Arxiv:1301.0999V3 [Math.CO] 7 Feb 2021 E Rpris Rsraino Ietdsp,And Sups, W Purpose, Directed This of for Preservation ﬂavor

arXiv:1301.0999v3 [math.CO] 7 Feb 2021 e rpris rsraino ietdsp,and sups, w purpose, directed this of For preservation flavor. same the properties: of key results of series a vide otnospstif poset continuous eSotcniuu n h ih ato aosconnectio Galois a of part right the and Scott-continuous be odtoal-opeepst neplto rpry k system. property, subset interpolation poset, conditionally-complete htteicuinmpb Scott-continuous. be Scott-continuo map be inclusion to the map that a for means basically sups directed htamap a that iinlydrce-opeeposet directed-complete ditionally whenever x u,teei ietdsubset directed a is there sup, ttdb u antheorem. main our by stated rprygaate h rnfro otniyproperties continuity of transfer the guarantees property nlso map inclusion e od n phrases. and words Key h enmn rpryhsasihl oetcncldefinit technical more slightly a has property refinement The 2010 Date nteatce[9,Vngplnsoe ht if that, showed Venugopalan [39], article the In h obnto ftepeevto fdrce usadthe and sups directed of preservation the of combination The 6 W eray9 2021. 9, February : ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics ufild ln h a eaeldt osdrsbeso giv a of subsets consider to led are we P way the Along fulfilled. to P of oto u eut r xrse ntegnrlstigof setting general the in expressed are preservi results our way-below of continuous Most largest a contains property z poset complete conditionally every that show we A P sasbe system. subset a is BSTRACT hs a-eo eaini h etito fteway-belo the of restriction the is relation way-below whose D a aif ogaatetetase fcniut propert continuity of transfer the guarantee to satisfy may P A x RNPRIGCNIUT PROPERTIES CONTINUITY TRANSPORTING ete ihih rcia ae hr hs e conditio key these where cases practical highlight then We . hc ecl a-eo rsrigsboes sa applic an As subposets. preserving way-below call we which , subset A . f ∈ A P : RMAPSTT T SUBPOSETS ITS TO POSET A FROM P eietf w e odtosta subset a that conditions key two identify We . → and P → P f sisl otnos nti ae,orga st pro- to is goal our paper, this In continuous. itself is a h enmn property. refinement the has ( otnospst -otnospst leri oe,do poset, algebraic poset, Z-continuous poset, continuous A x Q ) faposet a of 6 ewe oeshsthe has posets between .I 1. W A LPONCET PAUL D NTRODUCTION Q of D P ′ P o oedrce subset directed some for 1 P uhta h nlso map inclusion the that such 61,06B35. 06A15, ihspsc that such sup with a the has re,rtat otnoslattice, continuous retract, ernel, P enmn property refinement ihteinterpolation the with A refinement enmn property refinement sasbe facon- a of subset a is z hoy where theory, gsubposet. ng A from f e from ies relation w faposet a of ( s o subset a for us; nposet en D ,then n, dniytwo identify e D Preserving . sare ns ) ation, o.W say We ion. P ′ refinement ⊂↓ of P to A D Q A A fthe if → ′ main, with as , and sa is if, P Theorem (Main Theorem, shortened version). Let A be a subset of a poset P preserving directed sups and satisfying the refinement property. Then A is a way-below preserving subposet of P and the Scott-open subsets of A coincide with the subsets induced by the Scott-open subsets of P . Moreover, if P is continuous (resp. algebraic), then A is continuous (resp. algebraic).

Here by a way-below preserving subposet of a poset P we mean a subset A preserving directed sups and such that the way-below relation ≪A on A coincides with the restriction to A × A of the way-below relation on P . Our motivation comes from the observation that ad hoc technical proofs are often required that a given subset A at stake be a continuous poset, using various hypotheses on A in addition to continuity properties of the ambient poset P . Such situations can be seen in the domain theoretic literature; for instance Lawson and Xu [20] investigated continuity properties of principal filters, principals ideals, and order intervals of a poset. This can also be the case in mathematical areas where domain theory has applications. For instance Keimel [18] considered continuity properties of cones of a finite- dimensional vector space Rn. Recall that a cone C of Rn is a subset such that C + C ⊂ C, λC ⊂ C for all λ > 0, and C ∩ (−C) = {0}. It n induces a partial order 6C on R defined by x 6C y if y − x ∈ C. Keimel asserted without proof that Rn equipped with this partial order becomes a continuous and dually continuous poset if C has nonempty interior. Then he derived that other subsets of Rn are continuous posets too, including C and its topological interior. Another situation is that of idempotent analysis, where methods from domain theory have proved their usefulness at various occasions, see e.g. Akian [1], Akian and Singer [2], Lawson [19], Poncet [32, 34, 35]. An algebraic structure at stake in this area is that of idempotent semifield, that is a semiring (S, +, 0, ×, 1) in which every nonzero element has a multiplica- tive inverse and such that x + x = x for all x; it gives rise to a partial order 6S defined by x 6S y if x + y = y. In [32, Chapter 3], we showed how continuity properties of (subsets of) S come into play when considering Riesz like idempotent representation theorems of “linear” forms defined on an S-module. A class of algebraic structures that offers a potential framework for uni- fying classical and idempotent analysis is that of inverse semigroups, which form a well studied class of semigroups endowed with a natural partial order. Since continuity properties have proved to play an important role in idempotent analysis, it was a source of motivation of our work [33] to study continuity properties of inverse semigroups. We showed that, under mild conditions on an inverse semigroup S, the latter is continuous as a poset 2 if and only if its subsemigroup made of idempotent elements (which is a semilattice) is itself continuous. In all the previous situations, technical lemmata are required to transfer continuity properties from one poset to another. We show that our main theorem is applicable in a wide variety of situations. Especially, the hypotheses of the theorem are met in the following cases: • if A is a lower subset of a continuous semilattice; • if A is a lower subset of a continuous cond. directed-complete poset; • if A is a Scott-convex subset of a meet-continuous semilattice; • if A is a Scott-open subset of a poset; • if A is the image of a cond. directed-complete poset by a Scott- continuous projection satisfying the refinement property; • if A is a kernel retract of a poset induced by a Scott-continuous kernel retraction; • if A is already a continuous way-below preserving subposet of a poset. We apply our main theorem and especially the situation where A is a kernel retract to a question that was another source of motivation at the start of this work and relates to the interpolation property of posets. This property is a necessary condition for a poset to be continuous, and is also crucial for de- riving many important results of the theory of continuous posets; however, little has been done on (not necessarily continuous) interpolating posets. A notable exception is the recent work of Mao and Xu [22]: these authors showed that a conditionally complete poset with the interpolation property is continuous if and only if ↓x = ↓y implies x = y for all x, y. With this work in mind, we give examples of posets with the interpolation property that are not continuous, and we examine whether a poset with the interpolation property can contain subposets that are continuous posets with respect to the induced partial order. This leads us to the following result: Theorem. Every conditionally complete poset with the interpolation property contains a largest continuous way-below preserving subposet, which is itself conditionally complete. Given such a conditionally complete poset P with the interpolation property, the strategy of proof is to apply our main theorem to the subset A defined as the kernel retract of P induced by the Scott-continuous kernel k : P → P, x 7→ W ↓x. While this introductory section has been expressed in the language of classical domain theory for the sake of simplicity, we actually adopt in this paper the general z framework of Wright, Wagner, and Thatcher [41]. Re- call that it mainly consists in replacing the directed subsets used in the definitions by some general family of subsets z[P ], for each poset P . This 3 choice is not only guided by a sake of generality: we need it for some applications cited above, notably for Riesz like representation theorems in idempotent analysis. Another reason is that, in our results, several families of subsets are sometimes intertwined, hence the z framework provides ease of formulation and clarity. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce partially ordered sets (posets) and their continuity, when accompanied with a subset system z; we recall concepts such as z-subsets, z-interpolation property, z- continuity, z-basis, z-sup-preserving maps, and Galois connections. We also give examples of posets with the interpolation property that are not continuous. In Section 3 we focus on order-preserving maps between posets and introduce the property of z-refinement, and show how this property is linked with other properties, in the line of Bandelt and Erné[4]; we also take the opportunity to recall and synthesize various results due to Venugopalan. In Section 4 we specialize the definitions of the previous section to subsets of posets seen as inclusion maps, and we notably prove our Main Theorem in its full generality. In passing, we also examine the question of transferring the continuity properties of a covering family of subposets of a poset to the poset itself. In the next five sections, we apply our Main Theorem to the various situations evoked above, where certain types of subsets are z-sup- preserving and have the z-refinement property under mild conditions. In particular, we consider the case of lower subsets in Section 5, order-convex subsets and z-Scott-convex subsets in Section 6, upper subsets and d∗-Scott open subsets in Section 7, direct images of left or right maps in Section 8, kernel retracts in Section 9. We conclude this article with Section 10, where we generalize a theorem by Mao and Xu and show in particular that every cond. complete interpolating poset contains a largest (cond. complete) continuous way-below preserving subposet.

