What's the definition of coherent topology in Munkres Topology?
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Munkres Topology. In Section 71, coherent is "if" but on Wikipedia (Coherent topology), it's "if and only if"
This can be seen in Example 1 of Section 83
We suppose $D cap A_{alpha}$ is closed in $A_{alpha}$ and then must show $D$ is closed in $X$. I don't think we also suppose $D$ is closed in $X$ and then show that the $D cap A_{alpha}$'s are closed.
But in the definition of subgraph (also in Section 83), coherent is "if and only if" (I am aware of the errata by Barbara and Jim Munkres for this definition but irrelevant I think).
I was expecting to see that we suppose $D cap A_{beta}$ is closed in $A_{beta}$ and then must show $D$ is closed in $Y$, but we actually also show We suppose $D$ is closed in $X$ and then show that the $D cap A_{alpha}$'s are closed.
What's going on?
My guess (I came up with one only after typing it all up)
Definitions are "if and only if". If there is no specified topology for a space $Z$, then coherence is just "if" and then "only if" follows because coherence is the definition. If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology.
I think I figured it out, but I might as well just submit this since I already typed it up.
abstract-algebra general-topology graph-theory algebraic-topology covering-spaces
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Munkres Topology. In Section 71, coherent is "if" but on Wikipedia (Coherent topology), it's "if and only if"
This can be seen in Example 1 of Section 83
We suppose $D cap A_{alpha}$ is closed in $A_{alpha}$ and then must show $D$ is closed in $X$. I don't think we also suppose $D$ is closed in $X$ and then show that the $D cap A_{alpha}$'s are closed.
But in the definition of subgraph (also in Section 83), coherent is "if and only if" (I am aware of the errata by Barbara and Jim Munkres for this definition but irrelevant I think).
I was expecting to see that we suppose $D cap A_{beta}$ is closed in $A_{beta}$ and then must show $D$ is closed in $Y$, but we actually also show We suppose $D$ is closed in $X$ and then show that the $D cap A_{alpha}$'s are closed.
What's going on?
My guess (I came up with one only after typing it all up)
Definitions are "if and only if". If there is no specified topology for a space $Z$, then coherence is just "if" and then "only if" follows because coherence is the definition. If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology.
I think I figured it out, but I might as well just submit this since I already typed it up.
abstract-algebra general-topology graph-theory algebraic-topology covering-spaces
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Munkres Topology. In Section 71, coherent is "if" but on Wikipedia (Coherent topology), it's "if and only if"
This can be seen in Example 1 of Section 83
We suppose $D cap A_{alpha}$ is closed in $A_{alpha}$ and then must show $D$ is closed in $X$. I don't think we also suppose $D$ is closed in $X$ and then show that the $D cap A_{alpha}$'s are closed.
But in the definition of subgraph (also in Section 83), coherent is "if and only if" (I am aware of the errata by Barbara and Jim Munkres for this definition but irrelevant I think).
I was expecting to see that we suppose $D cap A_{beta}$ is closed in $A_{beta}$ and then must show $D$ is closed in $Y$, but we actually also show We suppose $D$ is closed in $X$ and then show that the $D cap A_{alpha}$'s are closed.
What's going on?
My guess (I came up with one only after typing it all up)
Definitions are "if and only if". If there is no specified topology for a space $Z$, then coherence is just "if" and then "only if" follows because coherence is the definition. If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology.
I think I figured it out, but I might as well just submit this since I already typed it up.
abstract-algebra general-topology graph-theory algebraic-topology covering-spaces
Munkres Topology. In Section 71, coherent is "if" but on Wikipedia (Coherent topology), it's "if and only if"
This can be seen in Example 1 of Section 83
We suppose $D cap A_{alpha}$ is closed in $A_{alpha}$ and then must show $D$ is closed in $X$. I don't think we also suppose $D$ is closed in $X$ and then show that the $D cap A_{alpha}$'s are closed.
But in the definition of subgraph (also in Section 83), coherent is "if and only if" (I am aware of the errata by Barbara and Jim Munkres for this definition but irrelevant I think).
I was expecting to see that we suppose $D cap A_{beta}$ is closed in $A_{beta}$ and then must show $D$ is closed in $Y$, but we actually also show We suppose $D$ is closed in $X$ and then show that the $D cap A_{alpha}$'s are closed.
What's going on?
My guess (I came up with one only after typing it all up)
Definitions are "if and only if". If there is no specified topology for a space $Z$, then coherence is just "if" and then "only if" follows because coherence is the definition. If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology.
I think I figured it out, but I might as well just submit this since I already typed it up.
abstract-algebra general-topology graph-theory algebraic-topology covering-spaces
abstract-algebra general-topology graph-theory algebraic-topology covering-spaces
asked yesterday
Jack Bauer
1,192530
1,192530
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Definitions, by their nature, are "if and only if". This leads to some authors being lazy when writing them, and they only say "if".
It's a common enough occurrence and something one should always be aware of. The alternative definition supplied by Munkres definitely seems to be one such case.
Is this correct? "If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology."
– Jack Bauer
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Definitions, by their nature, are "if and only if". This leads to some authors being lazy when writing them, and they only say "if".
It's a common enough occurrence and something one should always be aware of. The alternative definition supplied by Munkres definitely seems to be one such case.
Is this correct? "If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology."
– Jack Bauer
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Definitions, by their nature, are "if and only if". This leads to some authors being lazy when writing them, and they only say "if".
It's a common enough occurrence and something one should always be aware of. The alternative definition supplied by Munkres definitely seems to be one such case.
Is this correct? "If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology."
– Jack Bauer
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Definitions, by their nature, are "if and only if". This leads to some authors being lazy when writing them, and they only say "if".
It's a common enough occurrence and something one should always be aware of. The alternative definition supplied by Munkres definitely seems to be one such case.
Definitions, by their nature, are "if and only if". This leads to some authors being lazy when writing them, and they only say "if".
It's a common enough occurrence and something one should always be aware of. The alternative definition supplied by Munkres definitely seems to be one such case.
answered yesterday
Arthur
107k7103186
107k7103186
Is this correct? "If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology."
– Jack Bauer
yesterday
add a comment |
Is this correct? "If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology."
– Jack Bauer
yesterday
Is this correct? "If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology."
– Jack Bauer
yesterday
Is this correct? "If there is a specified topology on $Z$, such as it having the subspace topology of some other space, then we have to show that coherence, a condition to indicated closedness of sets, and hence openness (of those sets' complements) doesn't conflict with with our new definition of closedness given by the subspace topology."
– Jack Bauer
yesterday
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2999358%2fwhats-the-definition-of-coherent-topology-in-munkres-topology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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