If $T$ is a set of topologies on a (non-empty) set $X$, then the initial topology on $X$ can be defined as $\bigcup T$ while the final topology is $\bigcap T$. We see clearly that $\bigcap T \subset \bigcup T$ and thus the final topology is strictly coarser than the initial topology.

However, consider the next situation: let $X$ and $Y$ be two topological spaces with distinguished points $x_0\in X$ and $y_0\in Y$, as well as the following four maps: the ''inclusions''

$$ \begin{array}{rcl} \iota_1: X & \longrightarrow & X\times Y\\ x & \longmapsto & (x,y_0) \\ \end{array} $$ and $$ \begin{array}{rcl} \iota_2: X & \longrightarrow & X\times Y\\ y & \longmapsto & (x_0,y) \\ \end{array} $$ and the projections $$ \begin{array}{rcl} \pi_1: X\times Y & \longrightarrow & X \\ (x,y) & \longmapsto & x \\ \end{array} $$ and $$ \begin{array}{rcl} \pi_2: X\times Y & \longrightarrow & Y\\ (x,y) & \longmapsto & y . \\ \end{array} $$

We can define two topologies on $X\times Y$: the initial topology with respect to the maps $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$, with is the usual product topology and the final topology with respect to the maps $(\iota_1,\iota_2)$.

For the first, if $\mathscr B_1$ and $\mathscr B_2$ are basis of the topology of $X$ and $Y$ resp. then

$$ \mathscr B = \left\{\bigcap_{i=1}^n \pi^{-1}(U_i) : \mbox{each } U_i \mbox{ belongs to } \mathscr B_1 \mbox{ or } \mathscr B_2 \mbox{ and } n\in\mathbb N \right\} $$

is a base for such a topology.

For the second one, a bse could be

$$ \mathscr B' = \{ U\subseteq X\times Y : \iota_1^{-1}(U)\in\mathscr B_1 \mbox{ AND } \iota_2^{-1}(U)\in\mathscr B_2 \} $$

(we need the ''AND'').

What is surprising for me? That the final topology is finer than the initial. For show that let me consider an easy example: pick $X=Y=\mathbb R$ and $x_0=y_0=0$. Then, a closed set in the usual topology such as for example the square $S=[a,b]\times[a,b]$, with $0<a<b$, is open in $\mathbb R^2$ equipped with the initial topology, since $\iota_1^{-1}(S)=\iota_2^{-1}(S)=\emptyset$ which is open.

What I would like to do now? I want to show that every open set in $\mathbb R^2$ with the product topology is also open in $\mathbb R^2$ endowed with the final topology.

And I would like to do it in a smart (elegant, refined, any word sounds me good) way. For that I should consider an open set $U\subseteq\mathbb R^2$ which will be an arbitrary union of sets of the form $(a,b)\times(c,d)$ ($a<b$ and $c<d$ and may be $\infty$). And I'm not sure how to proceed here. I think my problem is that I'm not sure how to express an arbitrary open set as the union of sets belonging to $\mathscr B$.

Thanks a lot.


2 Answers 2


The condition on the second map is equivalent to a subset of $U$ being open if $U$ restricted to $(x_0, \mathbb{R})$ is open in $\mathbb{R}$, and the subset of $U$ restricted to $(\mathbb{R}, y_0)$ is open in $\mathbb{R}$.

In $\mathbb{R}^2$, a set is open iff it's sequentially open. So if a subset were not open in the restriction to subspaces above, then it would fail to be open in $\mathbb{R}^2$, since a sequence exhibiting non-openness would continue to exist.


The product topology $\mathcal{T}_p$ on $X \times Y$ is the minimal topology that makes $\pi_1$ an $\pi_2$ continuous. From this fact it follows that a function $F : Z \to X \to Y$, from any space $Z$ is continuous (in the product topology on $X \times Y$) iff $F \circ \pi_1$ and $F \circ \pi_2$ are continuous.

Now $\iota_1 \circ \pi_1 = \textrm{id}_X$ and $\iota_1 \circ \pi_2 = c_{y_0}$, where the right hand sides are the identity map and a constant map, which are both continuous, so $\iota_1$ is continuous as a map into $(X \times Y, \mathcal{T}_p)$ and similar considerations show the same for $\iota_2$.

Now the final topology $\mathcal{T}_f$ you are considering is by definition the maximal topology on $X \times Y$ that makes $\iota_1$ and $\iota_2$ continuous, and $\mathcal{T}_p$ is just some topology that does that so by maximality: $\mathcal{T}_p \subseteq \mathcal{T}_f$

  • $\begingroup$ I hadn't realised. I mean I know these characterizations for the initial and the final topology. But I thought about using both at the same time and I didn't get a satisfactory result. Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Dog_69
    May 28, 2018 at 8:18

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.