DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1906.00185V3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EMBEDDING TOPOLOGICAL SPACES INTO HAUSDORFF κ-BOUNDED SPACES TARAS BANAKH, SERHII BARDYLA, AND ALEX RAVSKY Abstract. Let κ be an infinite cardinal. A topological space X is κ-bounded if the closure of any subset of cardinality ≤ κ in X is compact. We discuss the problem of embeddability of topological spaces into Hausdorff (Urysohn, regular) κ-bounded spaces, and present a canonical construction of such an embedding. Also we construct a (consistent) example of a sequentially compact separable regular space that cannot be embedded into a Hausdorff ω-bounded space. 1. Introduction It is well-known that a topological space X is homeomorphic to a subspace of a compact Hausdorff space if and only if the space X is Tychonoff. In this paper we address the problem of characterization of topological spaces that embed into Hausdorff (Urysohn, regular, resp.) spaces possessing some weaker compactness properties. One of such properties is the κ-boundedness, i.e., the compactness of closures of subsets of cardinality κ. It is clear that each compact space is κ-bounded for any cardinal κ. Any ordinal α := [0, α) of≤ cofinality cf(α) >κ, endowed with the order topology, is κ-bounded but not compact. More information on κ-bounded spaces can be found in [9], [10], [13]. Embedding of topological spaces into compact-like spaces were also investigated in [1, 2, 5, 6]. In this paper we discuss the following: Problem 1.1. Which topological spaces are homeomorphic to subspaces of κ-bounded Hausdorff (Urysohn, regular) spaces? In Theorem 3.4 (and Theorem 3.5) we shall prove that the necessary and sufficient conditions of embeddability of a T1-space X into a Hausdorff (Urysohn) κ-bounded space are the (strong) κ-regularity and the (strong) κ-normality of X, respectively. In Theorem 3.6 we shall prove that the sufficient condition of embeddability of a T1-space X into a regular κ-bounded space is the total κ-normality of X. The above mentioned separation axioms are introduced and studied in Section 2. In Section 3 we shall present a canonical construction of an embedding a (strongly or totally) κ-normal space into a Hausdorff (Urysohn or regular) κ-bounded space. In the last arXiv:1906.00185v3 [math.GN] 4 Dec 2019 Section 4 we construct a space that is totally ω-normal but not functionally Hausdorff and a (consistent) example of a sequentially compact separable regular space which is not Tychonoff and hence does not embed into a Hausdorff ω-bounded space. Also, for each cardinal κ we construct a topological space which is κ-bounded, κ-normal, H-closed, but not Urysohn. 2. Useful separation axioms For a topological space X by 2X we denote the family of all closed subsets of X. Let be some family of closed subsets of a topological space X. The topological space X is called F -regular if for any set F and point x X F there exist disjoint open sets U, V X •such F that F U and x ∈FV ; ∈ \ ⊂ strongly -regular⊂ if for any∈ set F and point x X F there exist open sets U, V X • F ∈F ∈ \ ⊂ such that F U, x V and U V = ; -Tychonoff⊂if for any∈ set F ∩ and∅ point x X F there exist a continuous function •f F : X [0, 1] such that f(F )∈ F0 and f(x) =∈ 1; \ → ⊂{ } 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 54D30, 54D35, 54D80, 54B30. The work of the second author is supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWF (Grant I 3709 N35). 1 2 TARASBANAKH,SERHIIBARDYLA,ANDA.RAVSKY -normal if for any disjoint sets A, B there exist disjoint open sets U, V X such •that F A U and B V ; ∈ F ⊂ strongly⊂ -normal if⊂ for any disjoint sets A, B there exist open sets U, V X such • that A FU, B V and U V = ; ∈ F ⊂ totally ⊂-normal⊂if for any disjoint∩ ∅ closed sets A and B X there exist disjoint open • sets U,F V X such that A U and B V . ∈F ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ These properties relate as follows: totally -normal 3+ strongly -normal 3+ -normal F F F -Tychonoff 3+ strongly -regular 3+ -regular. F F F However, the total -normality does not imply the -Tychonoff property, see Example 4.4 below. F F Proposition 2.1. If a topological space X is -regular for some family of closed Lindel¨of subspaces of X, then X is -normal. F F F Proof. To show that X is -normal, fix any two disjoint closed sets A, B . By the -regularity, F ∈F F for every a A there exists an open neighborhood Va X of a whose closure V a in X does not ∈ ⊂ intersect the set B. By the Lindel¨of property of A the open cover Va : a A of A has a countable { ∈ } subcover Van n∈ω. { } By analogy, for every b B there exists an open neighborhood Ub X of b whose closure U b ∈ ⊂ in X does not intersect the set A. By the Lindel¨of property of B, the open cover Ub : b B of { ∈ } B has a countable subcover Ubn n∈ω. For every n ω let { } ∈ VA = Van U bk and UB = Ubn V ak . [ \ [ [ \ [ n∈ω k≤n n∈ω k≤n It can be shown that VA,UB are two disjoint open neighborhoods of the sets A, B, witnessing that the space X is -normal. F A subset Y of a topological space X is defined to be (countably) paracompact in X if for each (countable) cover of Y by open subsets of X, there exists a locally finite family of open subsets of X such that Y U and each set V is contained in some set U . V The proof of the⊂ followingS V proposition∈V is stratightforward. ∈U Proposition 2.2. If a subset Y of a topological space X is (countably) paracompact in X, then each closed subset of Y also is (countably) paracompact in X. Proposition 2.3. Let be a family of closed Lindel¨of subsets of X, which are countably para- compact in X. If the spaceF X is strongly -regular, then X is strongly -normal. F F Proof. To show that X is strongly -normal, fix any two disjoint closed sets A, B . By the F ∈ F strong -regularity of X, for every a A and b B there exist open sets Va, Wa, Vb, Wb in X such thatF ∈ ∈ a Va V a Wa W a X B ∈ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ \ and b Vb V b Wb W b X A. ∈ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ \ By the Lindel¨of property of the space A, the open cover Va : a A of A has a countable { ∈ } subcover Van n∈ω. By analogy, the open cover Vb : b B of the Lindel¨of space B has a { } { ∈ } countable subcover Vbn n∈ω. { } It is easy to see that Van W bk n∈ω is cover of A by open subsets of X. By the countable { \Sk≤n } paracompactness of A, there exist a locally finite family A of open sets in X such that A A U ⊂ S U and each set U A is contained in some set Van W bk and hence U V an Wbk ∈U \ Sk≤n ⊂ \ Sk≤n ⊂ Wan Wbk . \ Sk≤n Consider the open neighborhood UA = A of A. The local finiteness of the family A ensures S U U that UA = U Wan Wbk . SU∈UA ⊂ Sn∈ω \ Sk≤n EMBEDDING TOPOLOGICAL SPACES INTO HAUSDORFF κ-BOUNDED SPACES 3 By analogy, we can find an open neighbrhood UB of the countably paracompact subset B in X such that UB Wbn Wak . ⊂ n∈ω \ k≤n It remains toS observe thatS UA UB Wan Wbk Wbn Wak = . ∩ ⊂ [ \ [ ∩ [ \ [ ∅ n∈ω k≤n n∈ω k≤n Proposition 2.4. Each regular topological space X is totally -normal for the family of closed subsets of X that are paracompact in X. F F Proof. To show that X is totally -normal, fix any two disjoint closed sets A and B X. F ∈ F ⊂ By the regularity of X, for every a A there exists an open neighborhood Ua X such that ∈ ⊂ Ua X B. Since A is paracompact in X there exists a locally finite family of open subsets ⊂ \ V of X such that A and each set V is contained in some set Ua, a A. The locally ⊂ S V ∈ V ∈ finiteness of implies that = V ∈V V a∈A Ua X B. Then and X are disjoint openV neighborhoodsS ofV the setsS A and⊂BS, respectively.⊂ \ S V \ S V Let κ be a cardinal. A topological space X is called totally κ-normal (resp. strongly κ-normal, κ-normal, strongly κ-regular, κ-regular, κ-Tychonoff ) if it is totally -normal (resp. strongly - normal, -normal, strongly -regular, -regular, -Tychonoff) for theF family of closed subsetsF of the closuresF of subsets ofF cardinalityF κ in X. F F ≤ Proposition 2.5. Each κ-bounded Hausdorff space X is κ-normal. Proof. Let be the family of closed subspaces of the closures of subsets of cardinality κ in X. Given twoF disjoint closed sets A, B , we observe that the sets A, B are compact.≤ By the Hausdorff property of X, the disjoint compact∈ F sets A, B have disjoint open neighborhoods. In Example 4.6 we shall construct a Hausdorff ω-bounded space which is not strongly ω-normal. Corollary 2.6. Each subspace X of a κ-bounded Hausdorff space Y is κ-regular. Proof. Let F be a closed subspace of the closure of a set E X of cardinality E κ in X and ⊂ | |≤ let x X F be a point.
Recommended publications

