Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I changed the name of discrete space to discrete object such that it is now consistent with codiscrete object.
Okay, good point.
I added a hatnote.
In discrete object, I saw two mentions of the diagonal map “”, so I made them both .
The first paragraph under Discrete Geometric Spaces puzzled me, where it says, “the converse holds if satisfies the separation axiom” (i.e., if the diagonal map is open, then is discrete provided we assume ). I don’t understand why we need that assumption.
Suppose is an open map. In particular the image of the diagonal map is an open set in , i.e., for each there is a basic open containing that is entirely contained in the diagonal. Thus the subset of would also be entirely contained in the diagonal, i.e., implies , for any . So the open is the singleton . (By similar reasoning, is also the singleton .) So is open, for every . No separation axiom needed. Am I missing something?
A topological space has open diagonal if and only if it is discrete, indeed. I prefer this argument: for every , the intersection of the diagonal and is the singleton , hence is open in .
Oh, I see: the inverse image of the open along , for any given .
I went ahead and edited that point in.
1 to 7 of 7