Are all countable metric spaces discrete? [on hold]
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a countable metric space that isn't a discrete metric space?
general-topology metric-spaces
New contributor
put on hold as off-topic by user21820, Rushabh Mehta, José Carlos Santos, Holo, Brahadeesh 20 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Rushabh Mehta, José Carlos Santos, Holo, Brahadeesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a countable metric space that isn't a discrete metric space?
general-topology metric-spaces
New contributor
put on hold as off-topic by user21820, Rushabh Mehta, José Carlos Santos, Holo, Brahadeesh 20 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Rushabh Mehta, José Carlos Santos, Holo, Brahadeesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
This is probably obvious to you but not to all, but countable means countably infinite rather than finite.
– Robert Frost
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a countable metric space that isn't a discrete metric space?
general-topology metric-spaces
New contributor
Is there a countable metric space that isn't a discrete metric space?
general-topology metric-spaces
general-topology metric-spaces
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked yesterday
George
181
181
New contributor
New contributor
put on hold as off-topic by user21820, Rushabh Mehta, José Carlos Santos, Holo, Brahadeesh 20 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Rushabh Mehta, José Carlos Santos, Holo, Brahadeesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by user21820, Rushabh Mehta, José Carlos Santos, Holo, Brahadeesh 20 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Rushabh Mehta, José Carlos Santos, Holo, Brahadeesh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
This is probably obvious to you but not to all, but countable means countably infinite rather than finite.
– Robert Frost
yesterday
add a comment |
This is probably obvious to you but not to all, but countable means countably infinite rather than finite.
– Robert Frost
yesterday
This is probably obvious to you but not to all, but countable means countably infinite rather than finite.
– Robert Frost
yesterday
This is probably obvious to you but not to all, but countable means countably infinite rather than finite.
– Robert Frost
yesterday
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
The set of rational numbers $mathbb{Q}$ with the usual metric is a countable, metric space (which is also perfect, i.e. it doesn't have any isolated points). Being perfect can be viewed as being 'very far' from discrete.
Bonus: Consider the reals with their natural metric $(mathbb R; d)$. Let $g$ be $mathrm{Coll}(omega, mathbb R)$-generic over $V$. In the generic extension $V[g]$ we have that $mathbb{R}$ is countable but (by an easy absoluteness argument) $(mathbb{R}, d)$ remains a (non-complete but perfect) metric space in this larger universe.
(This can also be achieved by taking a countable, transitivized Skolem hull $M$ of $V_{omega_1}$ and considering $(mathbb R;d)^M$ -- $M$'s version of the reals and their metric. The advantage of the latter construction is that it takes place purely in $mathrm{ZF}$, without stepping out of the set theoretical universe.)
Hang on, $Bbb R$ is countable? I'd love to know more about that. Is every element of $Bbb R$ expressible in a countable set like that statement sounds?
– Robert Frost
yesterday
1
@RobertFrost: It's not that $mathbb{R}$ is countable, but rather that the $mathbb{R}$ in one set-theoretic universe might be found to be countable (i.e. in bijection with the natural numbers) in a larger set-theoretic universe which happens to have more natural numbers than the first. The real numbers in the larger universe are of course not countable, by its own standards.
– Kundor
yesterday
1
Ok thanks @Kundor . I'm going to file that under "one day I might understand that".
– Robert Frost
yesterday
@Kundor : Yep, because the larger universe has more naturals in it, it can have enough of them to count all the reals in the first universe, right?
– The_Sympathizer
23 hours ago
1
@RobertFrost No to both questions.
– Stefan Mesken
10 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
Just for fun I put the formula "metrizable + ~discrete + countable" into https://topology.jdabbs.com/
and found some fun examples of nondiscrete countable metric spaces.
The first example I hadn't heard of before was the "Countable Fort Space" which is defined in the following way:
Let $X$ be a countable set and $pin X$. Define $Usubseteq X$ to be open provided that $Xsetminus U$ is finite or $pnotin U$.
Likewise there is the evenly spaced integer topology.
Let $X=mathbb{Z}$ equipped with the topology generated by all sets of the form
$$a+kmathbb{Z}={a+knmid ninmathbb{Z}}text{ for all }a,kinmathbb{Z}$$
There are others of course, but those were some fun ones that haven't been mentioned in this post yet.
1
countable Fort space is just homeomorphic to ${frac{1}{n}: n ge 1} cup {0}$ as a subspace of the reals. (It's only added because we also have uncountable Fort space, which is the one-point compactification of a discrete space, like the sequence). The countable version is metrisable, so is mentioned separately.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
So it is, I didn't realize that. Thanks.
