Is it a base for a Topology in R^N
Hi there
Prove this statement or the opposite:
Consider the set
. Define
.
The collection
is a base for a topology on
.
Is this true or not? Why? I'm sorry but I don't understand a lot after reading this multiple times?? How do I show that it is a base of a topology and which one?
Could maybe please someone give me a hint?
Regards
Re: Is it a base for a Topology in R^N
What definition of "base" for a topology are you using?
Re: Is it a base for a Topology in R^N
Quote:
Originally Posted by
huberscher
Prove this statement or the opposite:
Consider the set
_{n \in \mathbb{N}} : x_n \in \mathbb{R} \forall n \in \mathbb{N} \} )
. Define
:= \{ (x_n)_n \in \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}} : |x_i - y_i| < r \text{ for every } i=1,...,m \} )
.
The collection
 : y_1 ,...,y_m \in \mathbb{R}, m \in \mathbb{N},r>0 \})
is a base for a topology on

.
It is fairly clear that
.
Can you show that ![S \in B\;\& \,T \in B \Rightarrow \left( {\exists U \in B} \right)\left[ {U \subseteq S \cap T} \right]~?](http://latex.codecogs.com/png.latex?S \in B\;\& \,T \in B \Rightarrow \left( {\exists U \in B} \right)\left[ {U \subseteq S \cap T} \right]~?)
Re: Is it a base for a Topology in R^N
Thank you.
So I have to differ between the disjoint and the non-disjoint case, don't I ?
disjoint case:
For r=0 U(0)=
and so it is true that
.
Hmm, I am not convinced of this argument because one could always head this statement for S, T arbitrary. There was always
?
non-disjoint case:
_n \in \mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N} : | x_i-s_i | < r_s \})
_n \in \mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N} : | x_i-t_i | < r_t \})
Then
fullfills the condition above.
So
since
??
So
since
??
What about the other parameters used by "min". They make sure that the whole Ball is contained in
. How can I show formally that they are needed and make sure that the statement is true?
So the topology is 
Obviously the family of balls
where
covers 
What do you think?
Regards