  • Nearly Metacompact Spaces

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Topology and its Applications 98 (1999) 191–201 Nearly metacompact spaces Elise Grabner a;∗, Gary Grabner a, Jerry E. Vaughan b a Department Mathematics, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA 16057, USA b Department Mathematics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA Received 28 May 1997; received in revised form 30 December 1997 Abstract A space X is called nearly metacompact (meta-Lindelöf) provided that if U is an open cover of X then there is a dense set D ⊆ X and an open refinement V of U that is point-finite (point-countable) on D: We show that countably compact, nearly meta-Lindelöf T3-spaces are compact. That nearly metacompact radial spaces are meta-Lindelöf. Every space can be embedded as a closed subspace of a nearly metacompact space. We give an example of a countably compact, nearly meta-Lindelöf T2-space that is not compact and a nearly metacompact T2-space which is not irreducible. 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Metacompact; Nearly metacompact; Irreducible; Countably compact; Radial AMS classification: Primary 54D20, Secondary 54A20; 54D30 A space X is called nearly metacompact (meta-Lindelöf) provided that if U is an open cover of X then there is a dense set D ⊆ X and an open refinement V of U such that Vx DfV 2 V: x 2 V g is finite (countable) for all x 2 D. The class of nearly metacompact spaces was introduced in [8] as a device for constructing a variety of interesting examples of non orthocompact spaces.
  • Or Dense in Itself)Ifx Has No Isolated Points

    Or Dense in Itself)Ifx Has No Isolated Points

    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 131, Number 11, Pages 3607{3616 S 0002-9939(03)06660-7 Article electronically published on February 24, 2003 TYCHONOFF EXPANSIONS BY INDEPENDENT FAMILIES WANJUN HU (Communicated by Alan Dow) Abstract. A method for Tychonoff expansions using independent families is introduced. Using this method we prove that every countable Tychonoff space which admits a partition into infinitely many open-hereditarily irre- solvable dense subspaces has a Tychonoff expansion that is !-resolvable but not strongly extraresolvable. We also show that, under Luzin's Hypothesis ! ! (2 1 =2 ), there exists an !-resolvable Tychonoff space of size !1 which is not maximally resolvable. Introduction A topological space X is called crowded (or dense in itself)ifX has no isolated points. E. Hewitt defined a resolvable space as a space which has two disjoint dense subsets (see [17]). A space is called κ-resolvable [3] if it admits κ-many pairwise disjoint dense sets. The cardinal ∆(X):=minfjUj : U is a non-empty open subset of Xg is called the dispersion character of the space X.ThespaceX is called maximally resolvable [2] if it is ∆(X)-resolvable; if every crowded subspace of X is not resolvable, then X is called hereditarily irresolvable (HI). Analogously, X is open-hereditarily irresolvable (or OHI) if every non-empty open subset of X is irresolvable. V.I. Malykhin introduced a similar concept of extraresolvable (see [20] + and [6]): a space is extraresolvable if there exists a family fDα : α<∆(X) g of dense susbets of X such that Dα \ Dβ is nowhere dense in X for distinct α and β.
  • 1. Introduction in a Topological Space, the Closure Is Characterized by the Limits of the Ultrafilters

