincide.

It turns out that $S$ is open in $Y$ (under the usual definition) if and only if $S=T\cap Y$ for some open subset $T\subseteq X$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thomas, thank you for your reply! The last definition that you stated "It turns out [...]" is equivalent to the definition of S being open relative to Y, or not? –  fabian Aug 1 '13 at 14:26
    
@fabian Yes. That was the definition of "open" we were given. –  Thomas Andrews Aug 1 '13 at 14:36
    
You mean open is equal to open relative to? –  fabian Aug 1 '13 at 14:40
    
@fabian: When we talk about being open in a subset $Y$ of a given space, we do indeed mean open relative to $Y$. When we just say "open," we mean open in the given space. –  Cameron Buie Aug 1 '13 at 15:13
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.