-2
$\begingroup$

Let {X,T} be a topology, T the set of open subsets of X.

Definition: Three points x, y, z of X are in relation N (Nxyz, read "x is nearer to y than to z") iff

  1. there is a basis B of T and b in B such that x and y are in b but z is not and
  2. there is no basis C of T and c in C such that x and z are in c but not y.

For some topologies there are no points x, y, z in relation N, for example if T = {Ø,X} or T = P(X), but for others there are (e.g. for ones induced by a metric [my claim]).

Definition: A topology has property M1 iff

(x)(y) ((z) (z ≠ x & z ≠ y) → Nxyz) → x = y

(This is an analogue of d(xy) = 0 → x = y, the best one I can imagine).

Definition: A topology has property M2 iff

(x)(y)(z) Nxyz & Nyzx → Nzyx

(This is a kind of an analogue of d(xy) = d(yx), the best one I can imagine)

First (bunch of) question(s):

  1. Properties M1 and M2 do not capture the whole of the corresponding conditions of a metric. Can anyone figure out "better" definitions (e.g. an analogon of x = y → d(xy) = 0)?

  2. Can anyone figure out a property M3 that is an analogue of the triangle equality?

If it can be shown that no such property M3 is definable, the following becomes obsolete.

If such a definition can be made, we define:

Definition: A topology has property M (read "induces a metric") iff it has properties M1, M2, M3.

Second question:

Which topologies have property M, i.e. induce a metric? Are these "accidentally" exactly those that are induced by a metric?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I don't have an answer to your questions, but, more conventionally, there is a standard theorem about which topological spaces admit a metric. It's beautiful, though not too easy -- it's one of the key points of a Point-Set topology course. Look in Munkres's Topology, or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrizable_space. Also, if you like these kinds of questions, I highly recommend you read either Bourbaki's "General Topology" or Kelley's "General Topology". Both have a few generalizations of metrics that you might enjoy (in particular, uniformities). $\endgroup$
    – Ilya Grigoriev
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 0:39
  • $\begingroup$ Usage comments: "analogon" is much less common than the synonomous "analogue". "Has property X" or "is in relation N" are poor choices. Better is "Given a topology T on X, say that x is closer to y than to z if....". $\endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 3:16
  • $\begingroup$ You might just want to learn en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 4:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ All of the important information of a metric can be recovered by its induced uniform space. This carries both the topological information as well as the uniform information (uniform convergence, completeness, et cetera). I don't believe you can get all of the information you want with just a topology. I am sure though, that one can only recover a metric up to topological equivalence. $\endgroup$
    – Harry Gindi
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 4:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Given the revisions at mathoverflow.net/questions/9874/…, I'm voting to close this question as no longer relevant. $\endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Commented Dec 27, 2009 at 16:30

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

Your condition 1 is satisfied for all triples $x,y,z\in X$ such that $z\not\in\{x,y\}$ if the space is $T_1$.

Maybe reading a bit about uniform spaces and the corresponding metrizability results will be of help.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Picking up Aaron's answer: Might there be a way to sensibly restrict the class of "allowed" (= "sensible") bases. What is T<sub>1</sub>? $\endgroup$
    – Hans-Peter Stricker
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 1:09
  • $\begingroup$ There is no more reference to bases anymore in your (edited) answer. My follow-up question remains (sorry): what space is T_1= $\endgroup$
    – Hans-Peter Stricker
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ I found the term T_1 linked and will follow this. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Hans-Peter Stricker
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 1:34
  • $\begingroup$ In particular, HP Stricker's claim is patently false. $\endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 3:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 for mentioning uniform spaces $\endgroup$
    – Harry Gindi
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 8:53
2
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure your "nearness" relation is the right definition to make. It makes sense on the face of it, but for example I think you can generate the usual topology on the plane by tubular neighborhoods of half-circles. For three points x,y,z on a line in that order, I don't think you get any relationship. Using the usual disk basis you'd satisfy condition (1) for Nxyz, but you could violate condition (2) using the other basis I just suggested, if the tubular neighborhood is sufficiently small.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ However, I too have wondered which topologies can be induced by metrics. I think the first step in this direction would be to look for a topology which is <i>not</i> induced by a metric... $\endgroup$
    – Aaron Mazel-Gee
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ I thank you for this. Maybe the look for "unusual" bases should be sharpened (for beginners like me). Coming the standard way I thought only of disk bases. But maybe my line of thought can be "rescued"? If not: maybe it helps understanding the difference between topologies and metric spaces. $\endgroup$
    – Hans-Peter Stricker
    Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 0:30
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know much about this stuff, but it looks like people who have commented on the original question suggest a wealth of resources for you to browse through... $\endgroup$
    – Aaron Mazel-Gee
    Commented Dec 23, 2009 at 1:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .