Talk:Praclosure operator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Topology or not

The collection of all open sets generated by the praclosure operator is a topology. Really? If you mean that this collection of 'open sets' is automatically closed under unions, I don't see why. It will be closed under binary intersection, from the axioms. Charles Matthews 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I know what you're getting at. The article defines a set A to be closed if and only if A = [A]p and it defines it to be open if and only if X\setminus A is closed.
To demonstrate a topology, I need to show that if U, V are open by the above definition, then U\cup V and U\cap V are also open. This is more or less straightforward, (I did verify this, as I was concerned, and can reproduce the proof here if it helps). The one part that I did not do is to verify that, even under an infinite bunch of unions, the result is still an open set. I am not sure I know how to do that. Is that the objection?
FWIW, I cribbed most of the article while sitting with the given reference in my lap; that book makes the claim that the collection of all open sets generated by the praclosure operator is a topology. That this collides with the article on pretopological space is what concerned me. linas 02:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof

I'm going to write this down before chucking my scrap of paper in the trash, because I'd be in pain if I had to re-invent this. If U, V are open, then proving that U\cap V is open is easy (so I won't write it here). The proof that U\cup V is open is a little bit harder. It depends on the following lemmas:

Lemma 1: One has [A\cap B] \subseteq [A]\cap [B] which holds for any A, B.

Proof: Note that

[A]=[A]\cup [A\cap B]

and

[B]=[B]\cup [A\cap B]

Right? Yes, since one has

\begin{align}  \;[A]\cup [A\cap B]  &= [A\cup (A\cap B)] \\  &= [(A\cup A) \cap (A\cup B)] \\ &= [A \cap (A\cup B)] \\ &= [A] \end{align}

Soo ... Combining and distributing:

\begin{align} \;[A]\cap [B]   &= ([A]\cup [A\cap B]) \cap ([B]\cup [A\cap B]) \\  &= ([A]\cap [B]) \cup ([A]\cap [A\cap B])\cup ([B]\cap [A\cap B])     \cup ([A\cap B]\cap [A\cap B]) \\  &= ([A]\cap [B]) \cup [A\cap B] \end{align}

and so, for any A, B, one has

[A\cap B] \subseteq [A]\cap [B]

I am often error prone, but I believe this is QED.


Well, I'm paranoid. Whenever you challenge me, you end up being right. So one smaller lemma, just in case:

Lemma 2: If A and B are closed (i.e. [A] = A and [B] = B) then A\cap B=[A\cap B]

Proof: Axiomatically, one has

A\cap B \subseteq [A\cap B]

and by Lemma 1, one has

[A\cap B] \subseteq [A]\cap [B]

but since A and B are closed,

[A]\cap [B] = A\cap B

so

A\cap B \subseteq [A\cap B] \subseteq A\cap B

and by reflexivity, equality must hold. QED.

linas 03:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)