Some questions about different axiomatic systems for neighbourhoods The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDefinition of a Topology through neighbourhood basis?Characterization of TopologyOrigins of the modern definition of topologyWhich separation axiom?Topology and locally closed subsetsProving a injectivity in a separable Hausdorff space.Is Hausdorffness characterisable by the uniqueness of the limits?Is the projection on a product topology surjective?Proving the Product Topology does define a topologyHausdorff space in which every point has a compact neighbourhood is compactly generatedProof on trivial topological spaceUnion of Boundaries Formula

I believe this to be a fraud - hired, then asked to cash check and send cash as Bitcoin

A small doubt about the dominated convergence theorem

Is French Guiana a (hard) EU border?

Why does standard notation not preserve intervals (visually)

What flight has the highest ratio of timezone difference to flight time?

What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?

Is it possible to replace duplicates of a character with one character using tr

What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?

Are police here, aren't itthey?

0 rank tensor vs 1D vector

Prepend last line of stdin to entire stdin

Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis

TikZ: How to reverse arrow direction without switching start/end point?

Axiom Schema vs Axiom

Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?

How to edit “Name” property in GCI output?

Do I need to write [sic] when a number is less than 10 but isn't written out?

Is micro rebar a better way to reinforce concrete than rebar?

Where do students learn to solve polynomial equations these days?

Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?

Can we say or write : "No, it'sn't"?

Would this house-rule that treats advantage as a +1 to the roll instead (and disadvantage as -1) and allows them to stack be balanced?

Why, when going from special to general relativity, do we just replace partial derivatives with covariant derivatives?

How to get from Geneva Airport to Metabief, Doubs, France by public transport?



Some questions about different axiomatic systems for neighbourhoods



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDefinition of a Topology through neighbourhood basis?Characterization of TopologyOrigins of the modern definition of topologyWhich separation axiom?Topology and locally closed subsetsProving a injectivity in a separable Hausdorff space.Is Hausdorffness characterisable by the uniqueness of the limits?Is the projection on a product topology surjective?Proving the Product Topology does define a topologyHausdorff space in which every point has a compact neighbourhood is compactly generatedProof on trivial topological spaceUnion of Boundaries Formula










4












$begingroup$


I was thinking a few days ago about the development of topology, especially how you arrive at the concept of a topology $tau$. I knew that a lot of initial ideas came from Hausdorff who defined a topological space by giving neighbourhood axioms; so I had a look at the original text ,,Grundzüge der Mengenlehre'' to see how his definition compares to the contemporary one.



Here is a translation of the ,,Umgebungsaxiome'' that Hausdorff gives:




$(A)~$ To every point $x$, there is some neighbourhood $U_x$; every neighbourhood $U_x$ contains the point $x$.



$(B)~$ If $U_x,V_x$ are two neighbourhoods of the same point $x$, there is a neighbourhood $W_x$, which is in both of them ($W_x subseteq U_x cap V_x$).



$(C)~$ If the point $y$ lies in $U_x$, there is a neighbourhood $U_y$, which is a subset of $U_x$ ($U_y subseteq U_x$).



$(D)~$ For two different points $x,y$ there exist two neighbourhoods $U_x, U_y$ with no common points ($U_x cap U_y = emptyset$).




and here is a version of the neighbourhood axioms you might find in a modern textbook




$mathcalN(x)$ is a set of neighbourhoods for $x$ iff
beginalign*
(0)&~~~ x in bigcap mathcalN(x) \
(1)&~~~ X in mathcalN(x) \
(2)&~~~ forall ~U_1,U_2 in mathcalN(x) : ~ U_1 cap U_2 in mathcalN(x) \
(3)&~~~ forall~ U subseteq X ~~forall~ N in mathcalN(x):~ N subseteq U Longrightarrow U in mathcalN(x) \
(4)&~~~ forall~ U in mathcalN(x) ~~exists~ V in mathcalN(x)~ forall p in V :~ U in mathcalN(p)
endalign*





Here are a few questions I still have after reading and thinking about it:




$(i)$ Are these axiomatic systems equivalent? Even leaving out axiom $(D)$ (since it says that the space is $T_2$) it does not seem to me that they are. A few of them clearly are equivalent, but I don't see how you could derive $(3)$ from $(A) - (C)$. I could at least imagine that one was added over time, which would explain the problem.