2. CONTINUOUSPOSETSANDTHEINTERPOLATIONPROPERTY 2.1. Posets. A partially ordered set or poset is a set P equipped with a partial order 6, i.e. an antisymmetric, reflexive, transitive binary relation. Given a subset A, we write ↓P A or ↓ A for the subset {x ∈ P : x 6 a for some a ∈ A }, and ↓x as a shorthand for ↓{x}. An upper bound of A is an element u ∈ P such that a 6 u for all a ∈ A. The supremum (or sup) of A, if it exists, is the least upper bound of A, i.e. it is an upper bound u0 of 6 A such that u0 u for every upper bound u of A; we denote it by WP A or W A. The notions of lower bound and infimum (or inf ) are defined dually. 2.2. Subset systems. A subset system is a function z that assigns to each poset P a collection z[P ] of subsets of P such that i) at least one z[P ] has a nonempty element, 4 ii) f(Z) ∈ z[Q], for every order-preserving map f : P → Q and every Z ∈ z[P ], iii) at least one z[P ] contains a set with cardinality greater than one. where a map f : P → Q between posets is order-preserving if f(x) 6 f(y) whenever x 6 y. The elements of z[P ] are called the z-subsets of P . We write z∗ for the subset system such that z∗[P ] = z[P ] \ {∅} for every poset P . The first two conditions i) and ii) correspond to the original definition of a subset system given by Wright et al. [41]. Taken together, they ensure that the singletons of P are z-subsets for every poset P . Condition ii) means that z is a covariant functor from the category of posets to the category of sets with z[f] defined by z[f](Z) = f(Z) if Z ∈ z[P ], for every order- preserving map f : P → Q. Condition iii) has been added later by Baranga [6]; it is quite desirable, as it implies that every pair {x, y} such that x 6 y be a z-subset, and consequently that every z-sup-preserving map be order- preserving (see below). The suggestion of [41] to apply subset systems to the theory of continuous posets was followed by Nelson [30], Novak [31], Bandelt [3], Bandelt and Erné[4], [5], and this research was carried on by Venugopalan [39], [40], Xu [42], Baranga [6], Menon [29], Shi and Wang [38], Erné[8], [12], Zhao [43], among others. If x ∈ P , we write ↑x for the principal filter {y ∈ P : x 6 y}. Proposition 2.1. If Z is a z-subset of a poset P and x ∈ Z, then Z∩ ↑x is a z-subset of P . Proof. Let f : P → P be the map defined by f(y) = y if y > x, and f(y)= x otherwise. Then f is order-preserving and f(Z)= Z∩↑x, hence Z∩↑x is a z-subset of P . A nonempty subset D of a poset is directed if, for all x, y ∈ D, one can find d ∈ D such that x 6 d and y 6 d. The subset system d∗ that selects the directed subsets of each poset is behind the classical theory of continuous posets and domains, see the monographs by Gierz et al. [15] and Goubault-Larrecq [16]. Here are some further examples: (1) a (resp. a∗) selects all (resp. nonempty) subsets. It works well for investigating completely distributive lattices, see Raney [36], [37], Ernéet al. [10]. (2) b selects upper-bounded subsets. (3) c selects chains (i.e. subsets C such that x 6 y or y 6 x whenever x, y ∈ C). See Markowsky and Rosen [27], and Markowsky [23], [24], [25], [26]. See also Erné[8, p. 54]. (4) e∗ selects singletons. 5 (5) f (resp. f∗) selects all (resp. nonempty) finite subsets, see Martinez [28], Frink [13], Erné[7]. For an arbitrary subset system z, the inclusion z[A] ⊂ {Z ∈ z[P ]: Z ⊂ A} holds for every subset A of a poset P . In special cases, equality can be reached, for instance if A is of the form p(P ), where p is a projection on P , that is an order-preserving map p : P → P such that p ◦ p = p, or if A is a principal filter. Definition 2.2. A subset system z is intrinsically defined if z[A]= {Z ∈ z[P ]: Z ⊂ A}, for every poset P and every subset A of P equipped with the induced partial order. All subset systems listed above but b are intrinsically defined. 2.3. Continuity and the interpolation property. We say that x ∈ P is z z z z -way-below y ∈ P , written x ≪P y or x ≪ y, if, for every -subset Z z z with sup, y 6 Z implies x ∈↓Z. We write ↓ x or ↓ x for the subset W z z P z ↑ ↑ z {y ∈ P : y ≪ x}, and ↑ x or ↑P x for the subset {y ∈ P : x ≪ y}. z z z z An element x is -compact if x ≪P x. The poset P is -continuous if ↓ x contains a z-subset whose sup is x for all x ∈ P . In the literature (see e.g. [15]), the d∗-way-below relation is known as the way-below relation, and d∗-continuous posets are known as continuous posets; yet, we shall stick to the d∗ designation in the frame of this paper. The following example is taken from Venugopalan [39, Example 2.7]. Example 2.3 (Venugopalan). Let N be the set of natural numbers ordered by division. Then N is an f-continuous poset, and m ≪f n if and only if m is a prime power divisor of n. z A subset B is a z-basis of the poset P if ↓(↓ x ∩ B) contains a z-subset whose sup is x, for all x ∈ P . Thus, a poset is z-continuous if and only if it has a z-basis. A poset is z-algebraic if it is z-continuous and the subset of its z-compact elements forms a z-basis. We warn the reader that another definition of z-basis prevails in the literature; our definition is somewhat weaker than e.g. Venugopalan [39, Definition 3.1]. A poset P has the z-interpolation property,oris z-interpolating if, for all x, z ∈ P with x ≪z z, there exists some y ∈ P such that x ≪z y ≪z z. A z-continuous poset with the z-interpolation property is called strongly z-continuous ([31], [4]). In a poset, a z-ideal is a subset I such that I =↓Z for some z-subset Z. The subset system made of the z-ideals is denoted by ↓z. The subset system z is union-complete if, for every V ∈ z[↓z[P ]] (where ↓z[P ] is considered as 6 1

3/4

1/2 ω

FIGURE 1. Hasse diagram of Example 2.5

V z a poset ordered by inclusion), S ∈↓ [P ]. All subset systems mentioned above are union-complete; this encodes the fact that finite unions of finite sets are finite, directed unions of directed subsets are directed, etc. Theorem 2.4 (Novak–Bandelt–Erné). If z is union-complete, then every z-continuous poset has the z-interpolation property, hence is strongly z- continuous. Proof. See Novak [31, Prop. 1.22], Bandelt and Erné[4, Theorem]. In particular, it is well known in classical domain theory that every d∗- continuous poset is d∗-interpolating (so is strongly d∗-continuous), see e.g. [15, Theorem I-1.9]. However, the converse is false in general, as testified by the following examples. A complete lattice is a poset in which every subset has a sup. Example 2.5. Figure 1 depicts the Hasse diagram of the countable complete lattice P = {0, 1/2, 3/4,..., 1}∪{ω}, where ω is an element comparable only with 0 and 1, and such that 0 <ω< 1. Then P has the d∗-interpolation ∗ ∗ ∗ property. Indeed, 0 ≪d ω and x ≪d y ≪d 1 for all x, y ∈ P \{ω, 1} such that x 6 y, and no other d∗-way-below relation holds. However, P ∗ d∗ d∗ is not d -continuous since ↓ ω = {0}; indeed, we have 0 ≪ ω but not d∗ 6 ω ≪ ω, because ω W(P \{ω, 1})=1. Example 2.6. The poset defined by the Hasse diagram of Figure 2 is the disjoint union of two copies of N \{0}, with a bottom element 0 and a top element ω added. It is a countable complete lattice with the d∗-interpolation ∗ d∗ property, but it is not d -continuous since ↓ ω = {0}. Problem 2.7. It is a well-known result of order theory that a lattice is not distributive if and only if it contains a diamond (the 5-element lattice called M3) or a pentagon (the 5-element lattice called N5). In the same spirit, is 7 ω

3 3′

2 2′

1 1′

FIGURE 2. Hasse diagram of Example 2.6 it possible to find a general pattern for d∗-interpolating posets that are not d∗-continuous? Or is it at least possible to exhibit a large class of such posets? 2.4. z-sup-preserving maps and Galois connections. A map f : P → Q between posets is z-sup-preserving if, for every z-subset Z of P with sup in P , the sup of f(Z) exists in Q and f(WP Z) = WQ f(Z). In the classical case, a d∗-sup-preserving map is the same as a Scott-continuous map. This is why, in the literature, a z-sup-preserving map has been actually called a z- continuous map; however, for the sake of clarity, we shall dedicate the term z-continuous to posets in this paper. Recall from Baranga [6, Corollary 1.7] that every z-sup-preserving map is order-preserving, thanks to Condition iii) in the definition of a subset system. The following lemma will be used repeatedly along this paper. Lemma 2.8. If a map f : P → Q is z-sup-preserving, then its corestriction f ◦ : P → f(P ), x 7→ f(x) is also z-sup-preserving. Proof. Let Z be a z-subset of P with sup. Since f is z-sup-preserving, f(Z) has a sup in Q and WQ f(Z) = f(WP Z) ∈ f(P ). Thus, f(WP Z) is also the sup of f(Z) in f(P ). A Galois connection between two posets P and Q isa pair (f,g) of order- preserving maps f : P → Q and g : Q → P such that f(x) 6 y if and only if x 6 g(y) for all x ∈ P , y ∈ Q. The map f (resp. g) is the left map (resp. right map) of the Galois connection. We refer the reader to Ernéet al. [11] for usual properties and various references on Galois connections. Note the following properties: • x 6 g(f(x)) for all x ∈ P , • f(g(y)) 6 y for all y ∈ Q, • g(f(x)) = x for all x ∈ P iff f is injective iff g is surjective, 8 • f(g(y)) = y for all y ∈ Q iff g is injective iff f is surjective. We also recall the following well-known result. Lemma 2.9. The left map of a Galois connection is a-sup-preserving (hence z-sup-preserving for every subset system z).

3. TRANSPORTING z-CONTINUITYWITH z-SUP-PRESERVING MAPS In this section we focus on order-preserving maps between posets and introduce the property of z-reﬁnement. We show how this property is linked with other properties, in the line of Bandelt and Ern´e[4]; we also take the opportunity to recall and synthesize various results due to Venugopalan.

3.1. The z-refinement property. The following lemma generalizes [17, Lemma 1.2]. An order-embedding is an order-preserving map f : P → Q such that f(x) 6 f(y) implies x 6 y. Note in particular that an order- embedding is always injective. Conversely, every injective left map is an order-embedding. We say that a map f : P → Q reflects the z-way-below z z relation if f(x) ≪Q f(y) implies x ≪P y for all x, y ∈ P . Lemma 3.1. Let f : P → Q be a z-sup-preserving order-embedding (e.g. an injective left map). Then f reflects the z-way-below relation. z z Proof. Suppose that f(x) ≪Q f(y) for some x, y ∈ P . Let Z be a -subset 6 z 6 of P with sup such that y WP Z. The map f preserves -sups, so f(y) z z f(WP Z) = WQ f(Z). Since f(Z) is a -subset of Q and f(x) ≪Q f(y), there exists some z ∈ Z such that f(x) 6 f(z). Since f is an order- embedding by hypothesis we deduce x 6 z. This proves that x ≪P y. The following result will not be used in this paper, but is interesting in its own right. Proposition 3.2. Let Q be a z-continuous poset, and let f : P → Q be a surjective order-preserving map that reflects the z-way-below relation. Then f is z-sup-preserving. z Proof. Let Z be a -subset of P with sup, and let y0 = f(WP Z). Since Q is z-continuous, there exists some z-subset Z′ of Q included in ↓ y such ↓Q 0 ′ that y0 = WQ Z . Using the properties on f, it is not difficult to show that ′ Z ⊂↓f(Z) ⊂↓y0. Consequently, f(Z) also admits y0 as its sup in Q, i.e. z f(WP Z)= y0 = WQ f(Z). This proves that f is -sup-preserving. Definition 3.3. A map f : P → Q has the z-refinement property if, when- 6 ′ z ′ ever x ∈ P and f(x) WQ Z for some -subset Z of Q with sup, there z ′ 6 exists a -subset Z of P with sup such that f(Z) ⊂↓Z and x WP Z. 9 We say that a map f : P → Q preserves the z-way-below relation if z z x ≪P y implies f(x) ≪Q f(y) for all x, y ∈ P . The following result shows the close relation between the z-refinement property and the preservation of the z-way-below relation. Proposition 3.4. Let f : P → Q be an order-preserving map. If f satisfies the z-refinement property, then f preserves the z-way-below relation. Con- versely, if P is z-continuous and f preserves the z-way-below relation, then f satisfies the z-refinement property. z z Proof. First, suppose that f satisfies the -refinement property, and let x ≪P ′ z 6 ′ y and Z be a -subset of Q with sup such that f(y) WQ Z . By the z-refinement property there exists a z-subset Z of P with sup such that ′ z f(Z) ⊂↓Z and y 6 P Z. Since x ≪P y we have x ∈↓Z, so f(x) ∈ f(↓ ′ W z Z) ⊂↓f(Z) ⊂↓Z . This proves that f(x) ≪Q f(y). Conversely, suppose that P is z-continuous and f preserves the z-way- 6 ′ ′ z below relation. Let f(x) WQ Z where x ∈ P and Z is a -subset of Q with sup. Then ↓z f(x) ⊂↓Z′ by definition of the z-way-below relation. ↓Q Since f preserves the z-way-below relation, we have f(↓z x) ⊂↓z f(x), so ↓P ↓Q f(↓z x) ⊂↓Z′. Moreover, P is z-continuous, so there is some z-subset Z of ↓P P included in ↓z x whose sup is x. Thus, f(Z) ⊂↓Z′ and x = Z. This ↓P WP shows that f satisfies the z-refinement property. The following extends a result of Bandelt and Erné[4]. Proposition 3.5. Every left map satisfies the z-refinement property if and only if its right map is z-sup-preserving. In this case, it preserves the z- way-below relation. Proof. Let f : P → Q be a left map and let g : Q → P be its right map. First assume that f satisfies the z-refinement property. Let Z′ be a z-subset of Q with sup, and let u ∈ P be an upper bound of g(Z′). We write x for ′ 6 ′ g(WQ Z ). Then f(x) WQ Z , so by the refinement property there exists a z ′ 6 -subset Z of P with sup such that f(Z) ⊂↓Z and x WP Z. The former ′ ′ 6 6 property for Z is equivalent to Z ⊂↓g(Z ), so g(WQ Z )= x WP Z u. ′ ′ z This shows that g(WQ Z ) is the sup of g(Z ), so g is -sup-preserving. Conversely, assume that g is z-sup-preserving. Let Z′ be a z-subset of Q 6 ′ 6 ′ ′ with sup such that f(x) WQ Z . Then x g(WQ Z ) = WP g(Z ), since g is z-sup-preserving. Moreover, we have f(g(Z′)) ⊂↓Z′. This proves that f has the z-refinement property. 3.2. Direct images of z-continuous posets. We say that a subset A of P is z-sup-dense in P if, for every x ∈ P , there is a z-subset Z of P included in A with sup x. 10 Theorem 3.6. Let P be a (strongly) z-continuous poset with z-basis B, and let f : P → Q be a z-sup-preserving map with the z-refinement property. Suppose moreover that one of the following conditions holds: (1) f(P ) is z-sup-dense in Q, and z is union-complete, or (2) f is surjective. Then Q is (strongly) z-continuous with z-basis f(B). Proof. Case (1) Suppose that z is union-complete and f(P ) is z-sup-dense in Q, and let x′ ∈ Q. Since f(P ) is z-sup-dense there is a z-subset Z′ of ′ ′ ′ ′ Q included in f(P ) such that x = WQ Z . For every z ∈ Z there is some x(z′) ∈ P such that z′ = f(x(z′)), and there is some z-subset Z(z′) of P included in ↓(↓z x(z′) ∩ B) with sup x(z′). This entails ↓P f(Z(z′)) ⊂ f(↓(↓z x(z′) ∩ B)) [ [ ↓P z′∈Z′ z′∈Z′ ⊂ ↓f(↓z x(z′) ∩ B)=↓ f(↓z x(z′)) ∩ f(B). [ ↓P [ ↓P z′∈Z′ z′∈Z′ Since f has the z-refinement property, it preserves the z-way-below relation by Proposition 3.4, hence

