Does it make sense to define a topology on the coordinate grid $\mathbb{R}^2$ using the horizontal and vertical lines as "building-blocks"?
- $B_{1, y} = \{ (x,y): y \in \mathbb{R} \}$ vertical lines are closed
- $B_{2, x} = \{ (x,y): x \in \mathbb{R} \}$ horizontal lines are closed
The definition of basis of Topology is a collection of open sets:
- the base elements cover $X = \mathbb{R}^2$
- let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be the basis elements and $I = B_1 \cap B_2$ the there exists a $B_3$ such that $z \in B_3 \subseteq I = B_1 \cap B_2$.
Basically my question is that if we use a basis other than squares or circles can we change the topology of $\mathbb{R}^2$. Here we coudl write one possible basis for the Euclidean topology:
- $B_{(x_0, y_0), \epsilon} = \{ (x^2 - x_0)^2 - (y - y_0)^2 < \epsilon \} $
if we have two bases $(\mathbb{R}^2, \mathcal{B}_1)$ $ (\mathbb{R}^2, \mathcal{B}_2)$ can these two copies of the plane be homeomorphic.
This matches the definition on p. 78 of Munkres. We can define the topology generated by a basis $\mathcal{B}$. A subset $U \subseteq X$ is open if for any $x \in U$ there is a basis element $B \in \mathcal{B}$ such that $x \in B \subset U$. On the next page, he shows that from the basis $\mathcal{B}$ the collections of sets $U$ is a topology.
Example: check that $U_1 \cap U_2 \in \mathcal{T}$ (the intersection of open sets is open). Given $x \in U_1 \cap U_2$ we can find $x \in B_1 \subset U_1$ and $x \in B_2 \subset U_2$ and then $x \in B_3 \subset B_1 \cap B_2 \subset U_1 \cap U_2$. Our open sets might be irregular and yet the basis elements are quite standard.
Possible I have to change my question to define a basis of open sets rather than closed. We do have the result that if $U$ is open then $X \backslash U$ is closed.
Related
Why $B_3 \subset B_1 \cap B_2$ in the definition of a basis for a Topology in Munkres' Book?

