3
$\begingroup$

The following theorems are well known to me:
(i) Suppose $\tau$ and $\tau '$ are two topologies on a given set $X$. Then, $\tau '$ is said to be strictly finer than $\tau$ if $\tau \subsetneq \tau '$.
(ii) Let $\mathscr{B}$ and $\mathscr{B'}$ be the bases for topologies $\tau$ and $\tau '$ respectively on the set $X$. Then, TFAE:
$\hspace{25pt}$(a)$\tau '$ finer than $\tau$
$\hspace{25pt}$(b) for each $x\in X$ and each basis element $B\in \mathscr{B}$ containing $x$, there is a basis element $B'\in \mathscr{B'}$ such that $x\in B'\subset B$.
(iii) If $\mathscr{B}$ is a basis for the topology on $X$, the the collection $\mathscr{B}_{Y}=${$B\cap Y| B\in \mathscr{B}$} is a basis for the subspace topology on $Y$.

Question:
Suppose $\tau$ and $\tau '$ are two topologies on $X$, and $\tau '$ is strictly finer than $\tau$. What can you say about the corresponding subspace topologies on a subset $Y$ of $ X ?$

My Attempt:
For intuition, I considered $\mathbb{R}$ with the standard $\mathbb{R}_{st}$ and lower limit $\mathbb{R}_{l}$ topologies whose basic open sets are given by $(a,b)$ and $[a,b)$ respectively. Now, consider $Y=[0,1]$ and let $\sigma$ and $\sigma '$ be the subspace topologies on $Y$ corresponding to $\mathbb{R}_{st}$ and $\mathbb{R}_{l}$ respectively. Let $\mathscr{B}_{1}$ and $\mathscr{B}_{2}$ be the basis corresponding to $\sigma$ and $\sigma '$ respectively.

$\mathscr{B}_{1}=${$Y, \phi, [0,b),(b',1],(a'',b'')|0<b\leq1$ ;$0 \leq b'<1$ and $0\leq a''<b''\leq1 $}
$\mathscr{B}_{2}=${$Y, \phi, [a,b),[b',1]|0\leq a<b\leq1$ and $0<b'\leq 1$}
Therefore, every element of $\mathscr{B}_{1}$ is contained in $\mathscr{B}_{2}$. Thus, using (ii), I conclude that $\sigma ' \subset \sigma$.

Can you please give me hints about my mistake and also give me a way to fix it?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The open sets of $Y$ are those of the form $Y\cap U$ where $U$ is an open set of $X$. Hence if you increase the number of $U$s, you may increase the number of open sets of $Y$. But not necessarily. $\endgroup$ – Chrystomath May 10 at 9:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Chrystomath I didn't get anything from your comment. :( $\endgroup$ – Kumar May 10 at 10:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Kumar By the way, I think you have a typo. You wrote $\sigma' \subset \sigma$. Did you mean $\sigma \subset \sigma'$? $\endgroup$ – ZeroXLR May 10 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroXLR Ya I know my conclusion is wrong and that's why I want to fix the mistake. But No Typo. :) $\endgroup$ – Kumar May 10 at 10:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Kumar See my edit explaining where you made a mistake. $\endgroup$ – ZeroXLR May 10 at 10:48
2
$\begingroup$

If $\tau'$ is strictly finer than $\tau$, then the subspace topology $\sigma'$ induced on $Y \subseteq X$ by $\tau'$ will be finer than the one, $\sigma$, induced by $\tau$. Why? Well, any open set $V$ in $\sigma$ is of the form $U \cap Y$ where $U$ is in $\tau$. But, $\tau'$ is strictly finer than $\tau$ i.e. $\tau \subset \tau'$. Hence $U$ is in $\tau'$ also; so we managed to write $V$ as the intersection of an open set in $\tau'$ with $Y$ i.e. $U$ belongs to $\sigma'$. Thus, $\sigma \subseteq \sigma'$ and not $\sigma \subset \sigma'$. So something definitely went wrong in your example above using $\mathbb{R}_{st}$ and $\mathbb{R}_\ell$ and $\mathscr{B}_1$ and $\mathscr{B}_2$. Let us discuss that:

Therefore, every element of $\mathscr{B}_{1}$ is contained in $\mathscr{B}_{2}$.

Strictly speaking, that is not true. But you don't need that. What is true is if $B \in \mathscr{B}_1$ contains $x$, then there is an element $B' \in \mathscr{B}_2$ such that $x \in B' \subseteq B$. This is exactly what condition (ii)(b) requires. For example, if $B = (b', 1]$, and $x \in (b', 1]$, then you can just take $B' = [x, 1]$ to get $x \in [x, 1] \subseteq (b', 1]$. Next, if $B = (a'', b'') \ni x$, then you can take $B' = [x, b'')$ to get $x \in [x, b'') \subseteq (a'', b'')$ again. So on and so forth. And this leads to:

Thus, using (ii), I conclude that $\sigma ' \subset \sigma$.

You are using (ii) in exactly the opposite manner. Given what I explained above about $\mathscr{B}_1$ and $\mathscr{B}_2$, you actually get according to (ii)(a) that $\sigma'$ is finer than $\sigma$, which is just another way of saying $\sigma \subseteq \sigma'$ as one should expect.

Extra Fact:

In general $\sigma \subseteq \sigma'$ will not be strict. You can indeed have $\sigma = \sigma'$ even though $\tau \subset \tau'$ strictly. The topology you considered, $\mathbb{R}_\ell$, is not necessarily the best to demonstrate this. Instead, consider the $K$-topology $\mathbb{R}_K$ on $\mathbb{R}$ which is also mentioned in Munkres. It has as basis all open intervals $(a, b)$ just like $\mathbb{R}_{st}$. But its basis also contains sets of the form $(a, b) - K$ where $K = \{\frac{1}{n} \in \mathbb{R} \ : n \in \mathbb{Z}_+\}$.

Note what is going on. The set $K$ only affects open intervals that overlap with $[0, 1]$. So informally the topology of $\mathbb{R}_K$ away from that region is exactly the same as $\mathbb{R}_{st}$. So if for example $Y = [6, 10]$ or any other subset that does not overlap with $[0, 1]$, its subspace topology under $\mathbb{R}_K$ will be the same as the subspace topology induced by the standard topology. For if you have a basis element of $\sigma'$ of the form $((a, b) - K) \cap Y$, then because $Y$ has no elements in common with $K$, we have $((a, b) - K) \cap Y = (a, b) \cap Y$. So basis elements of $\sigma'$ coincide with those of $\sigma$.

$\endgroup$

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.