f(Z(z′)) ⊂↓ ↓z f(x(z′)) ∩ f(B)=↓ ↓z z′ ∩ f(B) [ [ ↓Q [ ↓Q z′∈Z′ z′∈Z′ z′∈Z′ ⊂↓(↓z x′ ∩ f(B)) ↓Q ′ ′ In addition, the subset Sz′∈Z′ f(Z(z )) has sup x in Q (use the fact that f is z-sup-preserving) and is a z-subset of Q by union-completeness of z. So Q is z-continuous with z-basis f(B). Case (2) The case where f is surjective is similar. One can take Z′ = {x′}, and the union-completeness of z is no longer required. To conclude the proof, let us show that Q is z-interpolating if P is strongly z-continuous. Case (1) is straightforward, for in this case z is supposed to be union-complete: the z-interpolation property automatically follows from ′ ′ ′ z ′ Theorem 2.4. Let us consider Case (2). Let x ,y ∈ Q such that x ≪Q y . Since f is surjective, there is some y ∈ P with y′ = f(y). Moreover, P is z-continuous, so there is some z-subset Z of P included in ↓z y with sup ↓P equal to y. Now, f is z-sup-preserving, so

′ z ′ x ≪Q y = f(y)= f(_ Z)= _ f(Z). P Q

z ′ Thus, there is some z ∈ Z ⊂↓ y such that x 6 f(z). We have supposed z P z z that P be -interpolating, so there exists some t ∈ P such that z ≪P t ≪P 11 y. Since f has the z-refinement property, it preserves the z-way-below rela- ′ z z ′ tion by Proposition 3.4, so x 6 f(z) ≪Q f(t) ≪Q f(y)= y . This proves that Q is z-interpolating. A poset is (conditionally) z-complete if every (upper-bounded) z-subset has a sup. We sometimes use the abbreviation cond. z-complete. Condition- ally a∗-complete posets are thus the same object as conditionally complete posets; conditionally a-complete posets as conditionally complete posets with a least element; a-complete posets as complete lattices. For the sake of completeness, we recall the following result, which is due to Venugopalan (see [39], Theorems 2.15 and 2.16). The first assertion has also been proved by Baranga [6, Theorem 2.17]. Theorem 3.7 (Venugopalan). Let P be a cond. z-complete and (strongly) z-continuous poset with z-basis B, and let f : P → P be a projection. Suppose that one of the following conditions holds: (1) f is z-sup-preserving, or (2) f is a right map. Then f(P ) is a (strongly) z-continuous poset, with z-basis f(B) in the first case, with z-basis e(B) in the second case where e : P → P is the left map of f. A closure on a poset P is a map c : P → P such that, for all x, y ∈ P : • c(x) 6 c(y) if x 6 y, • x 6 c(x), • c(c(x)) = c(x). For instance, if (f,g) is a Galois connection, then g ◦ f is a closure. Corollary 3.8. Let P be a cond. z-complete and (strongly) z-continuous poset with z-basis B, and let c : P → P be a z-sup-preserving closure on P . Then c(P ) is a (strongly) z-continuous poset with z-basis c(B). This result is a straightforward consequence of Venugopalan’s theorem, yet we provide an independent proof. Proof. Consider the corestriction c◦ : P → c(P ), x 7→ c(x). This map is surjective. It is also z-sup-preserving by Lemma 2.8. Moreover, (c◦, i) is a Galois connection, if we denote by i the inclusion map c(P ) → P . It can be easily shown that i is a z-sup-preserving right map (see e.g. Propo- sition 4.2(4) below, from which we deduce that c(P ) is a z-sup-preserving subset of P , or equivalently that i is z-sup-preserving). So by Proposi- tion 3.5, c◦ satisfies the z-refinement property. Thus, Theorem 3.6 applies, and c(P ) is a z-continuous (or strongly z-continuous) poset with z-basis c(B). 12 We also extend Furber’s lemma [14, Lemma III.1] with the use of Venu- gopalan’s result. Corollary 3.9. Let P be a cond. z-complete and (strongly) z-continuous poset, and let A be a z-sup-preserving, a∗-inf-preserving subset of P which is also a complete lattice. Then A is a (strongly) z-continuous poset. Proof. Since A is a complete lattice, it has a greatest element that we denote by ⊤A. Let pA : P → P be the map defined by pA(x) = VA ↑x ∩ A if x 6 ⊤A, and pA(x)= ⊤A otherwise. It is easily seen that pA is a projection; let us show that it is also z-sup-preserving. So let Z be a z-subset of P with 6 6 sup, and let x = WP Z. If x 6 ⊤A, there is some z ∈ Z with z 6 ⊤A, 6 6 6 so that pA(x) = ⊤A = pA(z) WP pA(Z). If x ⊤A, then z ⊤A 6 6 for all z ∈ Z. Thus, z pA(z) for all z ∈ Z, so z WA pA(Z) for all 6 6 z ∈ Z. This implies x WA pA(Z), hence pA(x) WA pA(Z). Now A z 6 is -sup-preserving, WA pA(Z)= WP pA(Z), so pA(x) WP pA(Z). Soin each case, we have pA(WP Z) = pA(x) = WP pA(Z). The result is now a consequence of Theorem 3.7(1).

4. SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS TO BE A z-SUBPOSET In this section we specialize the definitions of the previous section to subsets of posets seen as inclusion maps, and we state and prove our Main Theorem. In passing, we also examine the question of transferring the continuity properties of a covering family of subposets of a poset to the poset itself. 4.1. z-subposets and their properties. Let (P, 6) be a poset. A subset A of P is called z-sup-preserving if every z-subset Z of A with sup in A also has a sup in P , and W Z = WA Z; this amounts to say that the inclusion map A → P is z-sup-preserving. Example 4.1. Every poset is a-sup-preserving in its Dedekind–MacNeille completion (see [11] for a definition). Assertion (5) of the following proposition was given by Baranga [6, Lemma 1.11]. Proposition 4.2. Let f : P → Q be an order-preserving map. Then f(P ) is z-sup-preserving in Q in any of the following cases: (1) f is surjective; (2) f is a z-sup-preserving order-embedding; (3) f is a left map whose right map g is z-sup-preserving; (4) P is cond. z-complete, f is z-sup-preserving, and there exists an order-preserving map g : Q → P such that f ◦ g ◦ f = f; 13 (5) P is cond. z-complete and f is a left map; (6) P is cond. z-complete and f is a z-sup-preserving projection (with P = Q). Proof. Cases (1) and (2) are clear. Note also that Cases (5) and (6) are implied by (4). For Cases (3) and (4), let Z′ be a z-subset of f(P ) with a ′ ′ sup in f(P ), that we denote by f(x0). Let u be an upper bound of Z in Q. We write Z = g(Z′), which is a z-subset of P . Since Z′ ⊂ f(P ), we have f(Z)= Z′. ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Case (3) We have z = f(g(z )) 6 f(g(u )) for all z ∈ Z , so f(x0) 6 ′ ′ f(g(u )) by definition of f(x0). Thus, f(x0) 6 u , which shows that f(x0) is the sup of Z′ in Q. Case (4) Since P is conditionally z-complete, Z admits a sup z0 in P . z ′ Now f is supposed to be -sup-preserving, so f(z0)= WQ f(Z)= WQ Z . So the sup of Z′ in Q exists and belongs to f(P ), which implies that it equals f(x0). Definition 4.3. A subset A of P has the z-refinement property if the embedding A → P has the z-refinement property; equivalently, whenever a ∈ A 6 z z ′ and a W Z for some -subset Z of P with sup, there exists a -subset Z 6 ′ of A included in ↓Z, with sup in A such that a WA Z . Example 4.4. If A is the set of z-compact elements of a poset P , then A has z z 6 the -refinement property. Indeed, if a is -compact and a W Z for some z-subset Z, then a ∈↓Z. Taking Z′ = {a}, Z′ is a z-subset of A included in ′ ↓Z, and a = WA Z . Proposition 4.5. Let f : P → Q be an order-preserving map. Then f(P ) satisfies the z-refinement property in Q in any of the following cases: (1) f is surjective; (2) f is a z-sup-preserving map with the z-refinement property; (3) f is z-sup-preserving and there exists a z-sup-preserving map g : Q → P such that f ◦ g ◦ f = f and f(g(y)) 6 y for all y ∈ Q; (4) f is a left map whose right map g is z-sup-preserving. Proof. Case (1) is clear, and Case (4) is implied by Case (3). Now suppose 6 ′ z that f(x) WQ Z for some -subset Z of Q with sup. Case (2) Since f has the z-refinement property, there exists some z-subset ′ 6 z Z of P with sup such that f(Z) ⊂↓Z and x WP Z. Now f is -sup- 6 z preserving, so f(x) WQ f(Z). The subset f(Z) is a -subset of Q included in ↓Z′. This proves that f(P ) has the z-refinement property. 6 ′ Case (3) We have f(x) = f(g(f(x))) WQ f(g(Z )), since both f and g are supposed to be z-sup-preserving. The inequation f(g(y)) 6 y for all y ∈ Q implies that f(g(Z′)) ⊂↓ Z′. This proves that f(P ) has the z-refinement property. 14 Definition 4.6. We call a subset A of P a z-way-below preserving subposet of P , or a z-subposet of P for short, if A is z-sup-preserving and the z- z way-below relation ≪A on A induced by 6 coincides with the restriction z z to A × A of the -way-below relation on P , i.e. if, for all x, y ∈ A, x ≪A y if and only if x ≪z y; equivalently: ↓z x = ↓zx ∩ A, ↓A ↓ for all x ∈ A. Example 4.7. In a poset, a singleton {x} is a z-subposet if and only if x is a z-compact element. The following result extends Hoffmann [17, Lemma 1.5]. It notably gives a sufficient condition for a z-subposet to satisfy the z-refinement property. Recall that a subset A of P is z-sup-dense in P if, for every x ∈ P , there is a z-subset Z of P included in A with sup x. Theorem 4.8. Let A be a z-continuous z-subposet of a poset P . Then A (is z-sup-preserving and) satisfies the z-refinement property. Moreover, if z be union-complete, and if A is z-sup-dense in P and has a z-basis B, then P is z-continuous with z-basis B. Proof. Consider the inclusion map i : A → P . Since A is a z-continuous z-subposet of P , the map i satisfies the z-refinement property by Proposi- tion 3.4. Moreover, i is z-sup-preserving since A is z-sup-preserving by definition of z-subposets, so A has the z-refinement property by Proposi- tion 4.5. The conclusions of the second part of the theorem are now a direct consequence of Theorem 3.6.

