1
$\begingroup$

I know that there are topologies that have to be defined in terms of a basis, for example, the standard topology on $\mathbb{R}$. I'm wondering if there is an examples of a topology that necessarily has to be defined in terms of a sub-basis?

Here are the relevant definitions from Munkres:

Basis:

If $X$ is a set, a basis for a topology on $X$ is a collection $\mathcal{B}$ of subsets of $X$ (called basis elements) such that

(1) For each $x \in X$, there is at least one basis element $B$ containing $x$.

(2) If $x$ belongs to the intersection of two basis elements $B_1$ and $B_2$, then there is a basis element $B_3$ containing $x$ such that $B_3 \subset B_1 \cap B_2$.

If $\mathcal{B}$ satisfies these two conditions, then we define the topology $\mathcal{T}$ generated by $\mathcal{B}$ as follows: A subset $U$ of $X$ is said to be open in $X$ (that is, to be an element of $\mathcal{T}$) if for each $x \in U$, there is a basis element $B \in \mathcal{B}$ such that $x \in B$ and $B \subset U$. Note that each basis element is itself an element of $\mathcal{T}$.

Subbasis:

A subbasis $\mathcal{S}$ for a topology on $X$ is a collection of subsets of $X$ whose union equals $X$. The topology generated by the subbasis $\mathcal{S}$ is defined to be the collection $\mathcal{T}$ of all unions of finite intersections of elements of $\mathcal{S}$.

Now is there an example of a topology that necessarily has to be defined in terms of a subbasis?

The product topology on an infinite Cartesian product of topological space is a candidate, but even there one can simply characterize the topology in terms of a basis. Am I right?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's not essential, and neither is the notion of a basis. But both notions are useful. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 27 '17 at 0:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why do you think the standard topology on $\mathbb{R}$ must be defined in terms of a basis? I could just as well say that the topology consists of all sets $U$ with the property that for all $x\in U$, there is an open interval $(a,b)$ with $x\in (a,b)\subseteq U$. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 27 '17 at 0:35
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexKruckman yes, that is true. But here you are using a basis for characterizing open sets. Isn't the collection of all open intervals a basis for the standard topology? $\endgroup$ – Saaqib Mahmood Sep 27 '17 at 5:05
  • $\begingroup$ Or I could say the topology contains all sets whose complements are closed under taking limits of Cauchy sequences. Is a basis for the topology hiding in this description? $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 27 '17 at 13:10
  • $\begingroup$ Or I could say it's the subspace topology inherited from the standard topology on $\mathbb{C}$, which I then describe in some other way. $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman Sep 27 '17 at 13:12
4
$\begingroup$

If $\mathcal{S}$ is a subbasis for $\mathcal{T}$, then the set of all finite intersections of elements of $\mathcal{S}$ is a basis for $\mathcal{T}$. So there's never going to be a context where it's much harder to describe a basis than a subbasis (although describing a subbasis might be slightly simpler).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ yes, it is so. But what is not clear to me is any situation where we have to start with a sub-basis in order to specify a topology. Any example of a situation where we cannot give a topology in terms of simply a sub-basis, just as we cannot give the standard topology on $\mathbb{R}$ without giving a basis for it. Infering from Munkres' presentation, I assume that the concept of sub-basis is to follow, and not precede, that a basis. $\endgroup$ – Saaqib Mahmood Sep 27 '17 at 4:58
0
$\begingroup$

A subbase can be a handy tool. The main examples of spaces most easily described by subbases are ordered topological spaces $(X,<)$, where the subbase is given by all sets of the form $L(a) = \{x: x < a\}$, $a \in X$ together with all sets of the form $U(a) = \{x: x > a\}$, $a \in X$. (lower and upper sets are open). The base generated by this subbase also includes the open intervals, as $(a,b) = U(a) \cap L(b)$.

Another example is the standard subbase for $\prod_{i \in I} X_i$, the Cartesian product of topological spaces $X_i$, is given by $\{\pi_i^{-1}[O]: i \in I, O \subseteq X_i \text{ open }\}$. The corresponding base has open sets that depend on finitely many coordinates, as is well-known.

It's easy to show that if we have a subbase $\mathcal{S}$ for the topology of $X$, that

a function $f: Y \to X$ is continuous iff $f^{-1}[S] $ is open in $Y$ for all $S \in \mathcal{S}$.

An immediate consequence is that a function $Y \to\prod_{i \in I} X_i$ is continuous iff $\pi_i \circ f$ is continuous for all $i \in I$.

A deeper fact is the Alexander subbase theorem:

$X$ is compact iff every open cover of $X$ by members of $\mathcal{S}$ has a finite subcover.

We quite easily get that a product of compact spaces is compact: suppose all $X_i$ are compact and take an open cover $\{O_j: j \in J\}$ of $X = \prod_{i \in I} X_i$ by subbase elements, so that we write each $O_j = \pi_{i(j)}^{-1}[U_j]$, with $U_j$ open in $X_{i(j)}$. Claim: there is some $i_0 \in I$ such that $\mathcal{O_i} = \{U_j : i(j) = i_0\}$ is an open cover of $X_{i_0}$, because if this were not the case we could pick $p_i \in X_i\setminus \bigcup \mathcal{O}_i$ for each $i$, and then $p := (p_i)_{i \in I}$ would not be covered by any member of $\mathcal{O}$, so this cannot be. For such an $i_0$ we find a finite subcover of $\mathcal{O}_i$, say $U_{j_1}, \ldots U_{j_n}$, where all $i(j_k) = i_0$, and then note that the corresponding $O_{j_1} = \pi_{i_0}^{-1}[U_{j_1}], \ldots,O_{j_n} = \pi_{i_0}^{-1}[U_{j_n}]$ are a finite subcover of $\mathcal{O}$. By Alexander's subbase theorem the product is compact.

As an exercise for the interested reader we also can prove easily from Alexander's subbase theorem that an ordered topological space $(X,<)$ is compact iff every subset of $X$ has a supremum.

I think applications as these show that subbases can be handy tools for compactness or continuity proofs.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

There are situations (for example, weak and weak* topologies in functional analysis) where we have a set $X$ and some functions $f_i:X\to Y_i$ from $X$ into some topological spaces $Y_i$, and we want to topologize $X$ so that these functions $f_i$ become continuous. Of course, we could just give $X$ the discrete topology; then all functions from $X$ to any topological space will be continuous. But that's usually making far more subsets of $X$ open than we actually need. Suppose we want the smallest topology $T$ on $X$ making the $f_i$"s continuous. So, for each $i$ and each open $U\subseteq Y_i$, we need $f_i^{-1}(U)\in T$. Of course, to be a topology, $T$ must also include finite intersections and arbitrary unions of whatever sets are in $T$. An efficient way to define the desired $T$ is to say that the sets $f_i^{-1}(U)\in T$ (for $U$ open in $Y_i$) constitute a subbase.

More generally, given any family $\mathcal F$ of subsets of a set $X$, there is a smallest topology on $X$ such that all the sets in $\mathcal F$ are open. That topology has $\mathcal F$ as a subbase.

$\endgroup$

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.