– Robert Thingum
yesterday
1
The evenly spaces integer topology is just $mathbb{Q}$ topologically, as is any countable metric space without isolated points.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
For a metric space to be discrete we need to have every singleton to be open.
Consider the metric space of $Q$, the rational numbers with the standard metric.
$Q$ is countable but singletons are not open because in every neighborhood of a singleton there are points other the singleton itself so no open interval in included in the singleton.
It's a bit confusing that OP asked opposing questions in the title and the body of his post... I'll edit my answer to make it more apparent that the "yes" refers to the body of the question.
– Stefan Mesken
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
If $X$ is a metric space and $x in X$, then the following statements are equivalent:
The metric-induced topology on $X$ is not the discrete topology, with ${ x }$ being non-open in $X$.
$x$ is an accumulation point in $X$.
There exists a sequence $x_1, x_2, x_3, dots in X setminus { x } $ such that $x_n to x$.
So probably the "sparsest" way to construct a countable metric space $X$ whose metric-induced topology is not the discrete topology is to choose a convergent sequence $x_n$ in $mathbb R$, with limit $x := lim_{n to infty } x_n$ such that the $x_n neq x$ for all $n$, and define $$X = { x_n : n in mathbb N } cup { x }.$$
For example, $X = { frac 1 n : n in mathbb N } cup { 0 }$ works.
Of course, $X = mathbb Q$ works too, as Stefan explained, as witnessed by the fact that it contains the sequence $x_n = frac 1 n$ and its limit $0$.
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
The set of rational numbers $mathbb{Q}$ with the usual metric is a countable, metric space (which is also perfect, i.e. it doesn't have any isolated points). Being perfect can be viewed as being 'very far' from discrete.
Bonus: Consider the reals with their natural metric $(mathbb R; d)$. Let $g$ be $mathrm{Coll}(omega, mathbb R)$-generic over $V$. In the generic extension $V[g]$ we have that $mathbb{R}$ is countable but (by an easy absoluteness argument) $(mathbb{R}, d)$ remains a (non-complete but perfect) metric space in this larger universe.
(This can also be achieved by taking a countable, transitivized Skolem hull $M$ of $V_{omega_1}$ and considering $(mathbb R;d)^M$ -- $M$'s version of the reals and their metric. The advantage of the latter construction is that it takes place purely in $mathrm{ZF}$, without stepping out of the set theoretical universe.)
Hang on, $Bbb R$ is countable? I'd love to know more about that. Is every element of $Bbb R$ expressible in a countable set like that statement sounds?
– Robert Frost
yesterday
1
@RobertFrost: It's not that $mathbb{R}$ is countable, but rather that the $mathbb{R}$ in one set-theoretic universe might be found to be countable (i.e. in bijection with the natural numbers) in a larger set-theoretic universe which happens to have more natural numbers than the first. The real numbers in the larger universe are of course not countable, by its own standards.
– Kundor
yesterday
1
Ok thanks @Kundor . I'm going to file that under "one day I might understand that".
– Robert Frost
yesterday
@Kundor : Yep, because the larger universe has more naturals in it, it can have enough of them to count all the reals in the first universe, right?
– The_Sympathizer
23 hours ago
1
@RobertFrost No to both questions.
– Stefan Mesken
10 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
The set of rational numbers $mathbb{Q}$ with the usual metric is a countable, metric space (which is also perfect, i.e. it doesn't have any isolated points). Being perfect can be viewed as being 'very far' from discrete.
Bonus: Consider the reals with their natural metric $(mathbb R; d)$. Let $g$ be $mathrm{Coll}(omega, mathbb R)$-generic over $V$. In the generic extension $V[g]$ we have that $mathbb{R}$ is countable but (by an easy absoluteness argument) $(mathbb{R}, d)$ remains a (non-complete but perfect) metric space in this larger universe.
(This can also be achieved by taking a countable, transitivized Skolem hull $M$ of $V_{omega_1}$ and considering $(mathbb R;d)^M$ -- $M$'s version of the reals and their metric. The advantage of the latter construction is that it takes place purely in $mathrm{ZF}$, without stepping out of the set theoretical universe.)
Hang on, $Bbb R$ is countable? I'd love to know more about that. Is every element of $Bbb R$ expressible in a countable set like that statement sounds?