Theorem 4.9. Let (Aj)j∈J be a covering family of subsets of a poset P , where each Aj is a z-continuous z-subposet with z-basis Bj. Then P is a z z -continuous poset with -basis Sj∈J Bj.

Proof. Let x ∈ P . Let k ∈ J such that x ∈ Ak. Since Ak is a z-continuous poset with z-basis Bk, there is some z-subset Z of z z ↓Ak(↓ x ∩ Bk)=↓(↓ x ∩ Ak ∩ Bk) ∩ Ak ↓Ak ↓ z z whose sup in Ak is x. Then Z is also a -subset of ↓ (↓ x ∩ B), where z B = Sj∈J Bj. Moreover, Ak is -sup-preserving in P , so Z has a sup in P equal to x. This shows that P is a z-continuous poset with z-basis B. For the following corollary, recall that the disjoint union of a family (Pj)j∈J of posets is deﬁned as the poset Sj∈J {j} × Pj endowed with the partial order deﬁned by (j, x) 6 (k,y) if j = k and x 6 y. 15 Corollary 4.10. Let (Pj)j∈J be a family of z-continuous posets, each Pj being given a z-basis Bj. Then their disjoint union is a z-continuous poset with z-basis the disjoint union of (Bj)j∈J .

4.2. Main theorem. A subset A of P is order-convex if, whenever x, z ∈ A, then [x, z] ⊂ A, where [x, z] denotes {y ∈ P : x 6 y 6 z}. A subset of P is z-projected if it is of the form p(P ), for some projection p : P → P preserving the z-way-below relation.

Theorem 4.11 (Main Theorem, Part 1). Let P be a z-interpolating poset and A be a z-subposet of P satisfying one of the following conditions: (1) A is order-convex; (2) A is z-sup-dense; (3) A is z-projected; (4) A is of the form f ′(P ′) for some injective left map f ′ : P ′ → P whose right map is z-sup-preserving and some z-continuous poset P ′. Then A is z-interpolating.

z z Proof. Let x, z ∈ A such that x ≪A z. Then x ≪ z, so there is some y ∈ P such that x ≪z y ≪z z. z z Case (1) If A is order-convex, then y ∈ [x, z] ⊂ A, so x ≪A y ≪A z. z z Case (2) If A is -sup-dense, then y = W Z for some -subset Z of P included in A; thus, there is some a ∈ Z such that x ≪z a 6 y ≪z z, so z z x ≪A a ≪A z. Case (3) If A is of the form p(P ) for some projection p : P → P preserving the z-way-below relation, then x = p(x) ≪z p(y) ≪z p(z)= z, so z z x ≪A p(y) ≪A z. Case (4) If A is of the form f ′(P ′) for some z-continuous poset P ′ and some injective left map f ′ : P ′ → P whose right map is z-sup-preserving, ′ ′ ′ ′ z ′ ′ ′ z ′ then we write x = f (x ), z = f (z ); then y ∈↓ f (z ) =↓f (↓ z ), this latter equality being easily deduced from the continuity of P ′; so there is some w′ ≪z z′ such that y 6 f ′(w′). By Proposition 3.5, f ′ preserves the z-way-below relation, so this implies x = f ′(x′) ≪z f ′(w′) ≪z f ′(z′)= z. z ′ ′ z z Thus, x ≪A f (w ) ≪A z. This shows that A is -interpolating.

Given a subset A of P , we write ↑P A or ↑A for the subset {x ∈ P : x > a for some a ∈ A }. A subset U is upper if U =↑U, in other words if U ∋ x 6 y implies y ∈ U. A subset U is z-Scott-open if it is upper and Z ∩ U is nonempty whenever Z is a z-subset of P with sup such that W Z ∈ U. 16 Definition 4.12. Given subsets A, B, and C of a poset P with C ⊂ A, we say that (A, B) has the order-density property with respect to C if [a, b] ∩ C is nonempty for all a ∈ A and b ∈ B∩↓A with a 6 b. Example 4.13. Let A be a subset of a poset P . • (A, B) has the order-density property with respect to A, for every subset B of P . • If A is order-convex, then (A, B) has the order-density property with respect to A ∩ B, for every subset B of P . • If A is a z-subposet of P and B is the set of compact elements of P , then (A, B) has the order-density property with respect to the set of compact elements of A. • If A is of the form f(P ) for some left map f : P → Q with right map g : Q → P , then (A, B) has the order-density property with respect to f(g(B)), for every subset B of Q. We are now able to give a sufficient condition for a subset to be a z- subposet. Theorem 4.14 (Main Theorem, Part 2). Let A be a z-sup-preserving subset of a poset P with the z-refinement property. Then A is a z-subposet of P and the z-Scott-open subsets of A coincide with the subsets induced by the z-Scott-open subsets of P . Moreover, (1) if P is z-continuous, then A is z-continuous; (2) if P is z-continuous with z-basis B and (A, B) has the order-density property with respect to C, for some subset C ⊂ A, then A is z- continuous with z-basis C; (3) if P is z-algebraic, then A is z-algebraic. z z z Proof. As a -sup-preserving subset, A already satisfies x ≪ y ⇒ x ≪A y z for all x, y ∈ A by Lemma 3.1. Conversely, let x, y ∈ A such that x ≪A z 6 z y, and let Z be a -subset of P with sup such that y W Z. By the - refinement property there is some z-subset Z′ of A with sup in A such that ′ 6 ′ z ′ ′ Z ⊂↓Z and y WA Z . Since x ≪A y, there is some z ∈ Z such that x 6 z′. Moreover z′ ∈↓Z, so x 6 z for some z ∈ Z. This entails x ≪z y. So A is a z-subposet. Let U be a z-Scott-open subset of A, and let V =↑U. We prove that V is z-Scott-open in P and U = V ∩A. First, V is an upper subset of P . Second, z 6 suppose that W Z ∈ V for some -subset Z of P . Then u W Z for some u ∈ U. By the z-refinement property there is some z-subset Z′ ⊂↓Z ∩ A of 6 ′ ′ A, with sup in A such that u WA Z . Then WA Z ∈↑AU = U; since U is z-Scott-open in A the intersection Z′ ∩ U is nonempty. So let z′ ∈ Z′ ∩ U. Then z′ ∈↓Z, so there is some z ∈ Z such that z′ 6 z. This shows that 17 z ∈ Z∩↑U = Z∩V . So Z∩V is nonempty. This proves that V is a z-Scott- open subset of P . Third, U = V ∩ A, because V ∩ A =↑U ∩ A =↑AU = U. Let V be a z-Scott-open subset of P , and let U = V ∩A. If x ∈↑AU, then x > u for some u ∈ U, so u ∈ V and x ∈↑V = V , hence x ∈ V ∩ A = U. z So U is an upper subset of A. If WA Z ∈ U for some -subset Z of A, then z W Z ∈ U, so W Z ∈ V . Since V is -Scott-open in P , the subset Z ∩ V is nonempty, so there is some z ∈ Z ∩ V . So z ∈ V ∩ A = U. This proves that U is a z-Scott-open subset of A. Case (2) Suppose that P is z-continuous with z-basis B and (A, B) has the order-density property with respect to C ⊂ A, and let x ∈ A. Let z Z ⊂↓(↓ x ∩ B) be a z-subset whose sup is x. By the z-refinement property there is some z-subset Z′ of A included in ↓Z whose sup in A is x. Hence ′ z z z Z ⊂↓(↓ x ∩ B) ∩ A. If a ∈↓(↓ x ∩ B) ∩ A, then a 6 b ≪ x for some b ∈ B. By order-density of (A, B) with respect to C, there is some c ∈ C such that a 6 c 6 b. Thus, c ≪z x. This shows that a ∈↓ (↓z x ∩ C). A A ↓A Consequently, Z′ is a subset of ↓ (↓z x ∩ C) whose sup in A is x. This A ↓A shows that A is z-continuous with z-basis C. Case (1) is a consequence of (2): if P is z-continuous, then P is z- continuous with z-basis P and (A, P ) has the order-density property with respect to A, hence A is z-continuous. Case (3) In Example 4.13 we have noted that, if B = {x ∈ P : x ≪P x}, then (A, B) has the order-density property with respect to {a ∈ A : a ≪A a}. Hence, by the previous point, if P is z-algebraic, then A is z-continuous with z-basis {a ∈ A : a ≪A a}, i.e. is z-algebraic.

Example 4.15. [33] Let (S, ·) be an inverse semigroup, that is a semigroup such that, for every x ∈ S, there exists a unique x∗ ∈ S such that xx∗x = x and x∗xx∗ = x∗. Let E(S) be the commutative subsemigroup made of its idempotent elements. Recall that S is naturally equipped with a partial order 6 deﬁned by x 6 y if x = ye for some e ∈ E(S). We suppose here that S is mirror, in the sense that every directed subset of E(S) with a sup in E(S) also has a sup in S [33, Deﬁnition 3.1]. In this case, both suprema coincide and belong to E(S), so this amounts to say that E(S) is a d∗-sup-preserving subset of S. The map σ : S → S, x 7→ x∗x is a d∗-sup-preserving projection by [33, Lemma 3.5], whose image is E(S). Consequently, E(S) is a d∗-continuous poset if S is a d∗-continuous poset itself, as already stated by [33, Lemma 5.2].