$(ii)$ What is the use of axiom $(4)$? I think most helpful to me would be an example of a proof in which the axiom is indispensable.



$(iii)$ (more historically minded question) How did the word ,,Umgebung'' ended up being translated to neighbourhood?




Hausdorff calls a set $U_x$ a ,,Umgebung'' of $x$ which in English (at least in the mathematical literature) is called a neighbourhood. This is quite strange, since neighbourhood has a direct translation to the German: ,,Nachbarschaft'' whose meaning is quite different from the one of ,,Umgebung''. I my opinion the later would be better translated by the word surrounding. Which makes me curious how the translation came about.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Neighbourhood in English means "area around someone, close to someone", not being a neighbour, so Umgebung is quite equivalent. In Dutch we also say "omgeving". There is no etymologically close English equivalent to Umgebung AFAIK.
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    9 hours ago
















4












$begingroup$


I was thinking a few days ago about the development of topology, especially how you arrive at the concept of a topology $tau$. I knew that a lot of initial ideas came from Hausdorff who defined a topological space by giving neighbourhood axioms; so I had a look at the original text ,,Grundzüge der Mengenlehre'' to see how his definition compares to the contemporary one.



Here is a translation of the ,,Umgebungsaxiome'' that Hausdorff gives:




$(A)~$ To every point $x$, there is some neighbourhood $U_x$; every neighbourhood $U_x$ contains the point $x$.



$(B)~$ If $U_x,V_x$ are two neighbourhoods of the same point $x$, there is a neighbourhood $W_x$, which is in both of them ($W_x subseteq U_x cap V_x$).



$(C)~$ If the point $y$ lies in $U_x$, there is a neighbourhood $U_y$, which is a subset of $U_x$ ($U_y subseteq U_x$).



$(D)~$ For two different points $x,y$ there exist two neighbourhoods $U_x, U_y$ with no common points ($U_x cap U_y = emptyset$).




and here is a version of the neighbourhood axioms you might find in a modern textbook




$mathcalN(x)$ is a set of neighbourhoods for $x$ iff
beginalign*
(0)&~~~ x in bigcap mathcalN(x) \
(1)&~~~ X in mathcalN(x) \
(2)&~~~ forall ~U_1,U_2 in mathcalN(x) : ~ U_1 cap U_2 in mathcalN(x) \
(3)&~~~ forall~ U subseteq X ~~forall~ N in mathcalN(x):~ N subseteq U Longrightarrow U in mathcalN(x) \
(4)&~~~ forall~ U in mathcalN(x) ~~exists~ V in mathcalN(x)~ forall p in V :~ U in mathcalN(p)
endalign*





Here are a few questions I still have after reading and thinking about it:




$(i)$ Are these axiomatic systems equivalent? Even leaving out axiom $(D)$ (since it says that the space is $T_2$) it does not seem to me that they are. A few of them clearly are equivalent, but I don't see how you could derive $(3)$ from $(A) - (C)$. I could at least imagine that one was added over time, which would explain the problem.



$(ii)$ What is the use of axiom $(4)$? I think most helpful to me would be an example of a proof in which the axiom is indispensable.



$(iii)$ (more historically minded question) How did the word ,,Umgebung'' ended up being translated to neighbourhood?




