Reflexivity and transitivity of nearness in topology












2












$begingroup$


I'm reading Michael Henle's A Combinatorial Introduction to Topology where he defines topological spaces and nearness thusly:




A topological space is a set 𝒥 together with the choice of a class of subsets N of 𝒥 (each of which is called a neighborhood of its points) such that



(a) Every point is in some neighborhood.



(b) The intersection of any two neighborhoods of a point contains a neighborhood of that point.



[...]



Let 𝒥 be a topological space. Let A be a subset of 𝒥 and P be a point of 𝒥. P is near A, written P ← A, if every neighborhood of P contains a point of A.




I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to a binary relation between sets so I could use it to define morphisms between subsets of 𝒥:



Given A, B ⊆ 𝒥, say A ← B if ∀ P ∈ A, P ← B



But then after rereading the normal definition of nearness, I realized that there's no requirement that this binary relation is reflexive or transitive, so this definition is useless for defining a category.



For example, I could define a topological space on ℝ2 where a neighborhoods of a point are open disks around the reflection of that point about the diagonal x=y; that is a neighborhood of (a,b) is { (x,y) | (x - b)2 + (y - a)2 < δ2 }.



In this topological space, my extension on nearness is neither reflexive nor transitive. (a,b) ← { (b,a) }, and (b,a) ← { (a,b) }, but (a,b) ← { (a,b) } only if a = b.



My question is, how often do topological spaces like this come up? Is there a name for topological spaces where the extension of nearness to a binary relationship between sets is non-reflexive and/or non-transitive?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Of possible relevance is the paragraph beginning with "Note that this notion of being close to $x$ has more structure to it than" in my answer to Confusion Regarding Munkres's Definition of Basis for a Topology (see also the paragraph beginning with "One the things that (b) in Theorem 4 does").
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Jan 7 at 18:50










  • $begingroup$
    "I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to" --- This sounds like a "hammer in search of a nail" approach. However, a lot of interesting results in math have been obtained in this way!
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Jan 7 at 19:45
















2












$begingroup$


I'm reading Michael Henle's A Combinatorial Introduction to Topology where he defines topological spaces and nearness thusly:




A topological space is a set 𝒥 together with the choice of a class of subsets N of 𝒥 (each of which is called a neighborhood of its points) such that



(a) Every point is in some neighborhood.



(b) The intersection of any two neighborhoods of a point contains a neighborhood of that point.



[...]



Let 𝒥 be a topological space. Let A be a subset of 𝒥 and P be a point of 𝒥. P is near A, written P ← A, if every neighborhood of P contains a point of A.




I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to a binary relation between sets so I could use it to define morphisms between subsets of 𝒥:



Given A, B &subseteq; 𝒥, say A ← B if ∀ P ∈ A, P ← B



But then after rereading the normal definition of nearness, I realized that there's no requirement that this binary relation is reflexive or transitive, so this definition is useless for defining a category.



For example, I could define a topological space on ℝ2 where a neighborhoods of a point are open disks around the reflection of that point about the diagonal x=y; that is a neighborhood of (a,b) is { (x,y) | (x - b)2 + (y - a)2 < δ2 }.



In this topological space, my extension on nearness is neither reflexive nor transitive. (a,b) ← { (b,a) }, and (b,a) ← { (a,b) }, but (a,b) ← { (a,b) } only if a = b.



My question is, how often do topological spaces like this come up? Is there a name for topological spaces where the extension of nearness to a binary relationship between sets is non-reflexive and/or non-transitive?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Of possible relevance is the paragraph beginning with "Note that this notion of being close to $x$ has more structure to it than" in my answer to Confusion Regarding Munkres's Definition of Basis for a Topology (see also the paragraph beginning with "One the things that (b) in Theorem 4 does").
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Jan 7 at 18:50










  • $begingroup$
    "I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to" --- This sounds like a "hammer in search of a nail" approach. However, a lot of interesting results in math have been obtained in this way!
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Jan 7 at 19:45














2












2








2





$begingroup$


I'm reading Michael Henle's A Combinatorial Introduction to Topology where he defines topological spaces and nearness thusly:




A topological space is a set 𝒥 together with the choice of a class of subsets N of 𝒥 (each of which is called a neighborhood of its points) such that



(a) Every point is in some neighborhood.



