0
$\begingroup$

I need a check about this exercise:

Let $\mathcal{B}$=$\{[a,+\infty):a \in \mathbb{R}\}$ the basis that generate the topology $\tau$.

(i) Is $\tau$ finer or coarser than $\tau_e$?

(ii)Is $(-3,+\infty)$ open in $(\mathbb{R},\tau)$?

(iii) Find the interior of $(1,+\infty),(-\infty,0)$ in $(\mathbb{R},\tau)$

(iv) Find the closure of $\{1\}$,$[0,+\infty)$,$(-1,1)$ in $(\mathbb{R},\tau)$

(v)Say if $f:(\mathbb{R},\tau) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R},\tau), x \mapsto cx, c\in \mathbb{R}$ is an homeomorphism.


Here's my proof.

(i)Since $\tau_e \subset \tau$, $\tau$ is finer than the euclidian topology.

(ii)A set $\mathcal{A}$ is open iff for every $x$ in $\mathcal{A}$ there exists an open set $U$ such that $x \in U \subset \mathcal{A}$.

I think that $(-3,+\infty)= \bigcup_{n\geq1} [3-1/n,+\infty)$ and the union of open sets is an open set.

(iii)$\text{Int}(1,+\infty)=(1,+\infty)$

$\text{Int}(-\infty,0)=\emptyset$

(iv) A closed set is like $(-\infty,a)$, $(-\infty,a]$, since it's complementar is open in $\tau$.

$\overline{\{1\}}=(-\infty,1]$

$\overline{[0,+\infty)}=\mathbb{R}$

$\overline{(-1,1)}=(-\infty,1)$

(v) If $c=0$ the function is the costant map $0$ and it's a banal homeomorphism.

Let's suppose $c\neq0$.

I have to show that $f$ is continuous and bijective and $f^{-1}$ is also continuos.

If $c>0$, $f^{-1}[a,+\infty)=[a/c,+\infty) \in \tau$, and $f^{-1}:(\mathbb{R},\tau) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R},\tau)$, with $x\mapsto x/c$ is also continuos.

If $c<0$, for $a \in \mathbb R$, I got that $f^{-1}[a,+\infty)=(-\infty,a/c] \notin \tau$.

So $f$ is an homeomorphism iff $c \geq 0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ you need to prove (i)... why is $\tau_e\subset \tau$? And if $\tau_e\subset \tau$ then $\operatorname{int}(-\infty,0)=(-\infty,0)$. $\endgroup$ – Masacroso Aug 21 '17 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ Are the sets in $\mathcal{B}$ supposed to be closed in the topology generated by $\mathcal{B}$? $\endgroup$ – Michael Lee Aug 21 '17 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ What is $\tau_e$? $\endgroup$ – 54321user Aug 21 '17 at 17:23
  • $\begingroup$ What is a "banal homeomorphism"? $\endgroup$ – drhab Aug 21 '17 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ @54321user the euclidean topology $\endgroup$ – Masacroso Aug 21 '17 at 17:35
1
$\begingroup$

It is mostly correct. A few remarks:

  1. While proving that (i) holds, you should have done something that you only do while proving that (ii) holds, namely that sets of the form $(a,+\infty)$ belong to $\tau$.
  2. Your justification of (ii) is clumsy. You state that a set is open if and only if it satisfies a certain condition and then you don't use that. And what happens is that $(-3,+\infty)=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}\left[-3+\frac1n,+\infty\right)$.
  3. Yes, all sets of the form $(-\infty,a)$ and $(-\infty,a]$ are closed, but you should have added that, besides $\emptyset$ and $\mathbb R$, these are the only closed sets.
  4. If $c=0$, $f$ is not a homeomorphism (banal or othersise).
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @feddy If this answer is satisfying for you then don't forget to accept it. Uptil now you have asked $10$ questions, but only one of them was accepted. If that's in accordance with your standards then they might be too high. $\endgroup$ – drhab Aug 21 '17 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ @JosèCarlosSantos: are the topologies not comparable as state drhab? I thought that every open set in the euclidian topology is in an open set like $[a,+\infty)$... nut now I'm no so sure $\endgroup$ – VoB Aug 22 '17 at 7:29
  • $\begingroup$ @feddy No, they are not comparable, since $[0,+\infty)\in\tau\setminus\tau_e$ and $(0,1)\in\tau_e\setminus\tau$. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Aug 22 '17 at 7:38
  • $\begingroup$ Clear, thanks! ;) $\endgroup$ – VoB Aug 22 '17 at 9:59
1
$\begingroup$

I preassume that $\tau_e$ denotes the common topology on $\mathbb R$.

(i) The topologies are not comparable since $[0,\infty)\in\tau$, $[0,\infty)\notin\tau_e$, $(0,1)\notin\tau$ and $(0,1)\in\tau_e$.

(ii), (iii), (iv) correct.

(v) If $c=0$ then $f$ is not a homeomorphism, since it is not bijective. What you say about $c>0$ and $c<0$ is correct.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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