Hausdorff calls a set $U_x$ a ,,Umgebung'' of $x$ which in English (at least in the mathematical literature) is called a neighbourhood. This is quite strange, since neighbourhood has a direct translation to the German: ,,Nachbarschaft'' whose meaning is quite different from the one of ,,Umgebung''. I my opinion the later would be better translated by the word surrounding. Which makes me curious how the translation came about.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Neighbourhood in English means "area around someone, close to someone", not being a neighbour, so Umgebung is quite equivalent. In Dutch we also say "omgeving". There is no etymologically close English equivalent to Umgebung AFAIK.
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    9 hours ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$


I was thinking a few days ago about the development of topology, especially how you arrive at the concept of a topology $tau$. I knew that a lot of initial ideas came from Hausdorff who defined a topological space by giving neighbourhood axioms; so I had a look at the original text ,,Grundzüge der Mengenlehre'' to see how his definition compares to the contemporary one.



Here is a translation of the ,,Umgebungsaxiome'' that Hausdorff gives:




$(A)~$ To every point $x$, there is some neighbourhood $U_x$; every neighbourhood $U_x$ contains the point $x$.



$(B)~$ If $U_x,V_x$ are two neighbourhoods of the same point $x$, there is a neighbourhood $W_x$, which is in both of them ($W_x subseteq U_x cap V_x$).



$(C)~$ If the point $y$ lies in $U_x$, there is a neighbourhood $U_y$, which is a subset of $U_x$ ($U_y subseteq U_x$).



$(D)~$ For two different points $x,y$ there exist two neighbourhoods $U_x, U_y$ with no common points ($U_x cap U_y = emptyset$).




and here is a version of the neighbourhood axioms you might find in a modern textbook




$mathcalN(x)$ is a set of neighbourhoods for $x$ iff
beginalign*
(0)&~~~ x in bigcap mathcalN(x) \
(1)&~~~ X in mathcalN(x) \
(2)&~~~ forall ~U_1,U_2 in mathcalN(x) : ~ U_1 cap U_2 in mathcalN(x) \
(3)&~~~ forall~ U subseteq X ~~forall~ N in mathcalN(x):~ N subseteq U Longrightarrow U in mathcalN(x) \
(4)&~~~ forall~ U in mathcalN(x) ~~exists~ V in mathcalN(x)~ forall p in V :~ U in mathcalN(p)
endalign*





Here are a few questions I still have after reading and thinking about it:




$(i)$ Are these axiomatic systems equivalent? Even leaving out axiom $(D)$ (since it says that the space is $T_2$) it does not seem to me that they are. A few of them clearly are equivalent, but I don't see how you could derive $(3)$ from $(A) - (C)$. I could at least imagine that one was added over time, which would explain the problem.



$(ii)$ What is the use of axiom $(4)$? I think most helpful to me would be an example of a proof in which the axiom is indispensable.



$(iii)$ (more historically minded question) How did the word ,,Umgebung'' ended up being translated to neighbourhood?




Hausdorff calls a set $U_x$ a ,,Umgebung'' of $x$ which in English (at least in the mathematical literature) is called a neighbourhood. This is quite strange, since neighbourhood has a direct translation to the German: ,,Nachbarschaft'' whose meaning is quite different from the one of ,,Umgebung''. I my opinion the later would be better translated by the word surrounding. Which makes me curious how the translation came about.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I was thinking a few days ago about the development of topology, especially how you arrive at the concept of a topology $tau$. I knew that a lot of initial ideas came from Hausdorff who defined a topological space by giving neighbourhood axioms; so I had a look at the original text ,,Grundzüge der Mengenlehre'' to see how his definition compares to the contemporary one.



Here is a translation of the ,,Umgebungsaxiome'' that Hausdorff gives:




$(A)~$ To every point $x$, there is some neighbourhood $U_x$; every neighbourhood $U_x$ contains the point $x$.



$(B)~$ If $U_x,V_x$ are two neighbourhoods of the same point $x$, there is a neighbourhood $W_x$, which is in both of them ($W_x subseteq U_x cap V_x$).



$(C)~$ If the point $y$ lies in $U_x$, there is a neighbourhood $U_y$, which is a subset of $U_x$ ($U_y subseteq U_x$).