(b) The intersection of any two neighborhoods of a point contains a neighborhood of that point.



[...]



Let 𝒥 be a topological space. Let A be a subset of 𝒥 and P be a point of 𝒥. P is near A, written P ← A, if every neighborhood of P contains a point of A.




I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to a binary relation between sets so I could use it to define morphisms between subsets of 𝒥:



Given A, B &subseteq; 𝒥, say A ← B if ∀ P ∈ A, P ← B



But then after rereading the normal definition of nearness, I realized that there's no requirement that this binary relation is reflexive or transitive, so this definition is useless for defining a category.



For example, I could define a topological space on ℝ2 where a neighborhoods of a point are open disks around the reflection of that point about the diagonal x=y; that is a neighborhood of (a,b) is { (x,y) | (x - b)2 + (y - a)2 < δ2 }.



In this topological space, my extension on nearness is neither reflexive nor transitive. (a,b) ← { (b,a) }, and (b,a) ← { (a,b) }, but (a,b) ← { (a,b) } only if a = b.



My question is, how often do topological spaces like this come up? Is there a name for topological spaces where the extension of nearness to a binary relationship between sets is non-reflexive and/or non-transitive?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm reading Michael Henle's A Combinatorial Introduction to Topology where he defines topological spaces and nearness thusly:




A topological space is a set 𝒥 together with the choice of a class of subsets N of 𝒥 (each of which is called a neighborhood of its points) such that



(a) Every point is in some neighborhood.



(b) The intersection of any two neighborhoods of a point contains a neighborhood of that point.



[...]



Let 𝒥 be a topological space. Let A be a subset of 𝒥 and P be a point of 𝒥. P is near A, written P ← A, if every neighborhood of P contains a point of A.




I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to a binary relation between sets so I could use it to define morphisms between subsets of 𝒥:



Given A, B &subseteq; 𝒥, say A ← B if ∀ P ∈ A, P ← B



But then after rereading the normal definition of nearness, I realized that there's no requirement that this binary relation is reflexive or transitive, so this definition is useless for defining a category.



For example, I could define a topological space on ℝ2 where a neighborhoods of a point are open disks around the reflection of that point about the diagonal x=y; that is a neighborhood of (a,b) is { (x,y) | (x - b)2 + (y - a)2 < δ2 }.



In this topological space, my extension on nearness is neither reflexive nor transitive. (a,b) ← { (b,a) }, and (b,a) ← { (a,b) }, but (a,b) ← { (a,b) } only if a = b.



My question is, how often do topological spaces like this come up? Is there a name for topological spaces where the extension of nearness to a binary relationship between sets is non-reflexive and/or non-transitive?







general-topology






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 7 at 15:20







rampion

















asked Jan 7 at 14:35









rampionrampion

1115




1115








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Of possible relevance is the paragraph beginning with "Note that this notion of being close to $x$ has more structure to it than" in my answer to Confusion Regarding Munkres's Definition of Basis for a Topology (see also the paragraph beginning with "One the things that (b) in Theorem 4 does").
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Jan 7 at 18:50










  • $begingroup$
    "I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to" --- This sounds like a "hammer in search of a nail" approach. However, a lot of interesting results in math have been obtained in this way!
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Jan 7 at 19:45














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Of possible relevance is the paragraph beginning with "Note that this notion of being close to $x$ has more structure to it than" in my answer to Confusion Regarding Munkres's Definition of Basis for a Topology (see also the paragraph beginning with "One the things that (b) in Theorem 4 does").
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Jan 7 at 18:50










  • $begingroup$
    "I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to" --- This sounds like a "hammer in search of a nail" approach. However, a lot of interesting results in math have been obtained in this way!
    $endgroup$
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Jan 7 at 19:45








1




1




$begingroup$
Of possible relevance is the paragraph beginning with "Note that this notion of being close to $x$ has more structure to it than" in my answer to Confusion Regarding Munkres's Definition of Basis for a Topology (see also the paragraph beginning with "One the things that (b) in Theorem 4 does").
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Jan 7 at 18:50




