Filed under: Math, Topology | Tags: MaBloWriMo, Math, pretty pictures, topology

A **subspace** of a topological space is a subset of with the following topology: a set is open in if it is of the form , with open in . We call the **ambient** space, and this topology the **subspace** or **induced** topology. It’s our first way to make old topologies into new ones. Below the fold, I discuss its implications and a couple more factoids about continuous maps.

Open sets in a subspace are open sets in the ambient space that have been “restricted” into the subspace. So they might not always look open. For example, take the closed unit square in and give it the subspace topology. Open sets in the ambient space that cross the boundary give rise to open sets of the subspace that still have some of their boundary, and thus wouldn’t be open in . In one special circumstance, the process can, in fact, be reversed: namely, if is open, then the open sets of with the subspace topology are still open in .

I like to give a little of the categorical perspective from time to time. Category theorists like to define things with **universal properties**, which are ways of saying, using only morphisms, that a mathematical object is the best at doing whatever it does. To begin with, observe that every subset of a set carries with it a canonical injective **inclusion map** of the form (the hook on the arrow denotes injectivity or inclusion), and the subspace topology on is the coarsest topology on making this map continuous. (In fact, doesn’t really need to be a subset: if we have an injective continuous map , we can identify with and give it a “subspace topology” this way.) We can do even better than this though: given any map for some topological space, is continuous if and only if is continuous, where is the inclusion map. Prove this, and for added points, prove that this *completely defines* the subspace topology (it does not hold if has another topology). What’s weird is how absent the topology of is from this definition. It’s only there subtly, in the inclusion map. I’ll leave you to ponder this further.

In general, subspaces, particularly closed subspaces, work nicely with other topological entities. For example, it is easy to see that, if is a basis for , then is a basis for a subspace . The subspace operation also carries over: if is a subspace of and is a subspace of , then is a subspace of . Try proving this using the universal property above! And if has two topologies, and , with under the coarseness ordering, then the subspace topology of on some subset of is also at least as coarse as the subspace topology of .

Here’s one thing that doesn’t work nicely with subspaces, and my cool example for today. If is *totally ordered*, then subsets of it also acquire an induced order. Thus, if is also a topological space, there are *two* natural topologies on any subset of it: the order topology, and the subspace topology. Surprisingly, these don’t always disagree! For example, the subspace topology of has as an open set (it is the intersection of the subspace with something like . But under the order topology, open sets around are of the form for some . Any such set contains points of , so is not open. (As we’ll see, is even *connected* under the order topology.)

The situation isn’t too bad, though: define a subset of a totally ordered set to be **convex** if whenever , the whole interval . *Every convex subset of a totally ordered set has the same order topology and subspace topology*. This is easy to prove by just looking at rays, which form a basis for the order topology.

Last, some stuff about continuous maps I found in my notes. The following functions are always continuous from to :

- A
**constant function**sending all of to a single point of . - If is a subspace of , the inclusion map.
- The composition of two continuous functions and .
- If we have a continuous function and is a subspace of , then the
**restriction map**, given by for . - Likewise, if is a subspace of and is continuous, we can consider to have codomain (though it’s still the same map); this is still continuous.
- If is a subspace of but the range of is a subset of , then we can consider to have codomain , and this is still continuous.
- If , where all are open, and we have a continuous map for all such that $f_i=f_j$ on for all , then we get a unique continuous map such that for all . So we can “glue” continuous maps together; in much higher math terms, continuous maps form what’s called a “sheaf.”

From now on, unless I say otherwise, you should assume any map between topological spaces to be continuous. The exceptions will usually come when we’re *proving* one to be continuous, so yeah. There’s just no reason to work with any other kind!

**1 Comment so far**

Leave a comment

[…] with the topology on ; but this should make sense, because we had a similar way of expressing the subspace topology on […]

Pingback by Product and Disjoint Union Topologies « Gracious Living and the Two Meat MealNovember 8, 2010 @ 15:55