Opened 21 months ago

Last modified 4 weeks ago

## #31785 new enhancement

# Category of open subsets of a topological space

Reported by: | mkoeppe | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|

Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-9.9 |

Component: | categories | Keywords: | |

Cc: | gh-mjungmath, egourgoulhon, tscrim, gh-tobiasdiez, mkoeppe | Merged in: | |

Authors: | Reviewers: | ||

Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |

Branch: | Commit: | ||

Dependencies: | #34461 | Stopgaps: |

### Description

We define the category of open subsets of a topological space.

- The category is a
`CategoryWithParameters`

- A parent is an open subset.
- An element is a point in the open subset.
- A morphism is an inclusion map.

A concrete implementation for open subsets of a topological manifold:

- A parent has a
`ManifoldSubsetFamily`

instance that stores the equivalence class of named subsets that are known to be equal

This is preparation for #31703.

### Change History (20)

### comment:3 Changed 21 months ago by

There are two possible ways to think about this. One is the category is the category of open subsets of `X`

, the other is the category of open subobjects. The other would be a singleton category as a subcategory of the category of subobjects of `TopologicalSpaces`

. I might lean towards the latter because it is conceptually more simple and less pointer hell with expressing the same information (that this is an open subset in some topological subspace) but leaving the details to the implementation.

### comment:5 Changed 21 months ago by

When inclusions are maps, then the compatibility of restrictions of sections is the functorial property.

### comment:6 Changed 21 months ago by

Now I see what you meant with functorial property.

However, morphisms must be (well) defined between all objects in the category. But not all such morphisms can be inclusions. What are morphisms between 'non-compatible' subsets?

### comment:8 Changed 21 months ago by

Ah, I suppose you see the open sets as posets again and you take the induced category, right?

### comment:9 Changed 21 months ago by

But still, I don't see why we need this category. All we need then is the Homset between open subsets. I still favor implementing the topology as actual set, not as category.

### comment:10 follow-up: 11 Changed 21 months ago by

Categories can be used a marker of properties of objects rather than having an explicit parameter (e.g., the finite-dimensional or finite versions of a category). It then later can be extended as a place to put common methods.

Also, in case it isn't clear, it is okay to have the homset be empty.

### comment:11 Changed 21 months ago by

Replying to tscrim:

Categories can be used a marker of properties of objects rather than having an explicit parameter (e.g., the finite-dimensional or finite versions of a category). It then later can be extended as a place to put common methods.

The only property we need is that of the homset. Isn't it a bit overkill to give it a whole category by itself? What does speak against a concrete implementation of the topology of a manifold, which comes in handy on many occasions, and then introducing a category of topologies? The homset between elements of the topology can then be established as induced by the poset structure of subsets. These homsets can still be implemented on the level of the category of topologies.

Also, in case it isn't clear, it is okay to have the homset be empty.

Yes, it is clear. But I just learned category theory and some things still confuse me at the first glimpse.

### comment:12 Changed 21 months ago by

Example at hand:

sage: Homset(1, 2) Set of Morphisms from 1 to 2 in Category of elements of Integer Ring

I'd rather like to see open subsets as objects of the category of elements of a topology than giving it a bare category.

### comment:13 Changed 21 months ago by

After a little chat with Travis, and a little thought myself, I think that Travis's latter proposal, i.e. seeing the category of open subsets as subcategory of subobjects of topological spaces, is indeed a good idea.

The sheaf implementation is already on a good way and doesn't necessarily need a family structure (though it would be nice from a mathematical viewpoint imo).

### comment:14 Changed 21 months ago by

Already made a proposal in #31703. This now relies on what happens here.

Even though I still like the idea of the topology being realized as a set rather than a category more, I can live with that approach, too.

### comment:15 Changed 19 months ago by

Milestone: | sage-9.4 → sage-9.5 |
---|

### comment:16 Changed 14 months ago by

Milestone: | sage-9.5 → sage-9.6 |
---|

### comment:17 Changed 11 months ago by

Milestone: | sage-9.6 → sage-9.7 |
---|

### comment:18 Changed 5 months ago by

Milestone: | sage-9.7 → sage-9.8 |
---|

### comment:19 Changed 5 months ago by

Dependencies: | → #34461 |
---|

### comment:20 Changed 4 weeks ago by

Milestone: | sage-9.8 → sage-9.9 |
---|

**Note:**See TracTickets for help on using tickets.

Why do we need a category of open sets? Wouldn't it be better to represent the actual

setof open subsets, i.e. the set-theoretic notion of topology? This is then an object of the category of topologies.As for the parent-element framework this would mean: the topology is the parent, and its elements are open subsets.