$begingroup$
Of possible relevance is the paragraph beginning with "Note that this notion of being close to $x$ has more structure to it than" in my answer to Confusion Regarding Munkres's Definition of Basis for a Topology (see also the paragraph beginning with "One the things that (b) in Theorem 4 does").
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Jan 7 at 18:50












$begingroup$
"I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to" --- This sounds like a "hammer in search of a nail" approach. However, a lot of interesting results in math have been obtained in this way!
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Jan 7 at 19:45




$begingroup$
"I'm more familiar with category theory than topology, so I tried to extend nearness to" --- This sounds like a "hammer in search of a nail" approach. However, a lot of interesting results in math have been obtained in this way!
$endgroup$
– Dave L. Renfro
Jan 7 at 19:45










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

I talked about this at lunch with a topologist, and I think I was wrong.



I misread the definition - I missed the fact that every neighborhood is a neighborhood of each of its points. That is, for any topological space 𝒥, a neighborhood A is a neighborhood of P if and only if P ∈ A.



In the usual plane topology, I'd been thinking of the open disc centered at a point as a neighborhood belonging to only the center point, not a neighborhood belonging to all of its points.



My example using ℝ2 with neighborhoods reflected about x=y is then not a valid topological space.



You can extend nearness to a reflexive and transitive binary relation between subsets of 𝒥.



Let A, B &subseteq; 𝒥. Say A is near B if for all P ∈ A, P is near B.





  • Reflexivity: ∀ P ∈ A, ∀ neighborhoods X of P, P ∈ X ⇒ ∃ some point of A in X, so P is near A.



    Therefore A is near A.




  • Transitivity: Suppose ∃ A, B, C &subseteq; 𝒥.



    Consider neighborhood X of P ∈ A.



    If A is near B, then P is near B, so ∃ Q ∈ B s.t. Q ∈ X.
    This means X is also a neighborhood of Q ∈ B.



    If B is near C, then Q is near C, so ∃ R ∈ C s.t. R ∈ X.



    Therefore P ← C, so A ← B and B ← C implies A ← C.








share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    $0$ is near $(0,1)$ and $1$ is near $(0,1)$, but $0$ is not near $1$. Nearness in the usual sense is of course not transitive. There's a chain of near places all the way to a far place. Of course this is a different concept but it doesn't seem to me like it should be transitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Jan 8 at 4:40










  • $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel nearness of subsets, using my definition above, forms a Transitive Relation. Your example does prove that nearness is not symmetric, however.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:21










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think it's true that nearness is antisymmetric (the irrationals and the rationals being a good counterexample), so I suspect nearness is a preorder.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:25












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%2f3065074%2freflexivity-and-transitivity-of-nearness-in-topology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









0












$begingroup$

I talked about this at lunch with a topologist, and I think I was wrong.



I misread the definition - I missed the fact that every neighborhood is a neighborhood of each of its points. That is, for any topological space 𝒥, a neighborhood A is a neighborhood of P if and only if P ∈ A.



In the usual plane topology, I'd been thinking of the open disc centered at a point as a neighborhood belonging to only the center point, not a neighborhood belonging to all of its points.



My example using ℝ2 with neighborhoods reflected about x=y is then not a valid topological space.



You can extend nearness to a reflexive and transitive binary relation between subsets of 𝒥.



Let A, B &subseteq; 𝒥. Say A is near B if for all P ∈ A, P is near B.





  • Reflexivity: ∀ P ∈ A, ∀ neighborhoods X of P, P ∈ X ⇒ ∃ some point of A in X, so P is near A.



    Therefore A is near A.




  • Transitivity: Suppose ∃ A, B, C &subseteq; 𝒥.



    Consider neighborhood X of P ∈ A.



    If A is near B, then P is near B, so ∃ Q ∈ B s.t. Q ∈ X.
    This means X is also a neighborhood of Q ∈ B.



    If B is near C, then Q is near C, so ∃ R ∈ C s.t. R ∈ X.