– Robert Frost
yesterday
1
@RobertFrost: It's not that $mathbb{R}$ is countable, but rather that the $mathbb{R}$ in one set-theoretic universe might be found to be countable (i.e. in bijection with the natural numbers) in a larger set-theoretic universe which happens to have more natural numbers than the first. The real numbers in the larger universe are of course not countable, by its own standards.
– Kundor
yesterday
1
Ok thanks @Kundor . I'm going to file that under "one day I might understand that".
– Robert Frost
yesterday
@Kundor : Yep, because the larger universe has more naturals in it, it can have enough of them to count all the reals in the first universe, right?
– The_Sympathizer
23 hours ago
1
@RobertFrost No to both questions.
– Stefan Mesken
10 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
The set of rational numbers $mathbb{Q}$ with the usual metric is a countable, metric space (which is also perfect, i.e. it doesn't have any isolated points). Being perfect can be viewed as being 'very far' from discrete.
Bonus: Consider the reals with their natural metric $(mathbb R; d)$. Let $g$ be $mathrm{Coll}(omega, mathbb R)$-generic over $V$. In the generic extension $V[g]$ we have that $mathbb{R}$ is countable but (by an easy absoluteness argument) $(mathbb{R}, d)$ remains a (non-complete but perfect) metric space in this larger universe.
(This can also be achieved by taking a countable, transitivized Skolem hull $M$ of $V_{omega_1}$ and considering $(mathbb R;d)^M$ -- $M$'s version of the reals and their metric. The advantage of the latter construction is that it takes place purely in $mathrm{ZF}$, without stepping out of the set theoretical universe.)
The set of rational numbers $mathbb{Q}$ with the usual metric is a countable, metric space (which is also perfect, i.e. it doesn't have any isolated points). Being perfect can be viewed as being 'very far' from discrete.
Bonus: Consider the reals with their natural metric $(mathbb R; d)$. Let $g$ be $mathrm{Coll}(omega, mathbb R)$-generic over $V$. In the generic extension $V[g]$ we have that $mathbb{R}$ is countable but (by an easy absoluteness argument) $(mathbb{R}, d)$ remains a (non-complete but perfect) metric space in this larger universe.
(This can also be achieved by taking a countable, transitivized Skolem hull $M$ of $V_{omega_1}$ and considering $(mathbb R;d)^M$ -- $M$'s version of the reals and their metric. The advantage of the latter construction is that it takes place purely in $mathrm{ZF}$, without stepping out of the set theoretical universe.)
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Stefan Mesken
14.2k32045
14.2k32045
Hang on, $Bbb R$ is countable? I'd love to know more about that. Is every element of $Bbb R$ expressible in a countable set like that statement sounds?
– Robert Frost
yesterday
1
@RobertFrost: It's not that $mathbb{R}$ is countable, but rather that the $mathbb{R}$ in one set-theoretic universe might be found to be countable (i.e. in bijection with the natural numbers) in a larger set-theoretic universe which happens to have more natural numbers than the first. The real numbers in the larger universe are of course not countable, by its own standards.
– Kundor
yesterday
1
Ok thanks @Kundor . I'm going to file that under "one day I might understand that".
– Robert Frost
yesterday
@Kundor : Yep, because the larger universe has more naturals in it, it can have enough of them to count all the reals in the first universe, right?
– The_Sympathizer
23 hours ago
1
@RobertFrost No to both questions.
– Stefan Mesken
10 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Hang on, $Bbb R$ is countable? I'd love to know more about that. Is every element of $Bbb R$ expressible in a countable set like that statement sounds?
– Robert Frost
yesterday
1
@RobertFrost: It's not that $mathbb{R}$ is countable, but rather that the $mathbb{R}$ in one set-theoretic universe might be found to be countable (i.e. in bijection with the natural numbers) in a larger set-theoretic universe which happens to have more natural numbers than the first. The real numbers in the larger universe are of course not countable, by its own standards.
– Kundor
yesterday
1
Ok thanks @Kundor . I'm going to file that under "one day I might understand that".
– Robert Frost
yesterday
@Kundor : Yep, because the larger universe has more naturals in it, it can have enough of them to count all the reals in the first universe, right?
– The_Sympathizer
23 hours ago
1
@RobertFrost No to both questions.
– Stefan Mesken
10 hours ago
Hang on, $Bbb R$ is countable? I'd love to know more about that. Is every element of $Bbb R$ expressible in a countable set like that statement sounds?
