For each $x\in \mathbb{R}_{\ell}$, there exist $r_1,r_2$ rational numbers such that $r_1<x<r_2$. Then take $\cal{B}=\{[r_1,r_2):r_1<x<r_2,x\in \mathbb{R}_{\ell}\}$.

Then, for each $x\in\mathbb{R}_{\ell}$, there exists a $B\in\cal{B}$ such that $x\in B$.

Also for $B_1,B_2\in \cal{B}$ (say, $B_1=[r_1,r_2)$ and $B_2=[r_3,r_4)$), if WLOG $r_1<r_2\le r_3<r_4$, then $B_1\cap B_2=\emptyset$ and if $r_1<r_3<r_2<r_4$, then $B_1\cap B_2=[r_3,r_2)$, which is also in $\cal{B}$.

Thus $\cal{B}$ satisfies all the properties of a basis of a topology. Since $\cal{B}$ is countable, $\mathbb{R}_{\ell}$ is second countable.

I cannot understand why it is not a basis for $\mathbb{R}_{\ell}$?

  • $\begingroup$ What is $\mathbb{R}_\ell$ ? $\endgroup$ – Philippe Gaucher Apr 27 '18 at 7:57
  • $\begingroup$ @PhilippeGaucher It's usually $\Bbb R$ with the "lower limit" topology, i.e., with basis all of the $[a,b)$. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Apr 27 '18 at 8:01

A set like $A=[\sqrt2,1+\sqrt2)$ is open in the lower-limit topology, but isn't a union of sets $[a,b)$ with $a$, $b$ rational. So $\mathcal{B}$ isn't a basis for $\Bbb R_l$.

  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I got it; but in the above answer, $\cal{B}$ satisfies the definition of basis of a topology. Is there something I have done wrong or the definition is wrong? $\endgroup$ – pie Apr 27 '18 at 8:20
  • $\begingroup$ @pie It may be a basis for a topology, but that topology isn't that of $\Bbb R_l$. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Apr 27 '18 at 8:20
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, ok. It is clear now. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – pie Apr 27 '18 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ There's a proof that $\Bbb R_l$ is not second-countable in Munkres's book. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Apr 27 '18 at 8:24

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.