Notes:Quotient topology
- Note to readers: the page quotient topology as it stands right now (Alec (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)) is an embarrassment to me. However before I can clean it up I must unify it. I've been using it for almost 2 years now though I promise! Gosh this is embarrassing.
See Notes:Quotient topology plan for an outline of the page.
Contents
[hide]According to John M. Lee
- Addendum: for some reason I lie here, the author considers a map f:X→A where A is a set and later applies the equivalence relation version to it.
Let ∼ denote an equivalence relation, let (X,J) be a topological space. We get a map, π:X→X∼ that takes π:x→[x]
- The quotient topology on X∼ is the finest such that π is continuous
Let K denote a topology on X∼, then we may define K as:
- K:={U∈P(X∼) | π−1(U)∈J}, that is:
- U∈P(X∼) is open if π−1(U) is open in X - we get "only if" by going the other way. I must make a page about how definitions are "iff"s
Note: more than one book is very clear on "U∈P(X∼) is open in X∼ if and only if π−1(U)∈J, not sure why they stress it so.
Quotient map
A map between two topological spaces (X,J) and (Y,K) is a quotient map if:
- It is surjective
- The topology on Y (K) is the quotient topology that'd be induced on Y by the map q
Lee actually defines the quotient topology using maps first, then constructs the equiv relation version, but we can can define an equivalence relation as follows:
- x∼y⟺q(x)=q(y) and that's where this comes from
Passing to the quotient
Passing to the quotient |
---|
- Let X and Z be topological space|topological spaces,
- let q:X→Y be a quotient map,
- let f:X→Z be any continuous mapping such that q(x)=q(y)⟹f(x)=f(y)
Then
- There exists a unique continuous map, ˉf:Y→Z such that f=ˉf∘q
Munkres
Munkres starts with a quotient map
- Let (X,J) and (Y,K) be topological spaces and
- let q:X→Y be a surjective map
We say q is a quotient map provided:
- ∀U∈P(Y)[U∈K⟺p−1(U)∈J]
He goes on to say:
- This condition is "stronger than continuity" (of q presumably) probably because if we gave Y the indiscrete topology it'd be continuous.
- He defines this in several ways, one of which is "saturation" of maps. Yeah this is just the equivalence relation version hiding (CHECK THIS THOUGH)
Quotient topology
If (X,J) is a topological space and A a set and if p:X→A is a surjective map then:
- There is exactly on topology, K on A relative to which p is a quotient map (as defined above)
That topology is the quotient topology induced by p
Quotient space
Let (X,J) be a topological space and let X∗ be a partition of X into disjoint subsets whose union is X (that is the definition of a partition). Let p:X→X∗ be the surjective map that carries each point of X to the element of X∗ containing that point, then:
- The quotient topology induced by p on X∗ is called the quotient space of X
Mond
- Note: David Mond is my tutor at university. While I do not like his style of writing (informal definitions, ambiguities in the English interpretation) he does have a great way of ordering things. That is applicable here. I also found like 9 typos in the first 8 pages; however it has many examples and many pictures, and they are lecture notes.
Mond starts with a topological space (X,J) and an equivalence relation, ∼. Then:
- The quotient topology (K) on X∼ is the topology where ∀U∈P(X∼)[U∈K⟺π−1(U)∈J]
Passing to the quotient
Mond then goes for passing to the quotient, exactly as John M. Lee has. Very weirdly worded though.
No mention of the quotient map as a concept.
Deals with equivalence relation generated by which is great.
Mendelson
Starts with what is called a quotient map above, but calls it "an identification". Then he goes straight on to "passing to the quotient" it's a very weirdly written section, but he does:
- Identification map
- Identification topology
It seems I'll have to prove these concepts are the same (having one induces the other). Provides a source for the "identification" terminology, which is useful.
Gamelin & Greene
- Quotient topology, given a topological space (X,J) and a set Y, as usual.
- Slightly strange, again top space (X,J) and an equivalence relation ∼, for f:X∼→Y - f is continuous ⟺ f∘π is continuous (π being the canonical projection)
- This is NOT passing to the quotient
- Passing to the quotient now. Let f:X→Y be continuous function, and ∼ and equivalence relation on X such that f is constant for each x∈[x]∈X∼. Then:
- ∃g:X∼→Y continuous such that f=g∘π