– Robert Frost
yesterday
Hang on, $Bbb R$ is countable? I'd love to know more about that. Is every element of $Bbb R$ expressible in a countable set like that statement sounds?
– Robert Frost
yesterday
1
1
@RobertFrost: It's not that $mathbb{R}$ is countable, but rather that the $mathbb{R}$ in one set-theoretic universe might be found to be countable (i.e. in bijection with the natural numbers) in a larger set-theoretic universe which happens to have more natural numbers than the first. The real numbers in the larger universe are of course not countable, by its own standards.
– Kundor
yesterday
@RobertFrost: It's not that $mathbb{R}$ is countable, but rather that the $mathbb{R}$ in one set-theoretic universe might be found to be countable (i.e. in bijection with the natural numbers) in a larger set-theoretic universe which happens to have more natural numbers than the first. The real numbers in the larger universe are of course not countable, by its own standards.
– Kundor
yesterday
1
1
Ok thanks @Kundor . I'm going to file that under "one day I might understand that".
– Robert Frost
yesterday
Ok thanks @Kundor . I'm going to file that under "one day I might understand that".
– Robert Frost
yesterday
@Kundor : Yep, because the larger universe has more naturals in it, it can have enough of them to count all the reals in the first universe, right?
– The_Sympathizer
23 hours ago
@Kundor : Yep, because the larger universe has more naturals in it, it can have enough of them to count all the reals in the first universe, right?
– The_Sympathizer
23 hours ago
1
1
@RobertFrost No to both questions.
– Stefan Mesken
10 hours ago
@RobertFrost No to both questions.
– Stefan Mesken
10 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
Just for fun I put the formula "metrizable + ~discrete + countable" into https://topology.jdabbs.com/
and found some fun examples of nondiscrete countable metric spaces.
The first example I hadn't heard of before was the "Countable Fort Space" which is defined in the following way:
Let $X$ be a countable set and $pin X$. Define $Usubseteq X$ to be open provided that $Xsetminus U$ is finite or $pnotin U$.
Likewise there is the evenly spaced integer topology.
Let $X=mathbb{Z}$ equipped with the topology generated by all sets of the form
$$a+kmathbb{Z}={a+knmid ninmathbb{Z}}text{ for all }a,kinmathbb{Z}$$
There are others of course, but those were some fun ones that haven't been mentioned in this post yet.
1
countable Fort space is just homeomorphic to ${frac{1}{n}: n ge 1} cup {0}$ as a subspace of the reals. (It's only added because we also have uncountable Fort space, which is the one-point compactification of a discrete space, like the sequence). The countable version is metrisable, so is mentioned separately.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
So it is, I didn't realize that. Thanks.
– Robert Thingum
yesterday
1
The evenly spaces integer topology is just $mathbb{Q}$ topologically, as is any countable metric space without isolated points.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Just for fun I put the formula "metrizable + ~discrete + countable" into https://topology.jdabbs.com/
and found some fun examples of nondiscrete countable metric spaces.
The first example I hadn't heard of before was the "Countable Fort Space" which is defined in the following way:
Let $X$ be a countable set and $pin X$. Define $Usubseteq X$ to be open provided that $Xsetminus U$ is finite or $pnotin U$.
Likewise there is the evenly spaced integer topology.
Let $X=mathbb{Z}$ equipped with the topology generated by all sets of the form
$$a+kmathbb{Z}={a+knmid ninmathbb{Z}}text{ for all }a,kinmathbb{Z}$$
There are others of course, but those were some fun ones that haven't been mentioned in this post yet.
1
countable Fort space is just homeomorphic to ${frac{1}{n}: n ge 1} cup {0}$ as a subspace of the reals. (It's only added because we also have uncountable Fort space, which is the one-point compactification of a discrete space, like the sequence). The countable version is metrisable, so is mentioned separately.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
So it is, I didn't realize that. Thanks.
– Robert Thingum
yesterday
1
The evenly spaces integer topology is just $mathbb{Q}$ topologically, as is any countable metric space without isolated points.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Just for fun I put the formula "metrizable + ~discrete + countable" into https://topology.jdabbs.com/
and found some fun examples of nondiscrete countable metric spaces.
The first example I hadn't heard of before was the "Countable Fort Space" which is defined in the following way:
Let $X$ be a countable set and $pin X$. Define $Usubseteq X$ to be open provided that $Xsetminus U$ is finite or $pnotin U$.
Likewise there is the evenly spaced integer topology.