    1. Introduction in a Topological Space, the Closure Is Characterized by the Limits of the Ultrafilters

    Pr´e-Publica¸c˜oes do Departamento de Matem´atica Universidade de Coimbra Preprint Number 08–37 THE ULTRAFILTER CLOSURE IN ZF GONC¸ALO GUTIERRES Abstract: It is well known that, in a topological space, the open sets can be characterized using filter convergence. In ZF (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without the Axiom of Choice), we cannot replace filters by ultrafilters. It is proven that the ultrafilter convergence determines the open sets for every topological space if and only if the Ultrafilter Theorem holds. More, we can also prove that the Ultrafilter Theorem is equivalent to the fact that uX = kX for every topological space X, where k is the usual Kuratowski Closure operator and u is the Ultrafilter Closure with uX (A) := {x ∈ X : (∃U ultrafilter in X)[U converges to x and A ∈U]}. However, it is possible to built a topological space X for which uX 6= kX , but the open sets are characterized by the ultrafilter convergence. To do so, it is proved that if every set has a free ultrafilter then the Axiom of Countable Choice holds for families of non-empty finite sets. It is also investigated under which set theoretic conditions the equality u = k is true in some subclasses of topological spaces, such as metric spaces, second countable T0-spaces or {R}. Keywords: Ultrafilter Theorem, Ultrafilter Closure. AMS Subject Classification (2000): 03E25, 54A20. 1. Introduction In a topological space, the closure is characterized by the limits of the ultrafilters. Although, in the absence of the Axiom of Choice, this is not a fact anymore.
  • Chapter 7 Separation Properties

    Chapter 7 Separation Properties

    Chapter VII Separation Axioms 1. Introduction “Separation” refers here to whether or not objects like points or disjoint closed sets can be enclosed in disjoint open sets; “separation properties” have nothing to do with the idea of “separated sets” that appeared in our discussion of connectedness in Chapter 5 in spite of the similarity of terminology.. We have already met some simple separation properties of spaces: the XßX!"and X # (Hausdorff) properties. In this chapter, we look at these and others in more depth. As “more separation” is added to spaces, they generally become nicer and nicer especially when “separation” is combined with other properties. For example, we will see that “enough separation” and “a nice base” guarantees that a space is metrizable. “Separation axioms” translates the German term Trennungsaxiome used in the older literature. Therefore the standard separation axioms were historically named XXXX!"#$, , , , and X %, each stronger than its predecessors in the list. Once these were common terminology, another separation axiom was discovered to be useful and “interpolated” into the list: XÞ"" It turns out that the X spaces (also called $$## Tychonoff spaces) are an extremely well-behaved class of spaces with some very nice properties. 2. The Basics Definition 2.1 A topological space \ is called a 1) X! space if, whenever BÁC−\, there either exists an open set Y with B−Y, CÂY or there exists an open set ZC−ZBÂZwith , 2) X" space if, whenever BÁC−\, there exists an open set Ywith B−YßCÂZ and there exists an open set ZBÂYßC−Zwith 3) XBÁC−\Y# space (or, Hausdorff space) if, whenever , there exist disjoint open sets and Z\ in such that B−YC−Z and .
  • In a Topological Space (X, )

    In a Topological Space (X, )

