In a Hausdorff space $(X,\tau)$, we can generate a coarser topology, say $\tau'$, by taking its base to be the family of regular open sets in $(X,\tau)$. (Semi-regularization of $(X,\tau)$)

Given that it's already proven, how to we proceed to prove that the "regular open sets in $(X,\tau)$ are same as the regular open sets in $(X,\tau')$"?

NOTE: A set $S$ is called 'regular open' if $S = \mathrm{Int}(\overline{S})$, where $\overline{S}$ denotes the closure of the set.
(Question 1.7.8 - General Topology by Engelking)


The key is that $\varrho \colon \mathfrak{P}(X) \to \mathfrak{P}(X);\; \varrho(M) = \overset{\circ}{\overline{M}}$ is idempotent (in every topology).

To see that:

$$\varrho(M) \in \tau \Rightarrow \varrho(M) \text{ is an open subset of } \overline{\varrho(M)} \Rightarrow \varrho(M) \subset \varrho(\varrho(M))$$


$$\varrho(M) \subset \overline{M} \Rightarrow \overline{\varrho(M)} \subset \overline{M} \Rightarrow \varrho(\varrho(M)) \subset \varrho(M).$$

Now, let us index the regularisation operation $\varrho$ by the topology with respect to which it is done.

Let $\mathcal{R}_T = \{M \subset X \colon \varrho_T(M) = M\}$. So we want to show $\mathcal{R}_\tau = \mathcal{R}_{\tau'}$.

Let first $S \in \mathcal{R}_{\tau'}$. Since $S$ is $\tau'$-open, and $\tau' \subset \tau$, it is also $\tau$-open. Hence

$$S \subset \varrho_\tau(S) \subset \varrho_{\tau'}(\varrho_\tau(S)) \subset \varrho_{\tau'}(\overline{S}) \subset \varrho_{\tau'}(\operatorname{cl}_{\tau'}(S)) = \varrho_{\tau'}(S) = S.$$

Here monotonicity of $\varrho_T$ and $\varrho_T(\operatorname{cl}_T(M)) = \varrho_(M)$ as well as $U \subset \varrho_T(U)$ for $U\in T$ (where $T$ is an arbitrary topology) have been used, these properties are obvious or easily verifiable. Thus we have shown $\mathcal{R}_{\tau'} \subset \mathcal{R}_\tau$.

Now let $S \in \mathcal{R}_\tau$. By definition of $\tau'$, that means $S$ is $\tau'$-open, hence $S \subset \varrho_{\tau'}(S)$. For the reverse inclusion, we first show that $\operatorname{cl}_{\tau'}(S) = \operatorname{cl}_\tau(S)$ (for $\tau$-open $S$, hence in particular for $S \in \mathcal{R}_\tau$, but not in general, of course!). Since $\tau' \subset \tau$, the $\supset$ inclusion is clear.

Now let $x \notin \operatorname{cl}_\tau(S)$. By definition, that means there is a $U \in \mathcal{V}_x$ such that $S \cap U = \varnothing$. $S$ is open, hence also $S\cap \overline{U} = \varnothing$, and, since $\varrho_\tau(U) \subset \overline{U}$, a fortiori $S \cap \varrho_\tau(U) = \varnothing$. But $\varrho_\tau(U)$ is $\tau'$-open, hence $x \notin \operatorname{cl}_{\tau'}(S)$, so $\complement \operatorname{cl}_\tau(S) \subset \complement \operatorname{cl}_{\tau'}(S)$, and therefore $\operatorname{cl}_{\tau'}(S) \subset \operatorname{cl}_{\tau}(S)$.

And then we have

$$S \subset \varrho_{\tau'}(S) = \operatorname{int}_{\tau'}(\operatorname{cl}_{\tau'}(S)) = \operatorname{int}_{\tau'}(\operatorname{cl}_{\tau}(S)) \subset \varrho_\tau(S) = S$$

for $S \in \mathcal{R}_\tau$, hence $S \in \mathcal{R}_{\tau'}$, i.e. $\mathcal{R}_\tau \subset \mathcal{R}_{\tau'}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I get most of it but, I don't understand the part where you proved that, $\operatorname{cl}_{\tau'}(S) \subset \operatorname{cl}_{\tau}(S)$. How is it possible that $S \cap U = \varnothing$ implies $S \cap \varrho_\tau(U) = \varnothing$? Is not $U$ a subset of $\varrho_\tau(U)$? $\endgroup$ – Nino Jul 7 '13 at 16:24
  • $\begingroup$ It works for open $S$ (with respect to $\tau$). Sure, $U \subset \varrho_\tau(U)$, but, since $S$ is open, $S\cap U = \varnothing \Rightarrow S\cap \overline{U} = \varnothing$. And from that you get $S\cap \varrho_\tau(U) = \varnothing$ because $\varrho_\tau(U) \subset \overline{U}$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jul 7 '13 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ Got it. Thanks a million. And the comment is much appreciated. Thank you, again! $\endgroup$ – Nino Jul 7 '13 at 16:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MadHatter Currently I don't see why that should be obvious. Either I saw something then that I don't see now, or I jumped ahead then. The inclusion $\varrho_{\tau}(S) \subset \varrho_{\tau'}(\varrho_{\tau}(S))$ is all we need at that place, and that follows almost immediately from the $\tau'$-openness of $\varrho_{\tau}(S)$ (since $M \subset \overline{M}$, openness of $M$ gives $M \subset \varrho(M)$ in every topology). The reverse inclusion, i.e. $\varrho_{\tau'}(\varrho_{\tau}(S)) \subset \varrho_{\tau}(S)$ for $\tau'$-regular open $S$, is then an immediate consequence of the whole… $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Oct 6 at 20:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ …modified line (since the outer terms are equal, all ${\subset}$s are actually ${=}$s). Alternatively, it follows from what I prove afterwards (independently), that the $\tau$-closure and the $\tau'$-closure coincide for $\tau$-open sets [here $\varrho_{\tau}(S)$ is even $\tau'$-open]. But I think replacing the ${=}$ in question with ${\subset}$ is the clearest thing. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Oct 6 at 20:24

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.