Let $X=mathbb{Z}$ equipped with the topology generated by all sets of the form
$$a+kmathbb{Z}={a+knmid ninmathbb{Z}}text{ for all }a,kinmathbb{Z}$$
There are others of course, but those were some fun ones that haven't been mentioned in this post yet.
Just for fun I put the formula "metrizable + ~discrete + countable" into https://topology.jdabbs.com/
and found some fun examples of nondiscrete countable metric spaces.
The first example I hadn't heard of before was the "Countable Fort Space" which is defined in the following way:
Let $X$ be a countable set and $pin X$. Define $Usubseteq X$ to be open provided that $Xsetminus U$ is finite or $pnotin U$.
Likewise there is the evenly spaced integer topology.
Let $X=mathbb{Z}$ equipped with the topology generated by all sets of the form
$$a+kmathbb{Z}={a+knmid ninmathbb{Z}}text{ for all }a,kinmathbb{Z}$$
There are others of course, but those were some fun ones that haven't been mentioned in this post yet.
answered yesterday
Robert Thingum
7541316
7541316
1
countable Fort space is just homeomorphic to ${frac{1}{n}: n ge 1} cup {0}$ as a subspace of the reals. (It's only added because we also have uncountable Fort space, which is the one-point compactification of a discrete space, like the sequence). The countable version is metrisable, so is mentioned separately.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
So it is, I didn't realize that. Thanks.
– Robert Thingum
yesterday
1
The evenly spaces integer topology is just $mathbb{Q}$ topologically, as is any countable metric space without isolated points.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
add a comment |
1
countable Fort space is just homeomorphic to ${frac{1}{n}: n ge 1} cup {0}$ as a subspace of the reals. (It's only added because we also have uncountable Fort space, which is the one-point compactification of a discrete space, like the sequence). The countable version is metrisable, so is mentioned separately.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
So it is, I didn't realize that. Thanks.
– Robert Thingum
yesterday
1
The evenly spaces integer topology is just $mathbb{Q}$ topologically, as is any countable metric space without isolated points.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
1
1
countable Fort space is just homeomorphic to ${frac{1}{n}: n ge 1} cup {0}$ as a subspace of the reals. (It's only added because we also have uncountable Fort space, which is the one-point compactification of a discrete space, like the sequence). The countable version is metrisable, so is mentioned separately.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
countable Fort space is just homeomorphic to ${frac{1}{n}: n ge 1} cup {0}$ as a subspace of the reals. (It's only added because we also have uncountable Fort space, which is the one-point compactification of a discrete space, like the sequence). The countable version is metrisable, so is mentioned separately.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
So it is, I didn't realize that. Thanks.
– Robert Thingum
yesterday
So it is, I didn't realize that. Thanks.
– Robert Thingum
yesterday
1
1
The evenly spaces integer topology is just $mathbb{Q}$ topologically, as is any countable metric space without isolated points.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
The evenly spaces integer topology is just $mathbb{Q}$ topologically, as is any countable metric space without isolated points.
– Henno Brandsma
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
For a metric space to be discrete we need to have every singleton to be open.
Consider the metric space of $Q$, the rational numbers with the standard metric.
$Q$ is countable but singletons are not open because in every neighborhood of a singleton there are points other the singleton itself so no open interval in included in the singleton.
It's a bit confusing that OP asked opposing questions in the title and the body of his post... I'll edit my answer to make it more apparent that the "yes" refers to the body of the question.
– Stefan Mesken
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
For a metric space to be discrete we need to have every singleton to be open.
Consider the metric space of $Q$, the rational numbers with the standard metric.
$Q$ is countable but singletons are not open because in every neighborhood of a singleton there are points other the singleton itself so no open interval in included in the singleton.
It's a bit confusing that OP asked opposing questions in the title and the body of his post... I'll edit my answer to make it more apparent that the "yes" refers to the body of the question.
– Stefan Mesken
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
For a metric space to be discrete we need to have every singleton to be open.
Consider the metric space of $Q$, the rational numbers with the standard metric.
$Q$ is countable but singletons are not open because in every neighborhood of a singleton there are points other the singleton itself so no open interval in included in the singleton.
For a metric space to be discrete we need to have every singleton to be open.
Consider the metric space of $Q$, the rational numbers with the standard metric.
$Q$ is countable but singletons are not open because in every neighborhood of a singleton there are points other the singleton itself so no open interval in included in the singleton.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
39.6k41957
39.6k41957
It's a bit confusing that OP asked opposing questions in the title and the body of his post... I'll edit my answer to make it more apparent that the "yes" refers to the body of the question.