In order to apply this theorem, it becomes crucial to understand what types of subsets are z-sup-preserving and have the z-reﬁnement property. We consider the case of lower subsets in Section 5, order-convex subsets and z-Scott-convex subsets in Section 6, upper subsets and d∗-Scott open 18 subsets in Section 7, direct images of left or right maps in Section 8, kernel retracts in Section 9.

5. LOWER SUBSETS AS z-SUBPOSETS 5.1. z-lower-united subsets in arbitrary posets. Let P be a poset. A subset L is lower if L =↓ L, in other words if L ∋ x > y implies y ∈ L. We write L↑ for the set of upper bounds of L, i.e. L↑ = {u ∈ P : u > ℓ for all ℓ ∈ L }. Lemma 5.1. Every subset L of a poset P such that P \L ⊂ L↑ is lower and a-sup-preserving. Proof. Let x ∈↓L, and suppose that x∈ / L. Then there exists ℓ ∈ L such that x 6 ℓ, and by assumption on L we have x ∈ L↑. So x = ℓ ∈ L, a contradiction. This proves that x ∈ L. So L is lower. Now let A be a subset of L with sup ℓ0 in L. Then ℓ0 is an upper bound of A in P . Let u ∈ P be another upper bound. If u ∈ L, then ℓ0 6 u by ↑ definition of ℓ0. If u∈ / L, then u ∈ L , so again ℓ0 6 u. This proves that ℓ0 is the sup of A in P . So L is a-sup-preserving. We call z-lower-united a subset L such that, for every z-subset Z with sup, W Z ∈ P \L implies L ⊂↓Z. Theorem 5.2. Let z be an intrinsically defined subset system. Every z- lower-united subset L of a poset P is order-convex, a-sup-preserving, and satisfies the z-refinement property (hence satisfies the conditions of Theo- rem 4.14). Proof. We first show that L satisfies P \L ⊂ L↑. By Lemma 5.1 this will imply that L is lower and a-sup-preserving. So let x ∈ P \L. The subset z Z = {x} is a -subset, and x = W Z ∈ P \L, hence L ⊂↓Z =↓x. This shows that x ∈ L↑. Let ℓ 6 Z for some ℓ ∈ L and some z-subset Z of P with sup. Suppose W ′ first that W Z ∈ L. Since L is lower, this implies that Z ⊂ L. With Z = Z, ′ 6 ′ z we have Z ⊂ Z ∩ L, ℓ WL Z = W Z, and since is intrinsically defined ′ z z Z is a -subset of L. Now suppose that W Z ∈ P \ L. Since L is -lower- united, we get L ⊂↓Z. If Z′ denotes the singleton {ℓ}, then Z′ is a z-subset ′ 6 ′ of L and Z ⊂↓ Z ∩ L and ℓ WL Z = ℓ. This shows that L has the z-refinement property. 5.2. Lower subsets in z-lower-Scott hereditary posets. In [20], Lawson and Xu defined a poset with a lower hereditary Scott topology as a poset such that, for every Scott-closed subset A, the relative Scott topology on A agrees with the Scott topology of the poset A [20, Definition 3.1]. See 19 also Mao and Xu [21]. We transpose this notion to the framework of subset systems as follows. A subset L of a poset P is z-Scott-closed if it is z lower and Z ⊂ L implies W Z ∈ L for all -subsets Z with sup. A poset P is z-lower-Scott hereditary if, for every z-Scott-closed subset L, the z- Scott-closed subsets in the poset L coincide with the subsets induced by the z-Scott-closed subsets of P . The following extends Lawson and Xu [20, Lemma 3.2].

Lemma 5.3. Let P be a poset. The following are equivalent:

(1) P is z-lower-Scott hereditary; (2) every principal ideal of P is z-sup-preserving; (3) every lower subset of P is z-sup-preserving; (4) any minimal upper bound of Z is actually the sup of Z, for every z-subset Z of P .

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2) Let L =↓x be a principal ideal. Then L is a z-Scott-closed subset of P . Let Z be a z-subset of L with sup z0 in L, and let u be an upper bound of Z in P . Then ↓u ∩ L is z-Scott-closed in the poset L, so z0 ∈↓u ∩ L. In particular, z0 6 u, so z0 is the sup of Z in P . Thus, L is z-sup-preserving. (2) ⇒ (4) Let u be a minimal upper bound of a z-subset Z of P . Then u is the sup of Z in ↓u. Since ↓u is z-sup-preserving by hypothesis, u is also the sup of Z in P . (4) ⇒ (3) Let L be a lower subset of P , and let Z be a z-subset of L with sup ℓ in L. We show that ℓ is a minimal upper bound of Z in P . So let u be an upper bound of Z in P such that u 6 ℓ. Since L is lower, we have u ∈ L. By definition of ℓ, this implies that ℓ 6 u, hence u = ℓ. So ℓ is a minimal upper bound of L in P , hence is the sup of L in P . (3) ⇒ (1) Let L be a z-Scott-closed subset. First we consider a z-Scott- closed subset A of L, and we show that A is a z-Scott-closed subset of P . We have A ⊂↓A ⊂↓L∩ ↓A = L∩ ↓A =↓LA = A, so A is lower in P . If Z is a z-subset of P with sup z0 such that Z ⊂ A, then z0 belongs to L since L is a z-Scott-closed subset of P . This implies that z0 is also the sup of Z in L; since A is a z-Scott-closed subset of L we obtain z0 ∈ A. So A is indeed a z-Scott-closed subset of P . Conversely, let A be a subset of P of the form F ∩ L, where F is a z- Scott-closed subset of P . We show that A is a z-Scott-closed subset of L. We have A ⊂↓LA =↓A ∩ L ⊂↓F ∩↓L ∩ L = F ∩ L = A, so A is lower in z L. If Z is a -subset of L with sup z0 ∈ L such that Z ⊂ A, then z0 = WP Z by (3). This implies that z0 ∈ F since F is a z-Scott-closed subset of P . So z0 ∈ F ∩ L = A. This shows that A is a z-Scott-closed subset of L. 20 In addition to the previous lemma, we shall see (with Proposition 5.9) sufficient conditions for a poset to be z-lower-Scott hereditary; in particular, we shall prove that semilattices and conditionally z-complete posets are z- lower-Scott hereditary. Definition 5.4. A subset A of P is z-regular if, for every z-subset Z of A with sup in A (resp. in P ), Z has a sup in P (resp. in A), and W Z = WA Z. Every z-regular subset is of course z-sup-preserving. Lemma 5.5. Let P be a z-lower-Scott hereditary poset. Then the following hold: • every lower subset of P is z-sup-preserving, • every z-Scott-closed subset of P is z-regular. Proof. The first point is stated in the previous lemma. Suppose that L is z-Scott-closed. We already know that L is z-sup-preserving. Now if Z z z is a -subset of L with sup in P , then W Z ∈ L by definition of -Scott- z closedness, so W Z = WL Z. Thus, L is -regular. The following result extends Erné[9, Proposition 1]. Theorem 5.6. Let z be an intrinsically defined subset system. Every lower subset L of a z-continuous and z-lower-Scott hereditary poset P is order- convex, z-sup-preserving and satisfies the z-refinement property (hence satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14). Proof. By Lemma 5.5 L is z-sup-preserving. Let us show the z-refinement property. Let ℓ ∈ L and Z be a z-subset of P such that ℓ 6 Z. Then z W ↓ ℓ ⊂↓Z ∩ L, using the definition of the z-way-below relation and the fact that L is lower. Moreover, P is z-continuous, so there is some z-subset Z′ z ′ ′ ′ of P included in ↓ ℓ with sup ℓ. So Z ⊂↓Z ∩ L and ℓ = W Z = WL Z , and since z is intrinsically defined Z′ is a z-subset of L. So L has the z- refinement property. We also state the following variation of the previous theorem. Theorem 5.7. Let z be an intrinsically defined subset system. Every subset L of a z-continuous poset P such that P \ L ⊂ L↑ is order-convex, a- sup-preserving and satisfies the z-refinement property (hence satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14). Proof. The subset L is lower (hence order-convex) and a-sup-preserving by Lemma 5.1. One can show then that L satisfies the z-refinement property along the same lines as in the previous proof. The following extends Lawson and Xu [20, Lemma 3.4]. 21 Corollary 5.8. Let z be an intrinsically defined subset system. Let P be a z-lower-Scott hereditary poset. The following are equivalent: (1) every principal ideal of P is a z-continuous poset; (2) every lower subset of P is a z-continuous poset; (3) P is a z-continuous poset. Proof. (3) ⇒ (2) is a consequence of the previous theorem. (2) ⇒ (1) is straightforward. (1) ⇒ (3). Suppose that every principal ideal ↓x of P is a z-continuous poset, and let x ∈ P . We already know that ↓x is z-sup-preserving, let us show that it satisfies the z-refinement property. So let y ∈↓x, and let Z be a z 6 -subset of P with sup z = W Z such that y z. Let L :=↓z. Then Z ⊂ L z z and we have z = WL Z; since is intrinsically defined, Z is a -subset of L. Now, y 6 Z implies ↓ y ⊂↓Z ∩ L. Since L is z-continuous, there WL ↓L is some z-subset Z′ of L such that Z′ ⊂ ↓ y and Z′ = y. We have ↓L WL y 6 x, so Z′ ⊂↓x; again, z is intrinsically defined, so Z′ is a z-subset of z ′ ′ ↓x. Moreover, L is -sup-preserving, so that L Z = Z = y. It is now ′ W W straightforward to show that y = W↓x Z . This proves that ↓x satisfies the z-refinement property. By Theorem 4.14, we deduce that every principal ideal of P is a z- continuous z-subposet of P . Now Theorem 4.9 applies, and we conclude that P is z-continuous. 5.3. z-Riesz posets. A poset P is a semilattice if every nonempty finite subset has an infimum; we write x ∧ y for the infimum of {x, y}. A poset is z-Riesz if Z↑ is filtered for every upper-bounded z-subset Z. Proposition 5.9. The following assertions hold: • Every conditionally z-complete poset is z-Riesz. • Every semilattice is z-Riesz. • Every z-Riesz poset is z-lower-Scott hereditary. • A poset is a-Riesz if and only if it is a semilattice. Proof. The first point is clear. The third point is a direct consequence of Lemma 5.3(4). The fact that a semilattice is a-Riesz (hence z-Riesz for every subset system z) is also clear. Let us prove that an a-Riesz poset is necessarily a semilattice. Let F be a nonempty finite subset of P . We want to show that F has an infimum. Let A = F ↓. Then F ⊂ A↑, so A↑ is (nonempty) filtered. Thus, there exists some z ∈ A↑ such that z 6 f for all f ∈ F . In particular, z ∈ F ↓ = A. The fact that z ∈ A ∩ A↑ means that z is the greatest element of A, i.e. the greatest lower bound of F , i.e. the infimum of F . Corollary 5.10. In a semilattice, every lower subset is a-sup-preserving. 22 6. ORDER-CONVEX SUBSETS AS z-SUBPOSETS IN SEMILATTICES Recall that a subset C of a poset is order-convex if C is the intersection of a lower subset with an upper subset. Lemma 6.1. Let P be a z-Riesz poset. Every order-convex subset of P is z∗-sup-preserving. Proof. Let C be an order-convex subset of P . Let Z be a nonempty z-subset of C with sup c0 in C. Let u ∈ P be an upper bound of Z in P . Since Z is nonempty there is some z ∈ Z. The subset Z↑ is filtered, so there exists ↑ some v ∈ Z such that v 6 u and v 6 c0. In particular, z 6 v 6 c0, so v ∈ C by order-convexity of C. This implies that v is an upper bound of Z in C, hence c0 6 v 6 u. This shows that c0 is the sup of Z in P . So C is z∗-sup-preserving. We say that a subset is z-Scott-convex if it is the intersection of a lower subset with a z-Scott-open subset. Hence every z-Scott-convex subset is order-convex. A semilattice is z-meet-continuous if (_ Z) ∧ x = _(Z ∧ x), for every x and z-subset Z with sup, where Z ∧x denotes the subset {z ∧x : z ∈ Z}; note that Z ∧ x is necessarily a z-subset as the image of Z by the order-preserving map y 7→ y ∧ x. It is not difficult to show that every semilattice that is a z-continuous poset is z-meet-continuous (see e.g. [15, Proposition I-1.8] for a proof in the frame of classical domain theory). Theorem 6.2. Every z-Scott-convex subset C of a z-meet-continuous semilattice P is order-convex, a∗-sup-preserving, and satisfies the z-refinement property (hence satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14 if z = z∗). Proof. We can write C =↓C ∩ U for some z-Scott-open subset U of P , by definition of z-Scott-convexity. As a semilattice, P is a-Riesz by Proposi- a∗ 6 tion 5.9, so the subset C is -sup-preserving by Lemma 6.1. Let c W Z for some c ∈ C and some z-subset Z of P with sup. If Z′ = Z ∧c, then Z′ is z ′ a -subset of P as noticed in the lines preceding the theorem, and W Z = c z ′ ′ by -meet-continuity of P . In particular, W Z ∈ U, so Z ∩ U is nonempty since U is z-Scott-open. We pick some u ∈ Z′ ∩ U; note that u 6 c. We now consider Z′′ = (Z′∩ ↑u) ∧ c, which is a z-subset by Proposition 2.1. If x ∈ Z′′, then x 6 c on the one hand, and x > u ∧ c = u on the other hand, so x ∈↓C∩ ↑U = C. This implies that Z′′ ⊂↓Z ∩ C. Moreover, ′′ z c = WC Z , so we have shown that C has the -refinement property. Remark 6.3. If C is a subsemilattice of a z-meet-continuous semilattice P , it is not difficult to show that C is a z-meet-continuous semilattice itself. 23 Corollary 6.4. Every lower subset of a z-meet-continuous semilattice is order-convex, a-sup-preserving, and has the z-refinement property (hence satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14).

