Is there a name for this topological property?











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












For a topological space $T=(X, tau)$, then $A subset X$ is $ boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$ if there is ${mathscr{T}_alpha } subset tau $ such that




  • for every $a in A$ there is $mathscr{T}_a in {mathscr{T}_alpha }$ such that $a in mathscr{T}_a$, and


  • for every $a, b in A$ with $a neq b$, then $mathscr{T}_a bigcap mathscr{T}_b = emptyset$.



For example, under the usual topology with $X=[0,1]$, then



$ { frac{1}{n+1} mid n in mathbb{N} }$ is $boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$, but



$mathbb{Q} cap (0,1)$ is not $boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    This is a rather strong condition. For any $ane b$ of $A$, we must have $bnotinmathscr T_a$, so $A$ must be discrete in the subspace topology.
    – Berci
    3 hours ago















up vote
4
down vote

favorite












For a topological space $T=(X, tau)$, then $A subset X$ is $ boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$ if there is ${mathscr{T}_alpha } subset tau $ such that




  • for every $a in A$ there is $mathscr{T}_a in {mathscr{T}_alpha }$ such that $a in mathscr{T}_a$, and


  • for every $a, b in A$ with $a neq b$, then $mathscr{T}_a bigcap mathscr{T}_b = emptyset$.



For example, under the usual topology with $X=[0,1]$, then



$ { frac{1}{n+1} mid n in mathbb{N} }$ is $boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$, but



$mathbb{Q} cap (0,1)$ is not $boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    This is a rather strong condition. For any $ane b$ of $A$, we must have $bnotinmathscr T_a$, so $A$ must be discrete in the subspace topology.
    – Berci
    3 hours ago













up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











For a topological space $T=(X, tau)$, then $A subset X$ is $ boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$ if there is ${mathscr{T}_alpha } subset tau $ such that




  • for every $a in A$ there is $mathscr{T}_a in {mathscr{T}_alpha }$ such that $a in mathscr{T}_a$, and


  • for every $a, b in A$ with $a neq b$, then $mathscr{T}_a bigcap mathscr{T}_b = emptyset$.



For example, under the usual topology with $X=[0,1]$, then



$ { frac{1}{n+1} mid n in mathbb{N} }$ is $boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$, but



$mathbb{Q} cap (0,1)$ is not $boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$.










share|cite|improve this question















For a topological space $T=(X, tau)$, then $A subset X$ is $ boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$ if there is ${mathscr{T}_alpha } subset tau $ such that




  • for every $a in A$ there is $mathscr{T}_a in {mathscr{T}_alpha }$ such that $a in mathscr{T}_a$, and


  • for every $a, b in A$ with $a neq b$, then $mathscr{T}_a bigcap mathscr{T}_b = emptyset$.



For example, under the usual topology with $X=[0,1]$, then



$ { frac{1}{n+1} mid n in mathbb{N} }$ is $boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$, but



$mathbb{Q} cap (0,1)$ is not $boxed{quadvphantom{A}quad}$.







general-topology






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









user10354138

6,084523




6,084523










asked 3 hours ago









bloomers

8481210




8481210








  • 1




    This is a rather strong condition. For any $ane b$ of $A$, we must have $bnotinmathscr T_a$, so $A$ must be discrete in the subspace topology.
    – Berci
    3 hours ago














  • 1




    This is a rather strong condition. For any $ane b$ of $A$, we must have $bnotinmathscr T_a$, so $A$ must be discrete in the subspace topology.
    – Berci
    3 hours ago








1




1




This is a rather strong condition. For any $ane b$ of $A$, we must have $bnotinmathscr T_a$, so $A$ must be discrete in the subspace topology.
– Berci
3 hours ago




This is a rather strong condition. For any $ane b$ of $A$, we must have $bnotinmathscr T_a$, so $A$ must be discrete in the subspace topology.
– Berci
3 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










It implies $A$ is (relatively) discrete, i.e. discrete in the subspace topology. It's clear that $mathcal{T}_a cap A = {a}$. (BTW, "stylistically" it's better to name the sets $O_a$, say, as $mathcal{T}_a$ will suggest a family of sets rather than just one set.)



If we have totally (i.e. also outside of $A$) disjoint $O_a$ as you demand, you could say that the $O_a$ are "simultaneously separated" (there is no standard term): it's the conclusion when a space is so-called collectionwise Hausdorff: a space is called that when every relatively discrete set $A$ has such a separating family of pairwise disjoint open sets.



E.g. all metric spaces have this property: they are paracompact (which implies collectionwise normal which implies collectionwise Hausdorff).
So in a metric space all discrete sets are "simultaneously separated", and there is no real difference. In general a Hausdorff space need not be collectionwise Hausdorff, and there could be a discrete subspace without such a simultaneous separation.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I think the property is strictly stronger than being relatively discrete.
    – Berci
    2 hours ago










  • @Berci you're right, I expanded my answer.
    – Henno Brandsma
    2 hours ago











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',
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%2f2996475%2fis-there-a-name-for-this-topological-property%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest
































1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote



accepted










It implies $A$ is (relatively) discrete, i.e. discrete in the subspace topology. It's clear that $mathcal{T}_a cap A = {a}$. (BTW, "stylistically" it's better to name the sets $O_a$, say, as $mathcal{T}_a$ will suggest a family of sets rather than just one set.)