– Stefan Mesken
yesterday
add a comment |
It's a bit confusing that OP asked opposing questions in the title and the body of his post... I'll edit my answer to make it more apparent that the "yes" refers to the body of the question.
– Stefan Mesken
yesterday
It's a bit confusing that OP asked opposing questions in the title and the body of his post... I'll edit my answer to make it more apparent that the "yes" refers to the body of the question.
– Stefan Mesken
yesterday
It's a bit confusing that OP asked opposing questions in the title and the body of his post... I'll edit my answer to make it more apparent that the "yes" refers to the body of the question.
– Stefan Mesken
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
If $X$ is a metric space and $x in X$, then the following statements are equivalent:
The metric-induced topology on $X$ is not the discrete topology, with ${ x }$ being non-open in $X$.
$x$ is an accumulation point in $X$.
There exists a sequence $x_1, x_2, x_3, dots in X setminus { x } $ such that $x_n to x$.
So probably the "sparsest" way to construct a countable metric space $X$ whose metric-induced topology is not the discrete topology is to choose a convergent sequence $x_n$ in $mathbb R$, with limit $x := lim_{n to infty } x_n$ such that the $x_n neq x$ for all $n$, and define $$X = { x_n : n in mathbb N } cup { x }.$$
For example, $X = { frac 1 n : n in mathbb N } cup { 0 }$ works.
Of course, $X = mathbb Q$ works too, as Stefan explained, as witnessed by the fact that it contains the sequence $x_n = frac 1 n$ and its limit $0$.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
If $X$ is a metric space and $x in X$, then the following statements are equivalent:
The metric-induced topology on $X$ is not the discrete topology, with ${ x }$ being non-open in $X$.
$x$ is an accumulation point in $X$.
There exists a sequence $x_1, x_2, x_3, dots in X setminus { x } $ such that $x_n to x$.
So probably the "sparsest" way to construct a countable metric space $X$ whose metric-induced topology is not the discrete topology is to choose a convergent sequence $x_n$ in $mathbb R$, with limit $x := lim_{n to infty } x_n$ such that the $x_n neq x$ for all $n$, and define $$X = { x_n : n in mathbb N } cup { x }.$$
For example, $X = { frac 1 n : n in mathbb N } cup { 0 }$ works.
Of course, $X = mathbb Q$ works too, as Stefan explained, as witnessed by the fact that it contains the sequence $x_n = frac 1 n$ and its limit $0$.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
If $X$ is a metric space and $x in X$, then the following statements are equivalent:
The metric-induced topology on $X$ is not the discrete topology, with ${ x }$ being non-open in $X$.
$x$ is an accumulation point in $X$.
There exists a sequence $x_1, x_2, x_3, dots in X setminus { x } $ such that $x_n to x$.
So probably the "sparsest" way to construct a countable metric space $X$ whose metric-induced topology is not the discrete topology is to choose a convergent sequence $x_n$ in $mathbb R$, with limit $x := lim_{n to infty } x_n$ such that the $x_n neq x$ for all $n$, and define $$X = { x_n : n in mathbb N } cup { x }.$$
For example, $X = { frac 1 n : n in mathbb N } cup { 0 }$ works.
Of course, $X = mathbb Q$ works too, as Stefan explained, as witnessed by the fact that it contains the sequence $x_n = frac 1 n$ and its limit $0$.
If $X$ is a metric space and $x in X$, then the following statements are equivalent:
The metric-induced topology on $X$ is not the discrete topology, with ${ x }$ being non-open in $X$.
$x$ is an accumulation point in $X$.
There exists a sequence $x_1, x_2, x_3, dots in X setminus { x } $ such that $x_n to x$.
So probably the "sparsest" way to construct a countable metric space $X$ whose metric-induced topology is not the discrete topology is to choose a convergent sequence $x_n$ in $mathbb R$, with limit $x := lim_{n to infty } x_n$ such that the $x_n neq x$ for all $n$, and define $$X = { x_n : n in mathbb N } cup { x }.$$
For example, $X = { frac 1 n : n in mathbb N } cup { 0 }$ works.
Of course, $X = mathbb Q$ works too, as Stefan explained, as witnessed by the fact that it contains the sequence $x_n = frac 1 n$ and its limit $0$.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Kenny Wong
16.6k21135
16.6k21135
add a comment |
add a comment |
This is probably obvious to you but not to all, but countable means countably infinite rather than finite.
– Robert Frost
yesterday