If $f$ is the quotient mapping, is $(Y,tau_1)$ metrizable? [duplicate]












2












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:




  • Metrizability of quotient spaces of metric spaces

    2 answers





Exercise: Let $(X,tau)$ and $(Y,tau_1)$ be topological spaces and $f:(X,tau)to(Y,tau_1)$ a quotient mapping. If $(X,tau)$ is metrizable, is $(Y,tau_1)$ metrizable?




Attempted solution:




Lemma: A metrizable space is Hausdorff.




If I assume $(X,tau)$ to be a discrete space and $(Y,tau_1)$to be a topological space endowed with the cofinite topology. $(Y,tau_1)$ is not Hausdorff.



Now I need to check if $f$ defines the quotient topology $tau_1$. If ${y}in Y$ then it is closed so $f^{-1}({y})$ is closed then ${Y}$ is closed in the quotient topology such as the union of all singular points, then $tau_1$ is the cofinite topology.



Question:



Is this proof right? If not? Why not? What are the alternatives?



Thanks in advance!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Misha Lavrov, Leucippus, Lord Shark the Unknown, user91500, José Carlos Santos general-topology
Users with the  general-topology badge can single-handedly close general-topology questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
Jan 5 at 11:16


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.























    2












    $begingroup$



    This question already has an answer here:




    • Metrizability of quotient spaces of metric spaces

      2 answers





    Exercise: Let $(X,tau)$ and $(Y,tau_1)$ be topological spaces and $f:(X,tau)to(Y,tau_1)$ a quotient mapping. If $(X,tau)$ is metrizable, is $(Y,tau_1)$ metrizable?




    Attempted solution:




    Lemma: A metrizable space is Hausdorff.




    If I assume $(X,tau)$ to be a discrete space and $(Y,tau_1)$to be a topological space endowed with the cofinite topology. $(Y,tau_1)$ is not Hausdorff.



    Now I need to check if $f$ defines the quotient topology $tau_1$. If ${y}in Y$ then it is closed so $f^{-1}({y})$ is closed then ${Y}$ is closed in the quotient topology such as the union of all singular points, then $tau_1$ is the cofinite topology.



    Question:



    Is this proof right? If not? Why not? What are the alternatives?



    Thanks in advance!










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$



    marked as duplicate by Misha Lavrov, Leucippus, Lord Shark the Unknown, user91500, José Carlos Santos general-topology
    Users with the  general-topology badge can single-handedly close general-topology questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

    $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
    var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
    $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

    $hover.hover(
    function() {
    $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
    messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
    transient: false,
    position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
    dismissable: false,
    relativeToBody: true
    });
    },
    function() {
    StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
    }
    );
    });
    });
    Jan 5 at 11:16


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.





















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$



      This question already has an answer here:




      • Metrizability of quotient spaces of metric spaces

        2 answers





      Exercise: Let $(X,tau)$ and $(Y,tau_1)$ be topological spaces and $f:(X,tau)to(Y,tau_1)$ a quotient mapping. If $(X,tau)$ is metrizable, is $(Y,tau_1)$ metrizable?




      Attempted solution:




      Lemma: A metrizable space is Hausdorff.




      If I assume $(X,tau)$ to be a discrete space and $(Y,tau_1)$to be a topological space endowed with the cofinite topology. $(Y,tau_1)$ is not Hausdorff.



      Now I need to check if $f$ defines the quotient topology $tau_1$. If ${y}in Y$ then it is closed so $f^{-1}({y})$ is closed then ${Y}$ is closed in the quotient topology such as the union of all singular points, then $tau_1$ is the cofinite topology.



      Question:



      Is this proof right? If not? Why not? What are the alternatives?



      Thanks in advance!










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      This question already has an answer here:




      • Metrizability of quotient spaces of metric spaces

        2 answers





      Exercise: Let $(X,tau)$ and $(Y,tau_1)$ be topological spaces and $f:(X,tau)to(Y,tau_1)$ a quotient mapping. If $(X,tau)$ is metrizable, is $(Y,tau_1)$ metrizable?




      Attempted solution:




      Lemma: A metrizable space is Hausdorff.




      If I assume $(X,tau)$ to be a discrete space and $(Y,tau_1)$to be a topological space endowed with the cofinite topology. $(Y,tau_1)$ is not Hausdorff.



      Now I need to check if $f$ defines the quotient topology $tau_1$. If ${y}in Y$ then it is closed so $f^{-1}({y})$ is closed then ${Y}$ is closed in the quotient topology such as the union of all singular points, then $tau_1$ is the cofinite topology.



      Question:



      Is this proof right? If not? Why not? What are the alternatives?



      Thanks in advance!





      This question already has an answer here:




      • Metrizability of quotient spaces of metric spaces

        2 answers








      general-topology proof-verification metric-spaces proof-writing






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 2 at 11:51









      A.Γ.

      22.8k32656




      22.8k32656










      asked Jan 2 at 11:50









      Pedro GomesPedro Gomes

      1,8892721




      1,8892721




      marked as duplicate by Misha Lavrov, Leucippus, Lord Shark the Unknown, user91500, José Carlos Santos general-topology
      Users with the  general-topology badge can single-handedly close general-topology questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
      Jan 5 at 11:16


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









      marked as duplicate by Misha Lavrov, Leucippus, Lord Shark the Unknown, user91500, José Carlos Santos general-topology
      Users with the  general-topology badge can single-handedly close general-topology questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

      $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
      var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
      $msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

      $hover.hover(
      function() {
      $hover.showInfoMessage('', {
      messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
      transient: false,
      position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
      dismissable: false,
      relativeToBody: true
      });
      },
      function() {
      StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
      }
      );
      });
      });
      Jan 5 at 11:16


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          It's somewhat unclear what you're trying to "prove". It seems like you want a counterexample where the quotient space is non-Hausdorff as that is an easy way to show it's not metrisable. Fine so far. But you do need to give a concrete example of that happening to fully solve the problem. So like @Jose in his answer you can take $X=mathbb{R}$ and the Vitali equivalence relation $xRy$ iff $x-y in mathbb{Q}$ and $f$ the quotient map from $X$ onto $Y=X/R$.