    Separation Suppose that we have a sequence xn in a topological space (X; ). In order to consider the convergencef ofg such a sequence, we considerT the corre- sponding convergence result for a metric space in terms of open sets: namely: A sequence converges to a limit l X if every (open) neighbourhood containing l contains all but a finite number of2 points of the sequence. Consequently, we define convergence in (X; ) by: A sequence converges to a limit l X if everyT open set containing l contains all but a finite number of points of the sequence.2 However, this definition can have some unexpected consequences. If = φ, X , then every sequence in (X; ) converges, and every l X is a limitT of thef sequence.g T 2 Similarly, if we have a sequence in MATH 3402 which converges to an element of S11 (say) then every element of S11 is a limit of the sequence. If we want convergent sequences to have unique limits in X, then we need to impose further restrictions on the topology of X. Basicly the problem arises because there are distinct points x1 and x2 such that every open set containing x1 contains x2. Hence any sequence converging to x2 converges to x1 also. (In the examples above, this works both ways, but this is not necessary. If we consider the set a; b with the topology φ, a ;X , then every open set containing b contains a, butf notg vice-versa.) f f g g This means that x1 is a limit point of the set x2 , and this latter set is not closed.
  • On Α-Normal and Β-Normal Spaces

    On Α-Normal and Β-Normal Spaces

    Comment.Math.Univ.Carolin. 42,3 (2001)507–519 507 On α-normal and β-normal spaces A.V. Arhangel’skii, L. Ludwig Abstract. We define two natural normality type properties, α-normality and β-normality, and compare these notions to normality. A natural weakening of Jones Lemma immedi- ately leads to generalizations of some important results on normal spaces. We observe that every β-normal, pseudocompact space is countably compact, and show that if X is a dense subspace of a product of metrizable spaces, then X is normal if and only if X is β-normal. All hereditarily separable spaces are α-normal. A space is normal if and only if it is κ-normal and β-normal. Central results of the paper are contained in Sections 3 and 4. Several examples are given, including an example (identified by R.Z. Buzyakova) of an α-normal, κ-normal, and not β-normal space, which is, in fact, a pseudocompact topological group. We observe that under CH there exists a locally compact Hausdorff hereditarily α-normal non-normal space (Theorem 3.3). This example is related to the main result of Section 4, which is a version of the famous Katˇetov’s theorem on metrizability of a compactum the third power of which is hereditarily normal (Corollary 4.3). We also present a Tychonoff space X such that no dense subspace of X is α-normal (Section 3). Keywords: normal, α-normal, β-normal, κ-normal, weakly normal, extremally discon- nected, Cp(X), Lindel¨of, compact, pseudocompact, countably compact, hereditarily sep- arable, hereditarily α-normal, property wD, weakly perfect, first countable Classification: 54D15, 54D65, 54G20 §0.
  • On the Covering Dimension of Subspaces

    On the Covering Dimension of Subspaces

    proceedings of the american mathematical society Volume 72, Number 3, December 1978 ON THE COVERINGDIMENSION OF SUBSPACES OF PRODUCT OF SORGENFREY LINES1 AU A. FORA Abstract. Let 5 denote the Sorgenfrey line. Then the following results are proved in this paper: (i) If X is a nonempty subspace of 5*°, then dim X = 0. (ii) For any nonempty separable space X c 5"°, dimA""1 = 0 for any cardinal m. 1. Introduction. The question of whether dimiA' X Y) < dim X + dim Y for topological spaces X and Y has long been considered (see e.g., [G, pp. 263 and 277]). By dim X, or the covering dimension of X, we mean the least integer, tj, such that each finite cozero cover of X has a finite cozero refinement of order n. (A cover is of order n if and only if each point of the space is contained in at most n + 1 elements of the cover. All spaces considered are completely regular.) Researchers have long worked on the above problem, and only recently Wage [W] and Przymusinski [P] constructed a Lindelöf space X such that dim X = 0 and X2 is normal but has dim X2 > 0. The aim of this paper is to prove that no product of subspaces of Sorgenfrey lines can serve as a counterexample to the product conjecture. Another aim is to give a full answer to one of the questions raised by Mrowka [Mr2J in the conference of 1972 which says: "We still do not know if subspaces of S" (n = 2, 3, .
  • Applications of the Stone-Cech Compactification to Free Topological Groups