7. d∗-SCOTT-OPEN SUBSETS AS d∗-SUBPOSETS In this section we specialize to the case z = d∗ and examine properties of upper subsets and d∗-Scott-open subsets. Lemma 7.1. Let P be a poset and U be an upper subset. If D is a directed subset with sup such that D∩U is nonempty, then D∩U is a directed subset with sup and W D = W(D ∩ U).

Proof. Since D ∩ U is nonempty by hypothesis, we pick some d0 ∈ D ∩ U. ′ ′ If d,d ∈ D, then there exists some d1 ∈ D greater than d0, d, and d . In particular, d1 ∈ D∩ ↑{d0} ⊂ D∩ ↑U = D ∩ U since U is upper. This shows that D ∩ U is directed and D ⊂↓(D ∩ U) ⊂↓D, so that W D = W(D ∩ U). Remark 7.2. The property of the previous lemma actually characterizes upper subsets. Indeed, suppose that this property is satisfied, and let y ∈↑U. Then x 6 y for some x ∈ U. The subset D = {x, y} is directed, its sup is y, and D ∩ U contains x so is nonempty. Thus, W D = y = W(D ∩ U). This latter equality implies that y ∈ U. Theorem 7.3. Every upper subset of a poset is order-convex and a∗-regular. Moreover, it is d∗-Scott-open if and only if it satisfies the d∗-refinement property (in which case it satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14 for z = d∗). Proof. Let U be an upper subset of a poset P , and let A be a nonempty subset of U. Suppose first that A has a sup x0 in U. Then x0 is an upper bound of A. Let u ∈ P be another upper bound of A in P . Since A is nonempty, this entails u ∈↑A ⊂↑U = U. Thus, x0 6 u, which shows that x0 is the sup of A in P , i.e. WU A = x0 = W A. Now suppose that A has a sup x0 in P . Again A is nonempty, so x0 ∈↑ A ⊂↑U = U. This implies that x0 is an upper bound of A in U. Let u ∈ U be another upper bound of A in U. Then u is an upper bound of A (in P ), 6 so x0 u. This shows that x0 is the sup of A in U, i.e. W A = x0 = WU A. At this stage we have proved that U is a∗-regular. d∗ 6 Suppose that U is -Scott-open. Let u W D for some u ∈ U and some directed subset D of P with sup. Since U is upper, W D ∈ U. Since U is d∗-Scott-open, the subset D′ := D ∩ U is nonempty. By Lemma 7.1, ′ 6 ′ D is a directed subset and u W D = WU D . This shows that U has the d∗-refinement property. 24 Conversely, suppose that U has the d∗-refinement property. Since U is already upper by hypothesis, it is d∗-Scott-open if and only if, whenever W D ∈ U for some directed subset D with sup, D ∩ U is nonempty, a condition that is obviously satisfied by upper subsets with the d∗-refinement property. Example 7.4. Every subset of the form

d∗ ∗ ↑ A := {x ∈ P : a ≪d x for some a ∈ A}, with A ⊂ P , is (upper and) d∗-Scott-open, hence is order-convex, a∗- regular, and satisfies the d∗-refinement property. Corollary 7.5. A principal filter ↑x := {y : y > x} is a d∗-subposet if and only if x is d∗-compact.

8. DIRECT IMAGES AS z-SUBPOSETS 8.1. Direct images of posets. We first study subsets of the form f(P ), for some poset P and order-preserving map f : P → Q with adequate properties. Theorem 8.1. Let P be a conditionally z-complete poset, and let f : P → P be a z-sup-preserving projection satisfying the z-refinement property. Then f(P ) is z-projected, z-sup-preserving, and satisfies the z-refinement property (hence satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14). Proof. Combine Proposition 4.2(5) with Proposition 4.5(2). Theorem 8.2. Let f : P → Q be a left map whose right map is z-sup- preserving. Then f is a-sup-preserving and satisfies the z-refinement property, and f(P ) is z-sup-preserving and satisfies the z-refinement property. If moreover the right map of f preserves the z-way-below relation, then f(P ) is z-projected (hence satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14). Proof. The first part of the theorem is a combination of Lemma 2.9 and Proposition 3.5. The second part comes from a combination of Propo- sition 4.2(3) and Proposition 4.5(3). It remains to show that f(P ) is z- projected in Q. This is the case since f(P ) can be written as p(Q), where p is the z-way-below preserving projection p = f ◦ g : Q → Q. Indeed, p(Q) = f(g(Q)) ⊂ f(P ) on the one hand, and f(P ) = f(g(f(P ))) ⊂ f(g(Q)) = p(Q) on the other hand. The following result extends Bandelt and Erné[4, Theorem] and Venu- gopalan [39, Theorem 2.17] and [39, Theorem 3.10]. 25 Corollary 8.3 (Bandelt–Erné–Venugopalan). Let Q bea z-continuous (resp. strongly z-continuous) poset with z-basis B′. Let g : Q → P be a z-sup- preserving surjective right map. Then P is a z-continuous (resp. strongly z-continuous) poset with z-basis g(B′). Proof. Let f : P → Q be the (injective) left map of g, and let A′ = f(P ). Then f satisfies the conditions of the previous theorem; moreover, (A′, B′) has the order-density property with respect to f(g(B′)) (see Exam- ple 4.13), so by Theorem 4.14 A′ is a z-continuous z-subposet of Q with z-basis f(g(B′)). Besides, P and f(P ) are order-isomorphic, so P is a z-continuous poset with z-basis g(B′). Suppose moreover that Q be z-interpolating. Since A′ is of the form f(P ) with P z-continuous and f : P → Q an injective left map whose right map is z-sup-preserving, Theorem 4.14 applies again: f(P ) is z-interpolating, and so is P . Remark 8.4. While Bandelt and Ernésuppose that the poset Q be conditionally z-complete, we see that this hypothesis is actually not needed. 8.2. Direct images of subsets. Now we consider subsets of the form f(A), for some subset A of a poset P and an order-preserving map f : P → Q with adequate properties. Lemma 8.5. Let A be a z-sup-preserving subset of a poset P satisfying the z-refinement property, and let f : P → Q be a z-sup-preserving map with the z-refinement property. Then f(A) satisfies the z-refinement property in Q. Proof. Let i : A → P be the inclusion map. Since A is z-sup-preserving, i is z-sup-preserving, so f ◦ i is z-sup-preserving. Moreover, both i and f have the z-refinement property, so f ◦ i has the z-refinement property. From Proposition 4.5 we deduce that f ◦ i(A)= f(A) has the z-refinement property. Theorem 8.6. Let A bea z-sup-preserving subset of a poset P satisfying the z-refinement property, and let f : P → Q be a left map whose right map g is z-sup-preserving. In any of the following cases, f(A) is z-sup-preserving and satisfies the z-refinement property in Q: (1) f(g(Q)) ⊂ f(A); (2) g(f(a)) = a for all a ∈ A (this holds if f is injective); (3) A is a-regular and P is conditionally a-complete; (4) A is z-regular, P is conditionally z-complete, and g(f(A)) ⊂ A. Proof. Thanks to the previous lemma it suffices to show that f(A) is z-sup- preserving in Q. So let Z′ be a z-subset of f(A) with a sup in f(A). We 26 ′ ′ write this sup by f(a0) with a0 ∈ A. Let u be an upper bound of Z in ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Q. Then z 6 u for all z ∈ Z . We want to show that f(a0) 6 u , i.e. ′ a0 6 g(u ). Case (1) We have z′ = f(g(z′)) 6 f(g(u′)) 6 u′ for all z′ ∈ Z′. Since f(g(Q)) ⊂ f(A), there exists some a ∈ A such that f(g(u′)) = f(a). So ′ f(a) is an upper bound of Z , hence f(a0) 6 f(a) by definition of f(a0). ′ ′ This shows that f(a0) 6 u , so f(a0) is the least upper bound of Z in Q, i.e. its sup in Q. ′ Case (2) We have g(Z ) ⊂ g(f(A)) ⊂ A. Letusshowthat a0 isthesupof ′ ′ ′ g(Z ) in A. First, a0 is an upper bound of g(Z ), since g(z ) 6 g(f(a0)) = ′ a0. Let a be another upper bound of g(Z ) in A. Then f(a) is an upper ′ bound of Z , so f(a0) 6 f(a). This implies a0 6 g(f(a)) = a. So a0 is the ′ ′ sup of g(Z ) in A. Since A is z-sup-preserving, a0 is also the sup of g(Z ) in P . Case (3) If z′ ∈ Z′, there is some a(z′) ∈ A such that z′ = f(a(z′)). a ′ Since P is conditionally -complete, we can define x = WP a(Z ), and a ′ ′ since A is -regular we have x ∈ A. Now f(x) = WQ f(a(Z )) = WQ Z . This proves that ′ , so ′ ′ 6 ′. WQ Z ∈ f(A) f(a0)= Wf(A) Z = WQ Z u Case (4) Let Z = g(Z′). This is a z-subset of P . Moreover, since g(f(A)) ⊂ A by hypothesis, Z is a subset of A. Now P is condition- z z ally -complete, so we can define z0 = P Z. By -regularity of A we W ′ have z0 ∈ A. We deduce that f(z0) = WQ f(Z) = WQ f(g(Z )). Since ′ ′ ′ ′ Z ⊂ f(A) we have f(g(Z )) = Z , so f(z0) = WQ Z . This proves that ′ , so ′ ′ 6 ′. WQ Z ∈ f(A) f(a0)= Wf(A) Z = WQ Z u Theorem 8.7. Let A′ be a z-sup-preserving subset of a poset Q satisfying the z-refinement property, and let g : Q → P be a z-sup-preserving surjective right map with left map f such that f(g(A′)) ⊂ A′. Then g(A′) coincides with f −1(A′), is z-sup-preserving, and satisfies the z-refinement property in P . If moreover A′ is order-convex (resp. z-sup-dense in Q), then g(A′) is order-convex (resp. z-sup-dense in P ) and thus satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14. Proof. Let A = g(A′). The equality A = f −1(A′) is an easy consequence of the hypotheses A ⊂ f −1(A′) and g surjective. Let a ∈ A, and let Z be z 6 6 a -subset of P with sup such that a WP Z. Then f(a) f(WP Z) = ′ ′ ′ z WQ f(Z). Since f(a) ∈ A , f(Z) ⊂ A and A has the -refinement property in Q, we deduce that there exists some z-subset Z′ of Q such that ′ ′ ′ ′ 6 ′ z Z ⊂↓f(Z) ∩ A and f(a) WA Z . Now A is -sup-preserving in Q, 6 ′ z so f(a) WQ Z . From the fact that g preserves -sups we deduce that 6 ′ ′ ′ a g(WQ Z ) = WP g(Z ). It is now easy to show that g(Z ) ⊂↓Z ∩ A from the properties f(g(A′)) ⊂ A′ and the injectivity of f. Moreover, 27 ′ ′ ′ 6 ′ WP g(Z ) ∈ A, so WP g(Z ) = WA g(Z ), hence a WA g(Z ). This proves that A has the z-refinement property. Now we show that A is z-sup-preserving. Let Z be a z-subset of A with ′ sup a0 in A. First remark the f(a0) is the sup of f(Z) in A . Indeed, if u′ ∈ A′ is an upper bound of f(Z), then g(u′) ∈ g(A′) ⊂ A is an upper ′ ′ ′ bound of Z, so a0 6 g(u ), thus f(a0) 6 u . Since A is z-sup-preserving, this implies that f(a0) is the sup of f(Z) in Q. To conclude, let us show that a0 is the sup of Z in P . If u ∈ P is an upper bound of Z, then f(u) is an upper bound of f(Z), so f(a0) 6 f(u). Thus, a0 6 g(f(u)) = u, the latter equality coming from the surjectivity of g. ′ Suppose that A is order-convex. If a1, a2 ∈ A and a1 6 x 6 a2, then ′ f(a1) 6 f(x) 6 f(a2). Since f(a1), f(a2) ∈ A and A is order-convex, we have f(x) ∈ A′. So x ∈ f −1(A′)= A. This shows that A is order-convex. Suppose that A′ is z-sup-dense in Q. Let a ∈ A. Then f(a) ∈ A′, z ′ ′ so there exists some -subset Z of Q such that f(a) = WQ Z . Hence, ′ ′ z a = g(f(a)) = g(WQ Z )= WP g(Z ). This shows that A is -sup-dense in P .

