# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

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

## Site Tag Cloud

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

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeNov 19th 2016

I added a synthetic definition of open subspace due to Penon.

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeNov 19th 2016

I just woke up, but should that sentence end with $x \in U$ instead of $y \in U$?

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeNov 19th 2016

Yes, it should, thanks.

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeNov 21st 2016
• (edited Nov 21st 2016)

That is highly reminiscent of the topology defined by an apartness relation. This topology is always $T_1$, although I don't see why it would need to be $T_2$.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeNov 30th 2016

The first sentence of open subspace defined a subset to be open if its inclusion map was an open map. This is a bit circular given that the first sentence of open map defines a map to be open if the image of each open subspace is open. (-: I rearranged the page to start with the classical notion as part of the definition of a topological space and then proceed to generalizations to convergence spaces, locales, and so on.

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeDec 2nd 2016

That first sentence wasn't supposed to be a definition (despite being labelled as such by Urs) but an all-encompassing true statement going to the heart of the matter. If anything should be rearranged, it's open map. That said, your new version of the first sentence of open subspace (also not a definition) is actually pretty good.

1. Linked to frame of opens.