    Therefore P ← C, so A ← B and B ← C implies A ← C.








share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    $0$ is near $(0,1)$ and $1$ is near $(0,1)$, but $0$ is not near $1$. Nearness in the usual sense is of course not transitive. There's a chain of near places all the way to a far place. Of course this is a different concept but it doesn't seem to me like it should be transitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Jan 8 at 4:40










  • $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel nearness of subsets, using my definition above, forms a Transitive Relation. Your example does prove that nearness is not symmetric, however.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:21










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think it's true that nearness is antisymmetric (the irrationals and the rationals being a good counterexample), so I suspect nearness is a preorder.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:25
















0












$begingroup$

I talked about this at lunch with a topologist, and I think I was wrong.



I misread the definition - I missed the fact that every neighborhood is a neighborhood of each of its points. That is, for any topological space 𝒥, a neighborhood A is a neighborhood of P if and only if P ∈ A.



In the usual plane topology, I'd been thinking of the open disc centered at a point as a neighborhood belonging to only the center point, not a neighborhood belonging to all of its points.



My example using ℝ2 with neighborhoods reflected about x=y is then not a valid topological space.



You can extend nearness to a reflexive and transitive binary relation between subsets of 𝒥.



Let A, B &subseteq; 𝒥. Say A is near B if for all P ∈ A, P is near B.





  • Reflexivity: ∀ P ∈ A, ∀ neighborhoods X of P, P ∈ X ⇒ ∃ some point of A in X, so P is near A.



    Therefore A is near A.




  • Transitivity: Suppose ∃ A, B, C &subseteq; 𝒥.



    Consider neighborhood X of P ∈ A.



    If A is near B, then P is near B, so ∃ Q ∈ B s.t. Q ∈ X.
    This means X is also a neighborhood of Q ∈ B.



    If B is near C, then Q is near C, so ∃ R ∈ C s.t. R ∈ X.



    Therefore P ← C, so A ← B and B ← C implies A ← C.








share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    $0$ is near $(0,1)$ and $1$ is near $(0,1)$, but $0$ is not near $1$. Nearness in the usual sense is of course not transitive. There's a chain of near places all the way to a far place. Of course this is a different concept but it doesn't seem to me like it should be transitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Jan 8 at 4:40










  • $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel nearness of subsets, using my definition above, forms a Transitive Relation. Your example does prove that nearness is not symmetric, however.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:21










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think it's true that nearness is antisymmetric (the irrationals and the rationals being a good counterexample), so I suspect nearness is a preorder.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:25














0












0








0





$begingroup$

I talked about this at lunch with a topologist, and I think I was wrong.



I misread the definition - I missed the fact that every neighborhood is a neighborhood of each of its points. That is, for any topological space 𝒥, a neighborhood A is a neighborhood of P if and only if P ∈ A.



In the usual plane topology, I'd been thinking of the open disc centered at a point as a neighborhood belonging to only the center point, not a neighborhood belonging to all of its points.



My example using ℝ2 with neighborhoods reflected about x=y is then not a valid topological space.



You can extend nearness to a reflexive and transitive binary relation between subsets of 𝒥.



Let A, B &subseteq; 𝒥. Say A is near B if for all P ∈ A, P is near B.





  • Reflexivity: ∀ P ∈ A, ∀ neighborhoods X of P, P ∈ X ⇒ ∃ some point of A in X, so P is near A.



    Therefore A is near A.




  • Transitivity: Suppose ∃ A, B, C &subseteq; 𝒥.



    Consider neighborhood X of P ∈ A.



    If A is near B, then P is near B, so ∃ Q ∈ B s.t. Q ∈ X.
    This means X is also a neighborhood of Q ∈ B.



    If B is near C, then Q is near C, so ∃ R ∈ C s.t. R ∈ X.



    Therefore P ← C, so A ← B and B ← C implies A ← C.








share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



I talked about this at lunch with a topologist, and I think I was wrong.



I misread the definition - I missed the fact that every neighborhood is a neighborhood of each of its points. That is, for any topological space 𝒥, a neighborhood A is a neighborhood of P if and only if P ∈ A.



