When we define the quotient topology, we say that an open set in it, are those sets which have pre image as an open set. But, why not just define it to be the image of open set of the initial set?
Intuitively speaking, I guess it has something to do with wanting open sets to be quotiented with each other. I came to this idea by considering a toy example which I describe below.
Consider the set $\{1,2,3\}$ with the topology $\tau = \{ \phi,\{1,2,3\},\{1\} \}$. Now, suppose we define a relation $~$ which has only a single element in the relation $1~2$, we turn this into an equivalence relation and quotient the set with it. We get the quotient set $\{[1], [3]\}$ and the corresponding quotient topology $\tau' = { \phi ,\{[1], [3]\}}$. We don't have $\{1\}$ any more because its pre image is $\{1,2\}$.
However, we can also check that, were it so that we had ${2}$ and ${1,2}$ in our initial topology, then it would be that $[1]$ by itself would also be an open set in the quotient.
Is this the correct idea? If yes, how do I make this more precise, if no, what then is?
\emptysetor, better,\varnothingfor the empty set rather than using the letter $\phi$. – Joe Jun 18 '24 at 19:32