4
$\begingroup$

My professor wrote this:

"To study some topological property, we can always, without loss of generality, only focus on a basis for the topology."

Can someone explain this, and maybe give a simple example? I try an example below: If you want to prove some function $f\colon X \to Y$ is continuous, you don't have to take an arbitrary open set in $Y$ and show that its pre-image is open in $X$. Instead, you can take a basis element of $Y$'s topology and show its pre-image is open in $X$.

Thanks

  • 2
    Your example is a good one. You could also think about checking whether a point is in the closure of a subset of a topological space.2012-03-29
  • 3
    How can one show the projection map $\pi:X\times Y \to X$ is an open map?2012-03-29
  • 0
    If you can show the property holds for basic open sets, then the property will follow for arbitrary open sets, since every open set is a union of basic open sets, the inverse image of a union is the union of the inverse images, and the union of open sets is open.2012-03-29
  • 0
    Often it is easier to define some mathematical object on a basis of the space and then extend the structure to the whole space. One example that comes to mind is the definition of an affine scheme, or more generally the definition of sheaves on a base.2012-03-29
  • 0
    haha! Abhishek Parab, this is exactly the proposition I was trying to show, which caused me to look into this stuff about bases.2012-03-29
  • 0
    You must have of course seen this, but it is often easier to compare topologies on the same space by looking at basic open sets, rather than all the open sets. This, if I remember correctly, is a proposition in Munkres's topology.2012-03-29
  • 0
    That's what you're doing when you do $\varepsilon$-$\delta$ proofs. The $\varepsilon$-ball about a point is a "basic" open set (or "basis element").2012-03-29

2 Answers 2