Re: Connectedness question
- From: Ryan Reich <ryanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:46:23 GMT
none wrote:
Connectedness is (in this example) a _topological_ notion.
The phrase "R is connected" actually means "if R is equipped with the usual topology, then the resulting topologal space is connected".
[...]
Just review the definitions of "connected" and "complete" for topological (or metric spaces(.
Ok, but isn't the topological notion of connectedness _chosen_ as it is because we want R to be connected and Q no to be (with the usual topology)?
Topologically, a space is connected if it is not the disjoint union of nonempty open subsets. A priori, this doesn't have anything to do with either R or Q; the reason that R ends up connected is a coincidence from this perspective, in that it relies on:
1) R being a densely ordered field; 2) the topology being the order topology; 3) the topology also being metrizable, and the metric a complete one.
Incidentally, the only ordered field in which the order topology is metrizable and the metric is complete is R. Therefore, if one takes the perspective you are taking, that R is the canonical example of a connected space, then one is led to the definition that ANY topological space should be connected if and only if two points lie in a continuous image of the real line. That's what we call path connected now. The standard, abstract definition is more useful for doing proofs in many cases, is equivalent in any space people consider "reasonable", and does not rely on the existence of a complete ordered field.
I mean, the intuition for the concept of connectedness when it was defined in topology came from experience with R and Q. But this experience was arbitrary since in another conceivable world R would not
be considered "connected" (before the notion was rigorized).
The surreals are not actually a set so we'll pretend you're talking about the "hyperreals", where one adds infinitesimals in a more controlled fashion. It's the same thing, morally, in this conversation. The problem is that Q is disconnected because its topology is the _subspace_ topology of R, and we have removed points which, since the topology is the order topology, disconnect Q by definition. The topology on R is _not_ the subspace topology of the hyperreals. Take this example: pick an infinitesimal which is greater than 0 but less than every positive real number. It defines two open sets, of everything on one side or the other of it. Look at the one on the left: it intersects R in the _nonpositive_ real numbers, which is _not_ an open set. Therefore you can't use the same "full of holes" argument to disconnect R as you could for Q.
I guess I lack some understanding of basic topology :/
No, this is a good question.
-- Ryan Reich ryanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Connectedness question
- From: Michiel de Bondt
- Re: Connectedness question
- References:
- Connectedness question
- From: none
- Re: Connectedness question
- From: Marc Olschok
- Re: Connectedness question
- From: none
- Connectedness question
- Prev by Date: Re: Connectedness question
- Next by Date: Re: mathematician salaries
- Previous by thread: Re: Connectedness question
- Next by thread: Re: Connectedness question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|