5
$\begingroup$

Is the lower limit topology finer than the standard topology on $\mathbb{R}$?

In Lemma 13.4 on p.82 of Munkres' Topology (2nd ed.), it is stated that the lower limit topology is (strictly) finer than the standard topology on $\mathbb{R}$. In the argument, he is using that the interval $[a,b)$ lies in the interval $(a,b)$ which is certainly not true. On the other hand, the converse is true, that is: $$(a,b) \text{ lies in the interval } [a,b).$$

So we can conclude that the standard topology is finer than the lower limit topology. Am I right? If not then why? I think it's an errata. I have checked some existing errata online but it's not included, though.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ More sequences converge, since having a limit implies having a lower limit. $\endgroup$ – Adam Hughes Jul 8 '14 at 0:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ From Topology, a first course (1st edition) by James R. Munkres, on page 82: "Given a basis element $(a,b)$ for $\cal T$, and a point $x$ of $(a,b)$, the basis element $[x,b)$ for $\cal T^\prime$ contains $x$ and lies in $(a,b)$." So he does not claim that $[a,b)$ is contained in $(a,b)$. $\endgroup$ – user940 Jul 8 '14 at 0:32
3
$\begingroup$

Yes! Since one have that $$ (a,b) = \cup_{n\ge 1} \ [a+\frac{\epsilon}{n},b) $$ where $\epsilon < \frac{b-a}{2}$.

Note that if for topology ${\mathcal T}_1$ with basis ${\mathcal S}_1$ and topology ${\mathcal T}_2$, one have that ${\mathcal S}_1 \subseteq {\mathcal T}_2$, then ${\mathcal T}_2$ is finer than ${\mathcal T}_1$. In this case if ${\mathcal S}_2$ be a basis for topology ${\mathcal T}_2$ and ${\mathcal S}_2 \not\subseteq{\mathcal T}_1$, then ${\mathcal T}_2$ is strictly finer than ${\mathcal T}_1$.For this, it is enough to note that $[0,1)$ is not open in standard topology.

For more details you can consult this textbook: James Munkres, "Topology; A First Course".

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This isn't quite right. You could correct it by using the intersection rather than union or by changing $-$ to $+$. No matter how big or small $\epsilon$ is then $[a-\frac{\epsilon}{n},b) \supset (a,b)$ and this is a proper inclusion. $\endgroup$ – Squirtle Aug 12 '15 at 16:24
2
$\begingroup$

Well, I don't have a copy of Munkres' book at hand but I doubt that it is said.

If $[a,b)$ is open then $(a,b)=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left[ a+\frac{1}{n},b\right)$ must be open.

Conversely, $[0,1)$ is not open in the standard topology.

This means that the topology in $\mathbb{R}_l$ is finer that the topology on $\mathbb{R}.$

$\endgroup$

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.