If we have totally (i.e. also outside of $A$) disjoint $O_a$ as you demand, you could say that the $O_a$ are "simultaneously separated" (there is no standard term): it's the conclusion when a space is so-called collectionwise Hausdorff: a space is called that when every relatively discrete set $A$ has such a separating family of pairwise disjoint open sets.



E.g. all metric spaces have this property: they are paracompact (which implies collectionwise normal which implies collectionwise Hausdorff).
So in a metric space all discrete sets are "simultaneously separated", and there is no real difference. In general a Hausdorff space need not be collectionwise Hausdorff, and there could be a discrete subspace without such a simultaneous separation.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I think the property is strictly stronger than being relatively discrete.
    – Berci
    2 hours ago










  • @Berci you're right, I expanded my answer.
    – Henno Brandsma
    2 hours ago















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










It implies $A$ is (relatively) discrete, i.e. discrete in the subspace topology. It's clear that $mathcal{T}_a cap A = {a}$. (BTW, "stylistically" it's better to name the sets $O_a$, say, as $mathcal{T}_a$ will suggest a family of sets rather than just one set.)



If we have totally (i.e. also outside of $A$) disjoint $O_a$ as you demand, you could say that the $O_a$ are "simultaneously separated" (there is no standard term): it's the conclusion when a space is so-called collectionwise Hausdorff: a space is called that when every relatively discrete set $A$ has such a separating family of pairwise disjoint open sets.



E.g. all metric spaces have this property: they are paracompact (which implies collectionwise normal which implies collectionwise Hausdorff).
So in a metric space all discrete sets are "simultaneously separated", and there is no real difference. In general a Hausdorff space need not be collectionwise Hausdorff, and there could be a discrete subspace without such a simultaneous separation.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I think the property is strictly stronger than being relatively discrete.
    – Berci
    2 hours ago










  • @Berci you're right, I expanded my answer.
    – Henno Brandsma
    2 hours ago













up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
down vote



accepted






It implies $A$ is (relatively) discrete, i.e. discrete in the subspace topology. It's clear that $mathcal{T}_a cap A = {a}$. (BTW, "stylistically" it's better to name the sets $O_a$, say, as $mathcal{T}_a$ will suggest a family of sets rather than just one set.)



If we have totally (i.e. also outside of $A$) disjoint $O_a$ as you demand, you could say that the $O_a$ are "simultaneously separated" (there is no standard term): it's the conclusion when a space is so-called collectionwise Hausdorff: a space is called that when every relatively discrete set $A$ has such a separating family of pairwise disjoint open sets.



E.g. all metric spaces have this property: they are paracompact (which implies collectionwise normal which implies collectionwise Hausdorff).
So in a metric space all discrete sets are "simultaneously separated", and there is no real difference. In general a Hausdorff space need not be collectionwise Hausdorff, and there could be a discrete subspace without such a simultaneous separation.






share|cite|improve this answer














It implies $A$ is (relatively) discrete, i.e. discrete in the subspace topology. It's clear that $mathcal{T}_a cap A = {a}$. (BTW, "stylistically" it's better to name the sets $O_a$, say, as $mathcal{T}_a$ will suggest a family of sets rather than just one set.)



If we have totally (i.e. also outside of $A$) disjoint $O_a$ as you demand, you could say that the $O_a$ are "simultaneously separated" (there is no standard term): it's the conclusion when a space is so-called collectionwise Hausdorff: a space is called that when every relatively discrete set $A$ has such a separating family of pairwise disjoint open sets.



E.g. all metric spaces have this property: they are paracompact (which implies collectionwise normal which implies collectionwise Hausdorff).
So in a metric space all discrete sets are "simultaneously separated", and there is no real difference. In general a Hausdorff space need not be collectionwise Hausdorff, and there could be a discrete subspace without such a simultaneous separation.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Henno Brandsma

100k344107




100k344107












  • I think the property is strictly stronger than being relatively discrete.
    – Berci
    2 hours ago










  • @Berci you're right, I expanded my answer.
    – Henno Brandsma
    2 hours ago


















  • I think the property is strictly stronger than being relatively discrete.
    – Berci
    2 hours ago










  • @Berci you're right, I expanded my answer.
    – Henno Brandsma
    2 hours ago
















I think the property is strictly stronger than being relatively discrete.
– Berci
2 hours ago




I think the property is strictly stronger than being relatively discrete.
– Berci
2 hours ago












@Berci you're right, I expanded my answer.
– Henno Brandsma
2 hours ago




@Berci you're right, I expanded my answer.
– Henno Brandsma
2 hours ago


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2996475%2fis-there-a-name-for-this-topological-property%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest




















































































Popular posts from this blog

How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

Grease: Live!

When does type information flow backwards in C++?