9. KERNEL RETRACTS AS z-SUBPOSETS A kernel on a poset P is a map k : P → P such that, for all x, y ∈ P : • k(x) 6 k(y) if x 6 y, • k(x) 6 x, • k(k(x)) = k(x). For instance, if (f,g) is a Galois connection, then f ◦ g is a kernel. A kernel retraction on P is a surjective map k◦ : P → K such that the map P ∋ x 7→ k◦(x) ∈ P is a kernel on P . In this case we have K = {x ∈ P : k◦(x) = x}, and the subset K of P is called a kernel retract of P induced by the kernel retraction k◦. Lemma 9.1. Every kernel retraction is the right map of a Galois connection. Proof. Let k◦ : P → K be a kernel retraction. Then y 6 k◦(x) if and only if y 6 x, for all x ∈ P , y ∈ K. Thus, (i, k◦) is a Galois connection, where i : K → P is the inclusion map. Lemma 9.2. Every kernel retract of a poset is a-regular. Proof. Let k◦ : P → K be a kernel retraction associated with the kernel retract K of a poset P . By Theorem 8.2, the left map i : K → P,y 7→ y is a-sup-preserving, hence the subset i(K)= K is a-sup-preserving in P . Let ◦ A be a (possibly empty) subset of K with a sup a0 in P . Then k (a0) is an ◦ ◦ upper bound of A and k (a0) 6 a0, so k (a0) = a0, hence a0 ∈ K. This implies that a0 is the sup of A in K. This shows that K is a-regular. 28 Theorem 9.3. Let K be a kernel retract of a poset P induced by a z-sup- preserving kernel retraction k◦ : P → K. Then K as a subset of P is a-regular and satisfies the z-refinement property (hence satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.14). Moreover, K is (strongly) z-continuous with z-basis k◦(B) if P is (strongly) z-continuous with z-basis B. Proof. The subset K is a-regular by Lemma 9.2. The z-refinement property comes from the application of Theorem 8.2 to the Galois connection (i, k◦) of Lemma 9.1. The last assertion of the theorem is a consequence of Theorem 4.11 and Theorem 4.14 (2), combined with Example 4.13. Remark 9.4. Combining Lemma 2.8 with Lemma 9.2, a kernel k : P → P is z-sup-preserving if and only if its corestriction k◦ : P → k(P ) is z-sup- preserving. See also [6, Proposition 1.13]. Remark 9.5. While the second part of the previous theorem may seem to be a special case of Venugopalan’s theorem (Theorem 3.7), we do not need to require that P be conditionally z-complete here.

10. EXISTENCEOFALARGESTCONTINUOUS d∗-SUBPOSET In this section we deduce from previous results the theorem announced in the introduction. Recall that, in a poset P , a z-ideal is a subset I such that I =↓Z for some z-subset Z. We consider the following subset of a poset P : z z P := {x ∈ P : ↓ x is a z-ideal and has a sup }. ∗ Example 10.1. If P is conditionally a∗-complete, then P d is an upper sub- d∗ d∗ set of P , and x ∈ P if and only if ↓ x is nonempty. If P is conditionally a-complete (in particular if P is a-complete, i.e. is a complete lattice), or if ∗ ∗ P is a d∗-continuous poset, then P = P d , in particular P d is a d∗-Scott- open subset of P . If P is d∗-interpolating and conditionally a∗-complete, ∗ then P d is also a d∗-Scott-open subset of P . In this case, by Theorem 7.3, ∗ P d is a∗-regular and satisfies the d∗-refinement property; then by Theo- ∗ ∗ rem 4.14 P d is a d∗-subposet of P ; moreover P d is d∗-interpolating and conditionally a∗-complete, and d∗ d∗ d∗ d∗ (P ) = {x ∈ P : ↓ ∗ x is nonempty } ↓P d d∗ d∗ d∗ = {x ∈ P : ↓ x ∩ P is nonempty } d∗ d∗ = {x ∈ P : ↓ x ∩ P is nonempty } d∗ d∗ = {x ∈ P : ∃y ≪ x, ↓ y is nonempty } ∗ ∗ = {x ∈ P : ∃y ≪d x, ∃z ≪d y} d∗ = {x ∈ P : ↓ x is nonempty }, 29 ∗ ∗ the latter equality being due to the d∗-interpolation property, so (P d )d = ∗ P d . Lemma 10.2. Let P be a z-interpolating poset such that P z is nonempty. z z z Then the map kP : P → P defined by z z kP (x)= _ ↓ x, z z z z z z for all x ∈ P , is a kernel on P such that ↓ x = ↓ kP (x) for all x ∈ P . z z z Proof. Let x, y ∈ P with x 6 y. The facts that kP (x) 6 x and kP (x) 6 z z z kP (y) are clear. To prove that kP (x) ∈ P , let us show first that the following equivalence holds for all v ∈ P : z z z (1) v ≪ x ⇔ v ≪ kP (x). So let v ≪z x. Since P is z-interpolating, there is some w ∈ P such z z z z that v ≪ w ≪ x, and the definition of kP gives w 6 kP (x), hence z z z z z v ≪ kP (x). Conversely, the assertion v ≪ kP (x) trivially implies v ≪ x z z z z since kP (x) 6 x. Equivalence (1) can be rewritten ↓ x = ↓ kP (x), hence z z z z z z z z kP (x) ∈ P . We also get kP (kP (x)) = ↓ kP (x)= ↓ x = kP (x). This z z W W proves that kP is a kernel on P . z Definition 10.3. A poset P is a z-Mao–Xu poset if ↓ x is a z-ideal with sup for all x ∈ P , in other words if P = P z. Recall from Example 10.1 that a poset P is d∗-Mao–Xu in any of the following situations: ∗ d∗ • P is conditionally a -complete and ↓ x is nonempty for all x; • P is conditionally a-complete; • P is a-complete; • P is a d∗-continuous poset. The following result extends [22, Theorem 3.11]. Corollary 10.4. If P is a z-Mao–Xu poset, then P is strongly z-continuous z z if and only if P is z-interpolating and ↓ x = ↓ y implies x = y for all x, y ∈ P . Proof. The ‘only if’ part is clear. For the ‘if’ part, let x ∈ P . Since P is a z-Mao–Xu poset, then P = P z, so the previous lemma applies. Thus, z z z z z ↓ x = ↓ kP (x). By hypothesis we get x = kP (x), i.e. x is the sup of ↓ x. z We already know that ↓ x is a z-ideal. So P is (strongly) z-continuous. Lemma 10.5. Let P be a z-interpolating poset such that P z is a nonempty z z z z -sup-preserving subset. Then kP (P ) is a kernel retract of P induced by a z-sup-preserving kernel retraction. 30 z z z z Proof. Let kP : P → P be the kernel on P defined by Lemma 10.2. Let z z z z ◦ Q = kP (P ) = {x ∈ P : kP (x) = x}, and let kP be the corestriction of z z z ◦ kP to Q, i.e. the map P → Q, x 7→ kP (x). Then kP is a kernel retraction, z ◦ z so Q is a kernel retract of P . Let us show that kP is -sup-preserving. z z This amounts to show that, if Z is a z-subset of P with sup z0 in P , z z z z then kP (z0) = Q kP (Z). Since P is supposed to be -sup-preserving, W z z0 is also the sup of Z in P . Now if x ≪ z0 = W Z, there is some z ∈ Z such that x ≪z z (using the definition of the z-way-below relation z z z and the -interpolation property). This implies that x ≪ kP (z) by the z equivalence (1) in the proof of Lemma 10.2, hence x 6 Q kP (Z). Using z z z W the definition of kP we conclude that kP (z0) 6 Q kP (Z), and since the z W z converse inequality is trivially true, we get kP (z0) = WQ kP (Z). Thus, we ◦ z have proved that kP is -sup-preserving. For the following theorem we need to specialize to the case z = d∗. ∗ Theorem 10.6. Let P be a d∗-interpolating poset such that P d is a non- d∗ d∗ d∗ d∗ empty -Scott-open subset. Then kP (P ) is a kernel retract of P induced by a d∗-sup-preserving kernel retraction. Moreover, this is the largest d∗-continuous d∗-subposet of P . ∗ Proof. In this proof we write U for the nonempty d∗-Scott-open subset P d , d∗ and k for the map kP . Let K = k(U) = {x ∈ U : k(x) = x}. We already know that U is d∗-sup-preserving by Theorem 7.3, so k is a d∗-sup- preserving kernel retraction and K is a kernel retract of U by the previous lemma. Combined with Theorem 9.3, we deduce that K is a d∗-subposet of P . Now let us show that K is a d∗-continuous poset, so let x ∈ K. We need ∗ ∗ to show that ↓d x = ↓d x ∩ K contains a directed subset that admits x as ↓K ↓ sup in K. d∗ ∗ We have ↓ x = k(x) = x ∈ U; since U is d -Scott-open we deduce d∗ W that ↓ x ∩ U is nonempty. Now we can apply Lemma 7.1 to the directed d∗ d∗ d∗ d∗ subset ↓ x, andwe getthat ↓ x∩U is directed and W ↓ x = W(↓ x∩U). d∗ d∗ ◦ So x = k(x)= k(k(x)) = k(W ↓ x)= k(W(↓ x ∩ U)). Since k : P → d∗ d∗ K, x 7→ k(x) is -sup-preserving, we obtain x = K k(↓ x ∩ U). Thus, W d∗ x is the sup in K of the (non-empty) directed subset k(↓ x ∩ U), which is ∗ ∗ itself included in ↓d x ∩ K = ↓d x. This proves that K is a d∗-continuous ↓ ↓K poset. To conclude the proof we show that K is the largest d∗-continuous d∗- subposet of P . So let L be a d∗-continuous d∗-subposet of P , and let us d∗ d∗ show that L ⊂ K. Let y ∈ L. Then ↓ y = ↓ y ∩ L, and this subset L ∗ is directed. Since L is d∗-continuous, y = ↓d y. Moreover, every d∗- WL ↓L d∗ d∗ subposet is -sup-preserving by definition, so y = W ↓ y∩L. This implies 31 d∗ d∗ d∗ that ↓ y =↓(↓ y ∩ L), hence y ∈ U, and y = W ↓ y = k(y), i.e. y ∈ K. This proves that L ⊂ K. The following result from Mao and Xu [22, Theorem 3.8] now comes as a corollary to the previous theorem. Corollary 10.7 (Mao–Xu). Let P be a d∗-interpolating, d∗-Mao–Xu, d∗- d∗ d∗ d∗ complete poset. Then kP (P ) is a -continuous -complete poset. d∗ a d∗ Proof. By Lemma 9.2, kP (P ) is -regular; since P is supposed to be - d∗ d∗ complete, kP (P ) is thus also -complete. Example 10.8 (Continuation of Example 2.5 and Figure 1). Since P is a d∗ d∗ d∗ complete lattice, we have P = P . Moreover, kP (ω)=0 and kP (x)= x d∗ for every x =6 ω, so that kP (P )= P \{ω}. Example 10.9 (Continuation of Example 2.6 and Figure 2). Again P is a ∗ ∗ complete lattice, so P = P d . Now in this poset the assertion x ≪d y d∗ never holds, except if x = 0. Thus, kP (P ) = {0}. Note that the poset P \{ω} is a d∗-continuous poset (every element is d∗-compact), but is not a d∗-subposet of P .

