Asked by Ashley
Question:
Show that the set of closed intervals
{[a,b] | a,b in rational number set, a<b}------->(1)
are not a basis for a topology in the real line R.
My approach to the question:
My initial thought was to prove this by proving that 'the 2 axioms for a given set to be a ', do not hold for the given set, i.e.
Let X be a set. A basis of a topology on X is a collection B of subsets in X such that
(B1) For every x ∈ X, there is an element B in B such that x ∈ U.
(B2) If x ∈ B1 ∩ B2 where B1, B2 are in B, then there is B3 in B such that x ∈ B3 ⊂ B1 ∩ B2.
We know that rational numbers are of the form p/q, where p, q are in R(set of real numbers), q not equal to 0 and the only common factor p & q both have is 1
That is, the given set is of the form, provided that a=p/g and b=r/s
B = {[p/q ,r/s] | p,q,r,s are in R, q & s not equal to 0, p/q<r/s} ---->(2)
Let's consider (B1)
I noticed that, [20, 21] does not belong to B, as 20=100/5 and 21=105/5 are not rational numbers.
However, sqrt(440)= 20.976176963403030939829070273599, which belongs to R falls in the region [20, 21].
Then, we can conclude that not all x in R doesn't belong to set P, which means (B1) does not hold for the set P.
With this, can we conclude that P is not a basis for a topology in the real line R?
-------------------------------------
I'm taking a Topology course on the 3rd year my undergraduate degree.
So, I was wondering whether the approach I've taken is correct and whether a considerably strong proof for the level of my degree programme/course. I didn't come up with a general method of proving this, but rather do it using a counterexample, as above.
Any help and thoughts would be highly appreciated!
I'd be really glad if someone could guide me on doing this as a general proof.
Thank you!
Show that the set of closed intervals
{[a,b] | a,b in rational number set, a<b}------->(1)
are not a basis for a topology in the real line R.
My approach to the question:
My initial thought was to prove this by proving that 'the 2 axioms for a given set to be a ', do not hold for the given set, i.e.
Let X be a set. A basis of a topology on X is a collection B of subsets in X such that
(B1) For every x ∈ X, there is an element B in B such that x ∈ U.
(B2) If x ∈ B1 ∩ B2 where B1, B2 are in B, then there is B3 in B such that x ∈ B3 ⊂ B1 ∩ B2.
We know that rational numbers are of the form p/q, where p, q are in R(set of real numbers), q not equal to 0 and the only common factor p & q both have is 1
That is, the given set is of the form, provided that a=p/g and b=r/s
B = {[p/q ,r/s] | p,q,r,s are in R, q & s not equal to 0, p/q<r/s} ---->(2)
Let's consider (B1)
I noticed that, [20, 21] does not belong to B, as 20=100/5 and 21=105/5 are not rational numbers.
However, sqrt(440)= 20.976176963403030939829070273599, which belongs to R falls in the region [20, 21].
Then, we can conclude that not all x in R doesn't belong to set P, which means (B1) does not hold for the set P.
With this, can we conclude that P is not a basis for a topology in the real line R?
-------------------------------------
I'm taking a Topology course on the 3rd year my undergraduate degree.
So, I was wondering whether the approach I've taken is correct and whether a considerably strong proof for the level of my degree programme/course. I didn't come up with a general method of proving this, but rather do it using a counterexample, as above.
Any help and thoughts would be highly appreciated!
I'd be really glad if someone could guide me on doing this as a general proof.
Thank you!
Answers
There are no human answers yet.
There are no AI answers yet. The ability to request AI answers is coming soon!
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.