The answer to my question Minimal subbases for the canonical topology on $\mathbb{R}$? turned out to be the opposite of my presumed guess. Should I change the title to say, "How does one show that the canonical topology on $\mathbb{R}$ has a minimal subbase?" to avoid a misleading title?
Asked
Viewed
73 times
2
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
-
5$\begingroup$ If you make any change to the title, I would recommend being a bit more neutral and using something like "Minimal subbases for the canonical topology on $\mathbb{R}$?" (But then insert into your question your original guess that there is no minimal subbase.) $\endgroup$ – user642796 Nov 27 '13 at 4:15