Acknowledgements. I would like to gratefully thank Marianne Akian for her numerous remarks and advice on a preliminary version of the manu- script.

REFERENCES [1] Marianne Akian. Densities of idempotentmeasures and large deviations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 351(11):4515–4543, 1999. [2] Marianne Akian and Ivan Singer. Topologies on lattice ordered groups, separation from closed downward sets and conjugations of type Lau. Optimization, 52(6):629– 672, 2003. [3] Hans-J. Bandelt. M-distributive lattices. Arch. Math. (Basel), 39(5):436–442, 1982. [4] Hans-J. Bandelt and Marcel Erné. The category of Z-continuous posets. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 30(3):219–226, 1983. [5] Hans-J. Bandelt and Marcel Erné. Representations and embeddings of M-distributive lattices. Houston J. Math., 10(3):315–324, 1984. [6] Andrei Baranga. Z-continuous posets. Discrete Math., 152(1-3):33–45, 1996. [7] Marcel Erné. A completion-invariant extension of the concept of continuous lattices. In Continuous lattices, Proceedings of the Conference on Topological and Categori- cal Aspects of Continuous Lattices (Workshop IV) held at the University of Bremen, Bremen, November 9–11, 1979, volume 871 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 45–60, Berlin, 1981. Springer-Verlag. Edited by Bernhard Banaschewski and Rudolf- E. Hoffmann. [8] Marcel Erné. Z-continuous posets and their topological manifestation. Appl. Categ. Structures, 7(1-2):31–70, 1999. Applications of ordered sets in computer science (Braunschweig, 1996). 32 [9] Marcel Erné. Minimal bases, ideal extensions, and basic dualities. In Proceedings of the 19th Summer Conference on Topology and its Applications, volume 29, pages 445–489, 2005. [10] Marcel Erné, Mai Gehrke, and Alˇes Pultr. Complete congruences on topologies and down-set lattices. Appl. Categ. Structures, 15(1-2):163–184, 2007. [11] Marcel Erné, Jürgen Koslowski, Austin Melton, and George E. Strecker. A primer on Galois connections. In Papers on general topology and applications (Madison, WI, 1991), volume 704, pages 103–125, 1993. [12] Marcel Ernéand Dongsheng Zhao. Z-join spectra of Z-supercompactly generated lattices. Appl. Categ. Structures, 9(1):41–63, 2001. [13] Orrin Frink. Ideals in partially ordered sets. Amer. Math. Monthly, 61:223–234, 1954. [14] Robert Furber. Continuous dcpos in quantum computing. http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rfurber/papers/contawconf.pdf, 2019. [15] Gerhard Gierz, Karl Heinrich Hofmann, Klaus Keimel, Jimmie D. Lawson, Michael W. Mislove, and Dana S. Scott. Continuous lattices and domains, volume 93 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003. [16] Jean Goubault-Larrecq. Non-Hausdorff topology and domain theory, volume 22 of New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. [On the cover: Selected topics in point-set topology]. [17] Rudolf-E. Hoffmann. The injective hull and the CL-compactification of a continuous poset. Canad. J. Math., 37(5):810–853, 1985. [18] Klaus Keimel. Bicontinuous domains and some old problems in domain theory. Elec- tronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 257:35–54, 2009. [19] Jimmie D. Lawson. Idempotent analysis and continuous semilattices. Theoret. Com- put. Sci., 316(1-3):75–87, 2004. [20] Jimmie D. Lawson and Luoshan Xu. Posets having continuous intervals. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 316(1-3):89–103, 2004. [21] Xuxin Mao and Luoshan Xu. Meet continuity properties of posets. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 410(42):4234–4240, 2009. [22] Xuxin Mao and Luoshan Xu. Characterizations of various continuities of posets via approximated elements. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 333:89– 101, 2017. [23] George Markowsky. Chain-complete posets and directed sets with applications. Al- gebra Universalis, 6(1):53–68, 1976. [24] George Markowsky. Categories of chain-complete posets. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 4(2):125–135, 1977. [25] George Markowsky. A motivation and generalization of Scott’s notion of a continuous lattice. In Continuous lattices, Proceedings of the Conference on Topological and Categorical Aspects of Continuous Lattices (Workshop IV) held at the University of Bremen, Bremen, November 9–11, 1979, volume 871 of Lecture Notes in Mathemat- ics, pages 298–307, Berlin, 1981. Springer-Verlag.Edited by Bernhard Banaschewski and Rudolf-E. Hoffmann. [26] George Markowsky. Propaedeutic to chain-complete posets with basis. In Continu- ous lattices, Proceedings of the Conference on Topological and Categorical Aspects of Continuous Lattices (Workshop IV) held at the University of Bremen, Bremen,

33 November 9–11, 1979, volume 871 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 308– 314, Berlin, 1981. Springer-Verlag. Edited by Bernhard Banaschewski and Rudolf-E. Hoffmann. [27] George Markowsky and Barry K. Rosen. Bases for chain-complete posets. IBM J. of Res. and Development, 20:138–147, 1976. [28] Jorge Martinez. Unique factorization in partially ordered sets. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 33:213–220, 1972. [29] Venu G. Menon. A note on topology of Z-continuous posets. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin., 37(4):821–824, 1996. [30] Evelyn Nelson. Z-continuous algebras. In Continuous lattices, Proceedings of the Conference on Topological and Categorical Aspects of Continuous Lattices (Work- shop IV) held at the University of Bremen, Bremen, November 9–11, 1979, volume 871 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 315–334, Berlin, 1981. Springer-Verlag. Edited by Bernhard Banaschewski and Rudolf-E. Hoffmann. [31] Dan Novak. On a duality between the concepts “finite” and “directed”. Houston J. Math., 8(4):545–563, 1982. [32] Paul Poncet. Infinite-dimensional idempotent analysis: the role of continuous posets. PhD thesis, Ecole´ Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France, 2011. [33] Paul Poncet. Domain theory and mirror properties in inverse semigroups. Semigroup Forum, 84(3):434–446, 2012. [34] Paul Poncet. How regular can maxitive measures be? Topology Appl., 160(4):606– 619, 2013. [35] Paul Poncet. Convexities on ordered structures have their Krein–Milman theorem. Journal of Convex Analysis, 21(1):89–120, 2014. [36] George N. Raney. Completely distributive complete lattices. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 3:677–680, 1952. [37] George N. Raney. A subdirect-union representation for completely distributive complete lattices. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 4:518–522, 1953. [38] G.-B. Shi and G.-P. Wang. Z-mappings and a classification theorem. Semigroup Fo- rum, 52(3):349–355, 1996. [39] Poothampilly Venugopalan. Z-continuous posets. Houston J. Math., 12(2):275–294, 1986. [40] Poothampilly Venugopalan. Union complete subset systems. Houston J. Math., 14(4):583–600, 1988. [41] Jesse B. Wright, Eric G. Wagner, and James W. Thatcher. A uniform approach to inductive posets and inductive closure. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 7(1):57–77, 1978. [42] Xiao-Quan Xu. Construction of homomorphisms of M-continuous lattices. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 347(8):3167–3175, 1995. [43] Dongsheng Zhao. Closure spaces and completions of posets. Semigroup Forum, 90(2):545–555, 2015.

CMAP, E´ COLE POLYTECHNIQUE, ROUTEDE SACLAY, 91128 PALAISEAU CEDEX, FRANCE Email address: [email protected]