In the usual plane topology, I'd been thinking of the open disc centered at a point as a neighborhood belonging to only the center point, not a neighborhood belonging to all of its points.



My example using ℝ2 with neighborhoods reflected about x=y is then not a valid topological space.



You can extend nearness to a reflexive and transitive binary relation between subsets of 𝒥.



Let A, B &subseteq; 𝒥. Say A is near B if for all P ∈ A, P is near B.





  • Reflexivity: ∀ P ∈ A, ∀ neighborhoods X of P, P ∈ X ⇒ ∃ some point of A in X, so P is near A.



    Therefore A is near A.




  • Transitivity: Suppose ∃ A, B, C &subseteq; 𝒥.



    Consider neighborhood X of P ∈ A.



    If A is near B, then P is near B, so ∃ Q ∈ B s.t. Q ∈ X.
    This means X is also a neighborhood of Q ∈ B.



    If B is near C, then Q is near C, so ∃ R ∈ C s.t. R ∈ X.



    Therefore P ← C, so A ← B and B ← C implies A ← C.









share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 7 at 18:47

























answered Jan 7 at 18:16









rampionrampion

1115




1115












  • $begingroup$
    $0$ is near $(0,1)$ and $1$ is near $(0,1)$, but $0$ is not near $1$. Nearness in the usual sense is of course not transitive. There's a chain of near places all the way to a far place. Of course this is a different concept but it doesn't seem to me like it should be transitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Jan 8 at 4:40










  • $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel nearness of subsets, using my definition above, forms a Transitive Relation. Your example does prove that nearness is not symmetric, however.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:21










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think it's true that nearness is antisymmetric (the irrationals and the rationals being a good counterexample), so I suspect nearness is a preorder.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:25


















  • $begingroup$
    $0$ is near $(0,1)$ and $1$ is near $(0,1)$, but $0$ is not near $1$. Nearness in the usual sense is of course not transitive. There's a chain of near places all the way to a far place. Of course this is a different concept but it doesn't seem to me like it should be transitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Jan 8 at 4:40










  • $begingroup$
    @MattSamuel nearness of subsets, using my definition above, forms a Transitive Relation. Your example does prove that nearness is not symmetric, however.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:21










  • $begingroup$
    I don't think it's true that nearness is antisymmetric (the irrationals and the rationals being a good counterexample), so I suspect nearness is a preorder.
    $endgroup$
    – rampion
    Jan 8 at 16:25
















$begingroup$
$0$ is near $(0,1)$ and $1$ is near $(0,1)$, but $0$ is not near $1$. Nearness in the usual sense is of course not transitive. There's a chain of near places all the way to a far place. Of course this is a different concept but it doesn't seem to me like it should be transitive.
$endgroup$
– Matt Samuel
Jan 8 at 4:40




$begingroup$
$0$ is near $(0,1)$ and $1$ is near $(0,1)$, but $0$ is not near $1$. Nearness in the usual sense is of course not transitive. There's a chain of near places all the way to a far place. Of course this is a different concept but it doesn't seem to me like it should be transitive.
$endgroup$
– Matt Samuel
Jan 8 at 4:40












$begingroup$
@MattSamuel nearness of subsets, using my definition above, forms a Transitive Relation. Your example does prove that nearness is not symmetric, however.
$endgroup$
– rampion
Jan 8 at 16:21




$begingroup$
@MattSamuel nearness of subsets, using my definition above, forms a Transitive Relation. Your example does prove that nearness is not symmetric, however.
$endgroup$
– rampion
Jan 8 at 16:21












$begingroup$
I don't think it's true that nearness is antisymmetric (the irrationals and the rationals being a good counterexample), so I suspect nearness is a preorder.
$endgroup$
– rampion
Jan 8 at 16:25




$begingroup$
I don't think it's true that nearness is antisymmetric (the irrationals and the rationals being a good counterexample), so I suspect nearness is a preorder.
$endgroup$
– rampion
Jan 8 at 16:25


















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%2f3065074%2freflexivity-and-transitivity-of-nearness-in-topology%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

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

Grease: Live!

When does type information flow backwards in C++?