$(D)~$ For two different points $x,y$ there exist two neighbourhoods $U_x, U_y$ with no common points ($U_x cap U_y = emptyset$).




and here is a version of the neighbourhood axioms you might find in a modern textbook




$mathcalN(x)$ is a set of neighbourhoods for $x$ iff
beginalign*
(0)&~~~ x in bigcap mathcalN(x) \
(1)&~~~ X in mathcalN(x) \
(2)&~~~ forall ~U_1,U_2 in mathcalN(x) : ~ U_1 cap U_2 in mathcalN(x) \
(3)&~~~ forall~ U subseteq X ~~forall~ N in mathcalN(x):~ N subseteq U Longrightarrow U in mathcalN(x) \
(4)&~~~ forall~ U in mathcalN(x) ~~exists~ V in mathcalN(x)~ forall p in V :~ U in mathcalN(p)
endalign*





Here are a few questions I still have after reading and thinking about it:




$(i)$ Are these axiomatic systems equivalent? Even leaving out axiom $(D)$ (since it says that the space is $T_2$) it does not seem to me that they are. A few of them clearly are equivalent, but I don't see how you could derive $(3)$ from $(A) - (C)$. I could at least imagine that one was added over time, which would explain the problem.



$(ii)$ What is the use of axiom $(4)$? I think most helpful to me would be an example of a proof in which the axiom is indispensable.



$(iii)$ (more historically minded question) How did the word ,,Umgebung'' ended up being translated to neighbourhood?




Hausdorff calls a set $U_x$ a ,,Umgebung'' of $x$ which in English (at least in the mathematical literature) is called a neighbourhood. This is quite strange, since neighbourhood has a direct translation to the German: ,,Nachbarschaft'' whose meaning is quite different from the one of ,,Umgebung''. I my opinion the later would be better translated by the word surrounding. Which makes me curious how the translation came about.







general-topology math-history axioms






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 10 hours ago









NemoNemo

850519




850519







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Neighbourhood in English means "area around someone, close to someone", not being a neighbour, so Umgebung is quite equivalent. In Dutch we also say "omgeving". There is no etymologically close English equivalent to Umgebung AFAIK.
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    9 hours ago













  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Neighbourhood in English means "area around someone, close to someone", not being a neighbour, so Umgebung is quite equivalent. In Dutch we also say "omgeving". There is no etymologically close English equivalent to Umgebung AFAIK.
    $endgroup$
    – Henno Brandsma
    9 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
Neighbourhood in English means "area around someone, close to someone", not being a neighbour, so Umgebung is quite equivalent. In Dutch we also say "omgeving". There is no etymologically close English equivalent to Umgebung AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
9 hours ago





$begingroup$
Neighbourhood in English means "area around someone, close to someone", not being a neighbour, so Umgebung is quite equivalent. In Dutch we also say "omgeving". There is no etymologically close English equivalent to Umgebung AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
9 hours ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

Hausdorff axiomatises a set of "basic open neighbourhoods" of $x$ essentially, while the other one axiomatises the more general notion of neighbourhood ($N$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ iff there is an open subset $O$ with $x in O subseteq N$), which form a non-empty filter at each point (which is the summary of axioms (0)-(3) ) and (4) is needed to couple the different neighbourhood systems and make a link to openness: it essentially says that every neighbourhood contains an open neighbourhood (one that is a neighbourhood of each of its points), it ensures that when we define the topology in the usual way from the neighbourhood systems, that $mathcalN_x$ becomes exactly the set of neighbourhoods of $x$ in the newly defined topology too. I gave that proof in full on this site before. See this shorter one and this longer one, e.g.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    3












    $begingroup$

    The axiom systems are not equivalent. By (C), every neighborhood $U_x$ is an open set. On the other hand, (3) implies that $mathcalN(x)$ is the family of all neighborhoods of $x$, and (4) assures that the members of $mathcalN(x)$ are indeed neighborhoods, i.e. contains $x$ in the interior. So the first system are axioms for (Hausdorff) open neighborhood base, while the second system are axioms for complete neighborhood system. There are also axioms for neighborhood base system, which are slightly weaker than both of these.



