3
$\begingroup$

I have a worksheet for my real analysis course that sets up a problem by defining "a new topology $S$ on $\mathbb R$ by declaring a set $U \subseteq \mathbb R$ to be in $S$ if $\mathbb R \setminus U$ is finite." We haven't covered topologies in class yet, but the worksheet says that one of the conditions for a thing $T$ to be a topology is that $\emptyset \in T$.

It seems to me that $\mathbb R \setminus \emptyset$ would not be finite, because it would simply be $\mathbb R$ which is not finite. So $\emptyset \subset S$, but $\emptyset \notin S$. This would mean $S$ is not a topology. Have I misunderstood something about topologies?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The cofinite topology is defined to contain all cofinite subsets, as well as the empty set. $\endgroup$ – Jean-Claude Arbaut Oct 16 '19 at 23:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are correct, you have to explicitly add the empty set to $S$ to make it a topology. This is the so-called “co-finite” topology. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Oct 16 '19 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ So as literally written, S would not be a topology? If so, is it a convention to implicitly add the empty set as needed when defining a topology? $\endgroup$ – Jacob Jones Oct 16 '19 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ Now that I've got a name, it looks like math.stackexchange.com/q/1876571/698711 is related. $\endgroup$ – Jacob Jones Oct 16 '19 at 23:28
2
$\begingroup$

You're correct, $\mathbb{R} \setminus \emptyset = \mathbb{R}$ which is not finite. To be a topology the empty set must be included and $S$ doesn't include the empty set. You seem to understand it correctly.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Is it a convention to implicitly add the empty set as needed when defining a topology? $\endgroup$ – Jacob Jones Oct 16 '19 at 23:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would expect the empty set and the entire set to be tacitly included in the topology if they're claiming it is one. $\endgroup$ – CyclotomicField Oct 16 '19 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @CyclotomicField: "tacitly" means the same as "implicitly". Did you mean "explicitly"? $\endgroup$ – TonyK Oct 17 '19 at 0:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For something to be explicit, it has to be stated right there for you to read. $\endgroup$ – Lubin Oct 17 '19 at 0:54
  • $\begingroup$ @TonyK I meant tacitly. I'm just ridiculously pedantic and prefer rephrasing thing to avoid repetition. I don't know why I'm this way but I've come to accept it about myself. $\endgroup$ – CyclotomicField Oct 17 '19 at 1:41

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.