    Applications of the Stone-Cech Compactification to Free Topological Groups

    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 55, Number 1, February 1976 APPLICATIONS OF THE STONE-CECH COMPACTIFICATION TO FREE TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS J. P. L. HARDY, SIDNEY A. MORRIS1 AND H. B. THOMPSON Abstract. In this note the Stone-Cech compactification is used to produce short proofs of two theorems on the structure of free topological groups. The first is: The free topological group on any Tychonoff space X contains, as a closed subspace, a homeomorphic copy of the product space X". This is a generalization of a result of B. V. S. Thomas. The second theorem proved is C. Joiner's, Fundamental Lemma. 1. Introduction. Definition. Let A be any topological space. Then the compact Hausdorff space BX is said to be the Stone-Cech compactification of X if there exists a continuous map B: X —»BX such that for any continuous map of A into any compact Hausdorff space ATthere exists a unique continuous map $: BX -» K such that <&B= <j>. While BX exists and is unique for any topological space A, it is of particular interest when A is a Tychonoff (= completely regular Hausdorff) space, for then B is an embedding of A in BX and we can consider A to be a subspace of BX. (For details, see Kelley [5].) Definition. Let A be any Tychonoff space. Then the Hausdorff topological group F(A) is said to be the free topological group on A if A is a subspace of F(A") and for any continuous map <bof A into any topological group G there exists a unique continuous homomorphism 4>: F(A) —*G such that $|A = <f>.
  • Topology: the Journey Into Separation Axioms

    Topology: the Journey Into Separation Axioms

    TOPOLOGY: THE JOURNEY INTO SEPARATION AXIOMS VIPUL NAIK Abstract. In this journey, we are going to explore the so called “separation axioms” in greater detail. We shall try to understand how these axioms are affected on going to subspaces, taking products, and looking at small open neighbourhoods. 1. What this journey entails 1.1. Prerequisites. Familiarity with definitions of these basic terms is expected: • Topological space • Open sets, closed sets, and limit points • Basis and subbasis • Continuous function and homeomorphism • Product topology • Subspace topology The target audience for this article are students doing a first course in topology. 1.2. The explicit promise. At the end of this journey, the learner should be able to: • Define the following: T0, T1, T2 (Hausdorff), T3 (regular), T4 (normal) • Understand how these properties are affected on taking subspaces, products and other similar constructions 2. What are separation axioms? 2.1. The idea behind separation. The defining attributes of a topological space (in terms of a family of open subsets) does little to guarantee that the points in the topological space are somehow distinct or far apart. The topological spaces that we would like to study, on the other hand, usually have these two features: • Any two points can be separated, that is, they are, to an extent, far apart. • Every point can be approached very closely from other points, and if we take a sequence of points, they will usually get to cluster around a point. On the face of it, the above two statements do not seem to reconcile each other. In fact, topological spaces become interesting precisely because they are nice in both the above ways.
  • Arxiv:Math/9810074V1 [Math.GN] 12 Oct 1998

