{"id":149,"date":"2006-09-11T08:30:40","date_gmt":"2006-09-11T08:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2006\/09\/11\/shapes-boundaries-and-interiors\/"},"modified":"2006-09-11T08:30:40","modified_gmt":"2006-09-11T08:30:40","slug":"shapes-boundaries-and-interiors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2006\/09\/11\/shapes-boundaries-and-interiors\/","title":{"rendered":"Shapes, Boundaries, and Interiors"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>When we talk about topology, in general, the way we talk about it is in terms of *shapes*: geometric objects and spaces, surfaces, bodies that enclose things, etc. We talk about the topology of a *torus*, or a *coffee mug*, or a *sphere*.<br \/>\nBut the topology we&#8217;ve talked about so far doesn&#8217;t talk about shapes or surfaces. It talks about open sets and closed sets, about neighborhoods, even about filters; but we haven&#8217;t touched on how this relates to our *intuitive* notion of shape.<br \/>\nToday, we&#8217;ll make a start on the idea of surface and shape by defining what *interior* and *boundary* mean in a topological space.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><br \/>\nWe need to start with some concepts based on a notion of distance. In a topological space, the basic notion of distance is built on neighborhoods. For each concept, I&#8217;ll start by describing it informally in terms of metric spaces, because that&#8217;s where our intuitions of distance come from.<br \/>\nFirst, we need to be able to talk about what it means to be *arbitrarily close* to a set. In a metric space with metric function d, we can define the distance between a point and a set *S* by a function d<sub>S<\/sub>(x) = min({d(x,p) | p &isin; *S*}). So the distance from a point x to a set *S* is the distance between *x* and the  *closest* member of *S*.<br \/>\nWith that, we can talk about being *arbitrarily close* to a set. In a metric space, a point *p* is *arbitrarily close* to a set *S* if &forall; x &isin; &real; &gt; 0, d<sub>S<\/sub>(p) 0&#8243;. I was so busy focusing on the intuition that I neglected to make the formal part precise.)*<br \/>\nThe set of all points that are arbitrarily close to a set *S* in a metric space are called the *closure* of S. That&#8217;s usually written by *S* with a horizontal line over it by topologists; but since I can&#8217;t find any good way to use that notation in HTML, I&#8217;ll use the typical computer science notation for closure, and write *S<sup>*<\/sup>*. Intuitively, if *S* is an open set, then *S<sup>*<\/sup>* is the *closed* set containing *S* and its *boundary*.<br \/>\nWhat&#8217;s the corresponding notion in an arbitrary (i.e., not necessarily metric) topological space? Suppose we&#8217;ve got a topological space (**T**, &tau;); and a subset *S* of **T**. The closure *S<sup>*<\/sup>* of *S* is the set of all points p where for every neighborhood of p, N(p), N(p) &cap; *S* &ne; &empty;: that is, all points where one of their neighborhoods contains at least one point in *S*. It&#8217;s the same basic idea as the metric space closure, but it&#8217;s based on neighborhoods instance of distance metrics. In any metric space that&#8217;s also a topological space, the topological and metric closures are the same. In fact, we can even formalize the idea that I mentioned up above about closed sets: a set *S* is a closed set if, and only if *S<sup>*<\/sup> = S*. The closure of *S* is the *smallest* closed set containing *S*. *(Note: originally, this paragraph contained a typo: I used &#8220;&cup;&#8221; instead of &#8220;&cap;&#8221;; In HTML, that&#8217;s &#8220;cup&#8221; instead of &#8220;cap&#8221;.)*<br \/>\nIt&#8217;s a pretty easy to prove set of theorems that there are certain properties of a topological space involving closures. Given a topological space is (**T**, &tau;):<br \/>\n1. &empty;<sup>*<\/sup> = &empty;. *(The closure of the empty set is the empty set.)*<br \/>\n2. **T**<sup>*<\/sup> = **T**. *(The closure of the set all points in a topological space is the set of all points in the topological space).*<br \/>\n3. &forall; S &sub; **T**: S &sube; S<sup>*<\/sup>. *(Every subset of **T** is a subset of its closure.)*<br \/>\n4. &forall; A,B &sub; **T**: (A &cup; B)<sup>*<\/sup> = A<sup>*<\/sup>&cup;B<sup>*<\/sup>. *(The closure of a union of two subsets of **T** is union of their closures; closure in invariant over set union.)*<br \/>\n5. &forall; S &sub; **T**: S<sup>*<\/sup> = S<sup>*<sup>*<\/sup><\/sup>.<br \/>\n*(Taking the closure of a closure doesn&#8217;t do anything.)*<br \/>\nNow that we can talk about the closure of sets in a topological space, we can move on to the definitions we really care about: interior and boundary.<br \/>\nIn a *metric* space, we know what the interior is, intuitively. We can define any shape in a metric space by the combination of unions and intersections of *open balls*; so we can define interior for open-balls, and go from there. If  B(p,x) is an open ball of size x around a point p, then a point z is in the *interior* of B(p,x) if d(z,x) &lt; p. The extension of this over unions and intersections works exactly as your intuition would predict; the interior of a set in a metric space matches your intuition of *inside*.<br \/>\nWhat this means is that the interior of a set is a kind of *opposite* of the closure: the closure of a set S was the *smallest* closed set that includes S; the *interior* of a set S is the *largest* open set that is included by S.<br \/>\nAnd that&#039;s exactly the definition that we can if we expand to topological spaces: in a topological space (**T**, &tau;), a point p is in the interior of a set *S*&sub;**T** if and only if *S* is a neighborhood of p. Work out the set of points p for which *S* is a neighborhood, and it&#039;s the *largest* open set included by *S*:<br \/>\nGiven a subset *S* of a topological space (**T**,&tau;), the *interior* of *S* is the union of all open sets contained in *S*. The interior of the set S is often written Int(S).<br \/>\n*(Note: the original version of the above three paragraphs contained errors in the phrasing; they originally said &quot;the interior of a set S is the largest open set that includes S, where it should have been the largest open set that *is included by* S.)*<br \/>\nAnd last but definitely not least; the *boundary* of a set *S* in a topological space (**T**,&tau;) is the intersection of the *closure* of *S* and the closure of the complement of S:<br \/>\nBoundary(S) = S<sup>*<\/sup> &cap; (S<sup>-1<\/sup>)<sup>*<\/sup><br \/>\nOnce again, if we were to look at this in a metric space, it&#8217;s *exactly* what our intuition would call the boundary or surface of S. The surface of a sphere is the set of points which is arbitrarily close to both the *exterior* of the sphere and the interior of the sphere. It&#8217;s the set of points that forms a *boundary* between the interior and the exterior.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When we talk about topology, in general, the way we talk about it is in terms of *shapes*: geometric objects and spaces, surfaces, bodies that enclose things, etc. We talk about the topology of a *torus*, or a *coffee mug*, or a *sphere*. But the topology we&#8217;ve talked about so far doesn&#8217;t talk about shapes [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[65],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-topology"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-2p","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}