          Another idea is to identify $mathbb{Z} subseteq mathbb{R}$ to a point and prove that the resulting quotient space is not first countable, also contradicting metrisability.



          In either case, the proof must consist of an example and the proof that the example is as required. For both, proofs can be found on this site if you search for them.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            1












            $begingroup$

            The proof is not correct since at no point you orived that your mapping is a quotient mapping.



            Take, for instance, $mathbb R$, endowed with the usual topology, and the quotient topology on $mathbb{R}/sim$, where$$xsim yiff x-yinmathbb{Q}.$$Then $mathbb{R}/sim$ is not Hausdorff and therefore not metrizable.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$




















              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              1












              $begingroup$

              It's somewhat unclear what you're trying to "prove". It seems like you want a counterexample where the quotient space is non-Hausdorff as that is an easy way to show it's not metrisable. Fine so far. But you do need to give a concrete example of that happening to fully solve the problem. So like @Jose in his answer you can take $X=mathbb{R}$ and the Vitali equivalence relation $xRy$ iff $x-y in mathbb{Q}$ and $f$ the quotient map from $X$ onto $Y=X/R$.



              Another idea is to identify $mathbb{Z} subseteq mathbb{R}$ to a point and prove that the resulting quotient space is not first countable, also contradicting metrisability.



              In either case, the proof must consist of an example and the proof that the example is as required. For both, proofs can be found on this site if you search for them.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                It's somewhat unclear what you're trying to "prove". It seems like you want a counterexample where the quotient space is non-Hausdorff as that is an easy way to show it's not metrisable. Fine so far. But you do need to give a concrete example of that happening to fully solve the problem. So like @Jose in his answer you can take $X=mathbb{R}$ and the Vitali equivalence relation $xRy$ iff $x-y in mathbb{Q}$ and $f$ the quotient map from $X$ onto $Y=X/R$.



                Another idea is to identify $mathbb{Z} subseteq mathbb{R}$ to a point and prove that the resulting quotient space is not first countable, also contradicting metrisability.



                In either case, the proof must consist of an example and the proof that the example is as required. For both, proofs can be found on this site if you search for them.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  It's somewhat unclear what you're trying to "prove". It seems like you want a counterexample where the quotient space is non-Hausdorff as that is an easy way to show it's not metrisable. Fine so far. But you do need to give a concrete example of that happening to fully solve the problem. So like @Jose in his answer you can take $X=mathbb{R}$ and the Vitali equivalence relation $xRy$ iff $x-y in mathbb{Q}$ and $f$ the quotient map from $X$ onto $Y=X/R$.



                  Another idea is to identify $mathbb{Z} subseteq mathbb{R}$ to a point and prove that the resulting quotient space is not first countable, also contradicting metrisability.



                  In either case, the proof must consist of an example and the proof that the example is as required. For both, proofs can be found on this site if you search for them.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  It's somewhat unclear what you're trying to "prove". It seems like you want a counterexample where the quotient space is non-Hausdorff as that is an easy way to show it's not metrisable. Fine so far. But you do need to give a concrete example of that happening to fully solve the problem. So like @Jose in his answer you can take $X=mathbb{R}$ and the Vitali equivalence relation $xRy$ iff $x-y in mathbb{Q}$ and $f$ the quotient map from $X$ onto $Y=X/R$.



                  Another idea is to identify $mathbb{Z} subseteq mathbb{R}$ to a point and prove that the resulting quotient space is not first countable, also contradicting metrisability.



                  In either case, the proof must consist of an example and the proof that the example is as required. For both, proofs can be found on this site if you search for them.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 3 at 5:27









                  Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma

                  111k348118




                  111k348118























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      The proof is not correct since at no point you orived that your mapping is a quotient mapping.



                      Take, for instance, $mathbb R$, endowed with the usual topology, and the quotient topology on $mathbb{R}/sim$, where$$xsim yiff x-yinmathbb{Q}.$$Then $mathbb{R}/sim$ is not Hausdorff and therefore not metrizable.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        The proof is not correct since at no point you orived that your mapping is a quotient mapping.



                        Take, for instance, $mathbb R$, endowed with the usual topology, and the quotient topology on $mathbb{R}/sim$, where$$xsim yiff x-yinmathbb{Q}.$$Then $mathbb{R}/sim$ is not Hausdorff and therefore not metrizable.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          The proof is not correct since at no point you orived that your mapping is a quotient mapping.



                          Take, for instance, $mathbb R$, endowed with the usual topology, and the quotient topology on $mathbb{R}/sim$, where$$xsim yiff x-yinmathbb{Q}.$$Then $mathbb{R}/sim$ is not Hausdorff and therefore not metrizable.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          The proof is not correct since at no point you orived that your mapping is a quotient mapping.



                          Take, for instance, $mathbb R$, endowed with the usual topology, and the quotient topology on $mathbb{R}/sim$, where$$xsim yiff x-yinmathbb{Q}.$$Then $mathbb{R}/sim$ is not Hausdorff and therefore not metrizable.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Jan 2 at 11:57









                          José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

                          164k22131235




                          164k22131235















                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Quarter-circle Tiles

                              build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                              Mont Emei