    Arxiv:Math/9810074V1 [Math.GN] 12 Oct 1998

    Unification approach to the separation axioms between ∗ T0 and completely Hausdorff Francisco G. Arenas,† Julian Dontchev‡and Maria Luz Puertas§ September 19, 2021 Abstract The aim of this paper is to introduce a new weak separation axiom that generalizes the separation properties between T1 and completely Hausdorff. We call a topological space (X,τ) a Tκ,ξ-space if every compact subset of X with cardinality ≤ κ is ξ-closed, where ξ is a general closure operator. We concentrate our attention mostly on two new concepts: kd-spaces and T 1 -spaces. 3 1 Introduction The definitions of most (if not all) weak separation axioms are deceptively simple. However, the structure and the properties of those spaces are not always that easy to comprehend. In this paper we try to unify the separation axioms between T0 and completely Hausdorff by introducing the concept of Tκ,ξ-spaces. We call a topological space (X, τ) a Tκ,ξ-space arXiv:math/9810074v1 [math.GN] 12 Oct 1998 if every compact subset of X with cardinality ≤ κ is ξ-closed where ξ is a given closure operator. With different settings on κ and ξ we derive most of the well-known separation properties ‘in the semi-closed interval [T0, T3)’. We are going to consider not only Kuratowski closure operators but more general closure operators, such as the λ-closure operator [1] for ∗1991 Math. Subject Classification — Primary: 54A05, 54D10; Secondary: 54D30, 54H05. Key words and phrases — θ-closed, δ-closed, Urysohn, zero-open, λ-closed, weakly Hausdorff, T0, T1, com- pletely Hausdorff, kc-space, kd-space, Tκ,λ-space, anti-compact.
  • Epireflections in Topological Algebraic Structures

    Epireflections in Topological Algebraic Structures

    REFLECTIONS IN TOPOLOGICAL ALGEBRAIC STRUCTURES JULIO HERNANDEZ-ARZUSA´ AND SALVADOR HERNANDEZ´ Abstract. Let C be an epireflective category of Top and let rC be the epireflective functor associated with C. If A denotes a (semi)topological algebraic subcategory of Top, we study when rC (A) is an epireflective subcategory of A. We prove that this is always the case for semi-topological structures and we find some sufficient conditions for topological algebraic structures. We also study when the epireflective functor preserves products, subspaces and other properties. In particular, we solve an open question about the coincidence of epireflections proposed by Echi and Lazaar in [6, Question 1.6] and repeated in [7, Question 1.9]. Finally, we apply our results in different specific topological algebraic structures. 1. Introduction In this paper we deal with some applications of epireflective functors in the inves- tigation of topological algebraic structures. In particular, we are interested in the following question: Let C be an epireflective subcategory of Top (i.e., productive and hereditary, hence containing the 1-point space as the empty product), and let rC be the epireflective functor associated with C. If A denotes a (semi)topological varietal subcategory of Top (that is, a subcategory that is closed under products, subalgebras and homomorphic images), we study when rC(A) is an epireflective subcategory of A. arXiv:1704.01146v2 [math.GN] 20 Nov 2018 From a different viewpoint, this question has attracted the interest of many researchers recently (cf. [18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30]) and, to some extent, our motivation for Date: November 21, 2018.

  • 9. Stronger Separation Axioms

    9. Stronger separation axioms 1 Motivation While studying sequence convergence, we isolated three properties of topological spaces that are called separation axioms or T -axioms. These were called T0 (or Kolmogorov), T1 (or Fre´chet), and T2 (or Hausdorff). To remind you, here are their definitions: Definition 1.1. A topological space (X; T ) is said to be T0 (or much less commonly said to be a Kolmogorov space), if for any pair of distinct points x; y 2 X there is an open set U that contains one of them and not the other. Recall that this property is not very useful. Every space we study in any depth, with the exception of indiscrete spaces, is T0. Definition 1.2. A topological space (X; T ) is said to be T1 if for any pair of distinct points x; y 2 X, there exist open sets U and V such that U contains x but not y, and V contains y but not x. Recall that an equivalent definition of a T1 space is one in which all singletons are closed. In a space with this property, constant sequences converge only to their constant values (which need not be true in a space that is not T1|this property is actually equivalent to being T1). Definition 1.3. A topological space (X; T ) is said to be T2, or more commonly said to be a Hausdorff space, if for every pair of distinct points x; y 2 X, there exist disjoint open sets U and V such that x 2 U and y 2 V .