Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2012
    • (edited Aug 31st 2012)

    I tried to prettify the entry topological space a bit more:

    • made an attempt at adding an Idea-section (feel free to work on that, it’s just a quick idea motivated more from the desire to have such a section at all than from an attempt to do it any justice).

    • collected the three Definition-sections to subsections of a single Definition-section

    • polished and expanded the Standard definition section.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthormdiamond
    • CommentTimeApr 25th 2020
    Could someone clarify what the word "respond" means in the context of the topological space entry? The text explains topological equivalence by referring to the way a space "responds" to open intervals. I realize that our definitions of words have to bottom-out somewhere, but I feel like clarifying the meaning of this word would help me (and possibly others) to grasp the fundamental essence of topological spaces and what "topological equivalence" means. Is there a technical way to describe what it denotes here?
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2023

    added link to ionad

    diff, v51, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 23rd 2023

    (Over three years later, but first time seeing #2.) Honestly, I don’t think that word is likely to be helpful; indeed, I think it’s likely going to confuse some people such as mdiamond. In general, the Idea section looks simultaneously overworked and full of fluff.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    I did some rewriting of the Idea section, keeping (or in some cases slightly rearranging) phrases with words like “cohesion” and “cohere”, but eliminating some others which I thought could be confusing, per discussion above.

    diff, v52, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Currently we have the sentence, “The definition of topological space was a matter of some debate, especially about 100 years ago. Our definition is due to Bourbaki, so may be called Bourbaki spaces.”

    Is it? Due to Bourbaki? And not, say, Kuratowski in 1922, predating even the existence of Bourbaki by more than a decade? Besides that, I have never heard anyone refer to topological spaces as “Bourbaki spaces”.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023
    The definition of topological space dates back to Hausdorff in 1914 in his *Principles of set theory*.
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    The sentence about calling these structures “Bourbaki spaces” was added by Toby Bartels in the 2nd revision of the page:

    https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/topological+space/2

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    The 1914 definition is for Hausdorff topological spaces. Kuratowski was the first one to drop the Hausdorff axiom.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Replaced

    The definition of topological space was a matter of some debate, especially about 100 years ago. Our definition is due to Bourbaki, so may be called Bourbaki spaces.

    with

    The definition of topological space used in this article involving neighbourhoods was first developed by Felix Hausdorff in 1914 in his seminal text on set theory and topology, Fundamentals of Set Theory (Grundzüge der Mengenlehre).

    diff, v55, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Added sentence

    Hausdorff’s definition originally contained the T 2T_2-separation axiom, which was removed by Kazimierz Kuratowski in 1922 resulting in the current defintion of topological space.

    diff, v55, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    I made some of this history more precise, and did some smoothing of the narrative under Variations. I will add references later.

    diff, v56, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023
    • (edited May 24th 2023)

    added more hyperlinks to technical terms in the first few paragraphs.

    Inserted a sentence early on which highlights that most notions of spaces in math have underlying topological spaces (the sentence could easily be expanded further).

    also made some mild edits to the wording and formatting in the first few paragraphs

    diff, v57, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Is there a name for a topological space where the open sets are only closed under countable unions rather than arbitrary unions?

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Did some work on the definitions section, which was a little rough in places. Saving for the moment.

    diff, v59, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Re #14: not that I can think of at the moment, but in many cases, just having closure under countable unions is enough to guarantee closure under arbitrary unions. These fall under the ambit of countability axioms (first countable space, second countable space, which I am liable to mix up which is which).

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Maybe σ\sigma-topological space? σ\sigma is used to indicate countable unions or joins in various other topological and measure theoretic structures, such as σ\sigma-locale, σ\sigma-frame, σ\sigma-algebra, σ\sigma-complete lattice, σ\sigma-continuous valuation, et cetera.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023
    • (edited May 24th 2023)

    Sure, that name would naturally suggest itself, but googling that term doesn’t seem to turn up anything of direct relevance to your question. My guess is that’s probably not because no one has ever considered it, but rather because it’s never led to anything significant.

    (Especially in the old days of the nLab, people would experiment and noodle around a little more than I see now. Witness the existence of the Boolean rig article, seemingly a side curiosity.)

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Well, well, well. Just goes to show me, I guess.

    Guest, could I ask you to make notes here at the nForum of your nLab edits, as the little window that opens up when you edit invites you to do? You just enter in a brief description of what you did, and hit Submit.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023
    • (edited May 24th 2023)

    Oh, sorry about that, never mind. I see you did that on other articles (which I hadn’t seen while I was looking around at what you did), just not this article.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 24th 2023

    Sorry about that, I forgot to write what i did in the summary for this article. The only thing I did here was add a link to the σ\sigma-topological space article in the Related Concepts section.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2023

    added requirement that the unions be UU-small in dependent type theory, as one cannot quantify over arbitrary types, only the UU-small types relative to a universe UU

    diff, v64, current

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2023

    I have made the !include of the list of references come out by adding vertical whitespace to it

    diff, v65, current

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2023

    Added fact that relational beta-modules and topological spaces are only equivalent to each other if the ultrafilter principle is true.

    diff, v67, current

  1. Added a link to pretopological space in related concepts section

    Anonymouse

    diff, v73, current