I have to compare the following topology with the usual one. Which of them is finer?

$\tau= \{U\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2:$ for any $(a,b) \in U$ exists $\epsilon >0 $ where $[a,a+\epsilon] \times [b-\epsilon, b+\epsilon]\subseteq U\}$

By definition, $\tau\subseteq\tau_u $ if and only if for every $U\in \tau$ implies $U\in \tau_u$

However, how can I compare them using open basis?


  1. If $U \in \tau_u$, then for any $(a,b) \in U$, there is a basic open set $$ (a-\delta, a+\delta)\times (b-\delta', b+\delta') \subset U $$ you can take $$ \epsilon = \min\{\delta/2, \delta'/2\} $$ then $$ [a,a+\epsilon]\times [b-\epsilon,b+\epsilon] \subset U $$ Hence $U \in \tau$. So $$ \tau_u \subset \tau $$

  2. The set $$ [0,1)\times (-1,1) \in \tau\setminus \tau_u $$ Do you see why?

  • $\begingroup$ @ Prahlad Vaidyanathar But you have to proof that for every $B\in \beta_u,$ for every $(c,d)\in B$, exists $D\in\beta : (c,d)\in D \subseteq B$ Is that epsilon correct? If I choose $(c,d)\in B=(a-\mu, a+\mu) x (b-\mu_1, b+\mu_1)$ which would be D? $\endgroup$ – Blanca Oct 22 '13 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Vaidynathar In the second point, why do you chose the set $$ [0,1)\times (-1,1) \in \tau\setminus \tau_u $$ instead of $$ [0,1]\times [-1,1] \in \tau\setminus \tau_u $$ Could you explain it please? As these sets are in $\tau$ aren't they supposed to be closed? $\endgroup$ – Blanca Oct 22 '13 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Blanca: Given $U \in \tau_u$ to show that $U \in \tau$ we just need to show that it has the defining property of the collection $\tau$, namely that for all $\langle a,b \rangle \in U$ there is an $\epsilon > 0$ such that $[ a,a+\epsilon ] \times [ b,b+\epsilon ] \subseteq U$. This is what Prahlad has done. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Oct 22 '13 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Blanca: As for your second comment, your proposed set $V = [0,1] \times [-1,1]$ does not work because it is not in $\tau$. Note that $\langle 1,1 \rangle \in V$ but there is no $\epsilon > 0$ such that $[1,1+\epsilon]\times[1,1+\epsilon] \subseteq V$. Do you see why? $\endgroup$ – user642796 Oct 22 '13 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ @ArthurFischer: Thank you, I understand the second.So regarding to my first comment, Prahlad has used this notation? $\tau\subseteq\tau_u $ if and only if for every $U\in \tau$ implies $U\in \tau_u$ $\endgroup$ – Blanca Oct 22 '13 at 19:51

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.