    There are various similar axiom systems. In general, you have families of sets $mathcalN(x)$ for $x ∈ X$, and you want to induce a topology as follows: $U ⊆ X$ is open if and only if for every $x ∈ U$ there is $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ such that $N ⊆ U$. There is a weak set of axioms that assures that this indeed induces a topology. But you may add more axioms if you want more properties like



    • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is a neighborhood of $x$ (this is not automatical);

    • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is open;

    • each neighborhood of $x$ is a memnber of $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$.





    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168569%2fsome-questions-about-different-axiomatic-systems-for-neighbourhoods%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      7












      $begingroup$

      Hausdorff axiomatises a set of "basic open neighbourhoods" of $x$ essentially, while the other one axiomatises the more general notion of neighbourhood ($N$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ iff there is an open subset $O$ with $x in O subseteq N$), which form a non-empty filter at each point (which is the summary of axioms (0)-(3) ) and (4) is needed to couple the different neighbourhood systems and make a link to openness: it essentially says that every neighbourhood contains an open neighbourhood (one that is a neighbourhood of each of its points), it ensures that when we define the topology in the usual way from the neighbourhood systems, that $mathcalN_x$ becomes exactly the set of neighbourhoods of $x$ in the newly defined topology too. I gave that proof in full on this site before. See this shorter one and this longer one, e.g.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        7












        $begingroup$

        Hausdorff axiomatises a set of "basic open neighbourhoods" of $x$ essentially, while the other one axiomatises the more general notion of neighbourhood ($N$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ iff there is an open subset $O$ with $x in O subseteq N$), which form a non-empty filter at each point (which is the summary of axioms (0)-(3) ) and (4) is needed to couple the different neighbourhood systems and make a link to openness: it essentially says that every neighbourhood contains an open neighbourhood (one that is a neighbourhood of each of its points), it ensures that when we define the topology in the usual way from the neighbourhood systems, that $mathcalN_x$ becomes exactly the set of neighbourhoods of $x$ in the newly defined topology too. I gave that proof in full on this site before. See this shorter one and this longer one, e.g.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$















          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          Hausdorff axiomatises a set of "basic open neighbourhoods" of $x$ essentially, while the other one axiomatises the more general notion of neighbourhood ($N$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ iff there is an open subset $O$ with $x in O subseteq N$), which form a non-empty filter at each point (which is the summary of axioms (0)-(3) ) and (4) is needed to couple the different neighbourhood systems and make a link to openness: it essentially says that every neighbourhood contains an open neighbourhood (one that is a neighbourhood of each of its points), it ensures that when we define the topology in the usual way from the neighbourhood systems, that $mathcalN_x$ becomes exactly the set of neighbourhoods of $x$ in the newly defined topology too. I gave that proof in full on this site before. See this shorter one and this longer one, e.g.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Hausdorff axiomatises a set of "basic open neighbourhoods" of $x$ essentially, while the other one axiomatises the more general notion of neighbourhood ($N$ is a neighbourhood of $x$ iff there is an open subset $O$ with $x in O subseteq N$), which form a non-empty filter at each point (which is the summary of axioms (0)-(3) ) and (4) is needed to couple the different neighbourhood systems and make a link to openness: it essentially says that every neighbourhood contains an open neighbourhood (one that is a neighbourhood of each of its points), it ensures that when we define the topology in the usual way from the neighbourhood systems, that $mathcalN_x$ becomes exactly the set of neighbourhoods of $x$ in the newly defined topology too. I gave that proof in full on this site before. See this shorter one and this longer one, e.g.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 9 hours ago

























          answered 9 hours ago









          Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma

          115k348124




          115k348124





















              3












              $begingroup$

              The axiom systems are not equivalent. By (C), every neighborhood $U_x$ is an open set. On the other hand, (3) implies that $mathcalN(x)$ is the family of all neighborhoods of $x$, and (4) assures that the members of $mathcalN(x)$ are indeed neighborhoods, i.e. contains $x$ in the interior. So the first system are axioms for (Hausdorff) open neighborhood base, while the second system are axioms for complete neighborhood system. There are also axioms for neighborhood base system, which are slightly weaker than both of these.



