The German Wikipedia page on topological boundary [1] states that the boundary operator $\partial$ can be characterized by the following four axioms:
- $\partial\emptyset = \emptyset$,
- $\partial(\partial U) \subseteq \partial U$,
- $\partial(U^\complement)= \partial U$, and
- $(U\cap V)\cap \partial(U\cap V) = (U\cap V)\cap (\partial U\cup \partial V)$
for each $U,V\subseteq X$
Is this really correct? There are two references given of which one is available online [2]. But the author apparently distinguishes between boundary and frontier. The author defines the interior $\mathbf{int}(S)$ of a set $S$ as the largest open subset of $S$; the boundary is defined as "[the union of] the points of $S$ which are not interior points constitute [the boundary] $\mathbf{bd}(S)$." The author proceeds and defines the frontier $\mathbf{fr}(S)$ of $S$ as "the union of $\mathbf{bd}(S)$ and $\mathbf{bd}(S')$", where $S'$ denotes the complement of $S$ in $X$. (Note that I replaced $X$ with $S$ to be constitent with the above quote from Wikipedia).
I understand the definitions as \begin{align*} \mathbf{bd}(S) &= S\setminus\mathbf{int}(S) \qquad\text{and}\\ \mathbf{fr}(S) &= \mathbf{bd}(S)\cup \mathbf{bd}(S^\complement).\end{align*} Consider $\mathbb R$ together with the usual topology, and let $S = [0, 1)$. Then $\mathbf{bd}([0,1)) = \{0\}$, and $\mathbf{fr}([0,1)) = \{0,1\}$. I see the boundary $\partial S$ of the set $S$ typically defined as $\partial S = \mathbf{cls}(S) \cap \mathbf{cls}(S^\complement)$, or, equivalently, defined as $\partial S = \mathbf{cls}(S) \cap \mathbf{int}(S)^\complement$. Since $\partial([0,1)) = \{0,1\}$, I suppose that $\partial = \mathbf{fr}$. Is this correct? I am skeptical because I usually see the boundary operator $\partial$ axiomatized by
- $\partial \emptyset = \emptyset$,
- $\partial(\partial U) \subseteq \partial U$,
- $\partial(U^\complement) = \partial U$,
-
- $\partial U\subseteq V\cup \partial V$ if $U\subseteq V$, and
- $\partial (U\cup V) \subseteq \partial U\cup \partial V$
for all $U,V\subseteq X$. But I don't see how to derive 4. from 4.1. and 4.2., as well as the converse, i.e. derive 4.1 and 4.2 from 4.
So, do both axiomatizations agree with each other? And if yes, how can I show it? This is far from obvious for me.
References
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_(Topologie)#Randaxiome
[2] Vaidyanathaswamy: Set topology. 1964, p. 57–58. URL: https://books.google.de/books?id=yDMipybQ64kC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false