sols24

sols24 - 56 24. December 1st: Topology II. 24.1. I have...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
56 24. December 1st: Topology II. 24.1 . I have allowed the endpoints of the open intervals considered in DeFni- tion 24.5 to be ±∞ . Prove that it is not necessary to do this, in the sense that one deFnes the same topology by ‘just’ taking unions of bounded open intervals ( a, b ) with a, b R (and a<b ). Answer: The point here is simply that the extended open intervals ( -∞ ,b ), ( a, ), and ( , ) are themselves unions of bounded open intervals: ( a, )= b>a ( a, b ) ( -∞ ,b )= a<b ( a, b ) ( -∞ , )= a> 0 ( a, a ) . Thus every ‘union of open intervals’ as in DeFnition 24.5 can in fact be rewritten as a union of bounded open intervals. ± 24.2 . Let R stan , resp. R Zar be the topological spaces determined by the standard, resp. Zariski topology on R . Prove that the identity R R is a continuous function R stan R Zar , and that it is not a homeomorphism. Answer:
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

sols24 - 56 24. December 1st: Topology II. 24.1. I have...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online