              There are various similar axiom systems. In general, you have families of sets $mathcalN(x)$ for $x ∈ X$, and you want to induce a topology as follows: $U ⊆ X$ is open if and only if for every $x ∈ U$ there is $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ such that $N ⊆ U$. There is a weak set of axioms that assures that this indeed induces a topology. But you may add more axioms if you want more properties like



              • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is a neighborhood of $x$ (this is not automatical);

              • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is open;

              • each neighborhood of $x$ is a memnber of $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$.





              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                3












                $begingroup$

                The axiom systems are not equivalent. By (C), every neighborhood $U_x$ is an open set. On the other hand, (3) implies that $mathcalN(x)$ is the family of all neighborhoods of $x$, and (4) assures that the members of $mathcalN(x)$ are indeed neighborhoods, i.e. contains $x$ in the interior. So the first system are axioms for (Hausdorff) open neighborhood base, while the second system are axioms for complete neighborhood system. There are also axioms for neighborhood base system, which are slightly weaker than both of these.



                There are various similar axiom systems. In general, you have families of sets $mathcalN(x)$ for $x ∈ X$, and you want to induce a topology as follows: $U ⊆ X$ is open if and only if for every $x ∈ U$ there is $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ such that $N ⊆ U$. There is a weak set of axioms that assures that this indeed induces a topology. But you may add more axioms if you want more properties like



                • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is a neighborhood of $x$ (this is not automatical);

                • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is open;

                • each neighborhood of $x$ is a memnber of $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$.





                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  The axiom systems are not equivalent. By (C), every neighborhood $U_x$ is an open set. On the other hand, (3) implies that $mathcalN(x)$ is the family of all neighborhoods of $x$, and (4) assures that the members of $mathcalN(x)$ are indeed neighborhoods, i.e. contains $x$ in the interior. So the first system are axioms for (Hausdorff) open neighborhood base, while the second system are axioms for complete neighborhood system. There are also axioms for neighborhood base system, which are slightly weaker than both of these.



                  There are various similar axiom systems. In general, you have families of sets $mathcalN(x)$ for $x ∈ X$, and you want to induce a topology as follows: $U ⊆ X$ is open if and only if for every $x ∈ U$ there is $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ such that $N ⊆ U$. There is a weak set of axioms that assures that this indeed induces a topology. But you may add more axioms if you want more properties like



                  • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is a neighborhood of $x$ (this is not automatical);

                  • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is open;

                  • each neighborhood of $x$ is a memnber of $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$.





                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  The axiom systems are not equivalent. By (C), every neighborhood $U_x$ is an open set. On the other hand, (3) implies that $mathcalN(x)$ is the family of all neighborhoods of $x$, and (4) assures that the members of $mathcalN(x)$ are indeed neighborhoods, i.e. contains $x$ in the interior. So the first system are axioms for (Hausdorff) open neighborhood base, while the second system are axioms for complete neighborhood system. There are also axioms for neighborhood base system, which are slightly weaker than both of these.



                  There are various similar axiom systems. In general, you have families of sets $mathcalN(x)$ for $x ∈ X$, and you want to induce a topology as follows: $U ⊆ X$ is open if and only if for every $x ∈ U$ there is $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ such that $N ⊆ U$. There is a weak set of axioms that assures that this indeed induces a topology. But you may add more axioms if you want more properties like



                  • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is a neighborhood of $x$ (this is not automatical);

                  • each $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$ is open;

                  • each neighborhood of $x$ is a memnber of $N ∈ mathcalN(x)$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 9 hours ago









                  user87690user87690

                  6,6511825




                  6,6511825



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168569%2fsome-questions-about-different-axiomatic-systems-for-neighbourhoods%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Styletc

                      Tórshavn Kliima | Partnerstääden | Luke uk diar | Nawigatsjuun62° 1′ N, 6° 46′ W62° 1′ 0″ N, 6° 46′ 0″ WWMOTórshavn