arXiv:2109.00647v1 [math.GN] 1 Sep 2021 ela h lsia hoycnb on nteecletbosb Hu by books excellent the [8]. in Pears found and be [4], can Engelking me [7], o history theory Wallman The definitions classical the spaces. three con metric as these theory separable well o between beyond class differences spaces classical the the of of classes of on the period study coincide of the second dimension proof with The of the definitions with spaces. three ends metric these arguably theory that dimension fact of period first oeig,wudb ioosydfie yCc sn rvosieso ideas previous dimension covering using the Cech dim is by of definition defined definition This rigorously Another be Ursyohn. would and coverings, Menger, Cech, Brouwer, by ftesalidciedimension, inductive small the of an a ae ntefc iecnb eaae yrmvn on,ap a , a removing by separated be is, can That T line etc. 1911. a line, in fact Poincare a by the removing explained on as based separation of d was behind that concept was the The period in dimension particular. this place in of spaces definition took metric intuitive compact periods an spaces, establishing these with of concerned first was and The periods. overlapping two e od n phrases. and words Key 2020 Date lsial,tedmninter ftplgclsae a ebroke be can spaces topological of theory dimension the Classically, n − BOTDMNIN AHMTC NPRDBY INSPIRED MATHEMATICS DIMENSION, ABBOTT etme ,2021. 3, September : iesoa usae hscneto fdmninldt h defin the to led dimension of conception This subspace. dimensional 1 ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics one bv ytelreidciedmnin osqetyw sh we Consequently of dimension. dimension inductive Abbott large Abb the the Edwin by by above inspired bounded function dimension defined Flatland intuitively an spaces, Abstract. otnao rirrl ihlreidcie ml nutv,adcove and inductive, small exis there inductive, while large 1, high mension. dimension arbitrarily Abbott of have continua all continua indecomposable eso hto eaal ercsae h botdmninis dimension Abbott the spaces metric separable on that show We . nti ae eitoueteAbt ieso fHausdorff of dimension Abbott the introduce we paper this In ieso,fltad bot continua. abbott, flatland, dimension, R n n 1. EEYSIEGERT JEREMY iesoa pc a esprtdb removing by separated be can dimensional is FLATLAND Introduction n ind ecnld ysoigta hereditarily that showing by conclude We . 44 45,54G20. 54F50, , 54F45 n h ag nutv dimension, inductive large the and , 1 dim oecmol nw oa.This today. known commonly more toe bv as above ntioned mninue in used imension ieso in dimension f wthat ow igdi- ring nin using ension, such t enditself cerned al 1900’s early eintuition he Lebesgue. f remarkable separable f ott’s eizand rewicz o metric for pinto up n aeby lane itions Ind , 2 JEREMY SIEGERT

With the benefit of over 100 years of hindsight we can look back at the de- velopment of dimension theory as one eager to develop an intuitively acceptable formalization of dimension. The fact that three ostensibly different formalizations of the notion would turn out to be equivalent on separable metric spaces should be seen as a tremendous achievement in the understanding of dimension. However, we can now ask, “Must every geometrically intuitive formalization of dimension coin- cide with the classic definitions on separable metric spaces”? In this paper we will give a negative answer to this question. More specifically, we will give a geometri- cally intuitive notion of dimension for Hausdorff spaces. Our definition is inspired by the account of dimension given in Edwin Abbott’s celebrated novella Flatland, [1]. Consequently we call our definition Abbott dimension, denoted Ab(X) for a space X. In contrast to the classical inductive dimension which were based on the notion of separation, Abbott dimension is based on the notion of “sight”. In section 1 we will review some basic preliminary definitions and results. In section 2 we will define Abbott dimension. Part of this section will include an explana- tion of the notion of the aforementioned “sight” as seen in Flatland and how it is formalized in our definition. Also in section 2 are the primary basic properties of Ab, such as topological invariance and the fact that Ab(Rn)= n. In section 3 we show that Ab does not agree with the three classical definitions of dimension on separable metric spaces by showing that the Abbott dimension of all hereditarily indecomposable continua is 1. We conclude with a question about the relationship between Abbott dimension and known characterizations of the classical definitions of dimension. For a subspace Y of a X we denote by clX (Y ) the of Y in X and by ∂X Y the of Y in X. 2. Preliminaries In this section we will collect the basic definitions and results that will be needed in the next section. A reader comfortable with classical dimension theory may safely forego this section. Definition 2.1. A (not necessarily metric) space X is called a continuum if it is connected, compact, and Hausdorff. If X is in addition not a singleton we call X a nontrivial continuum. The following definition and results about the large inductive dimension can be found in [4]. Definition 2.2. The large inductive dimension of a X, denoted Ind(X), is defined inductively in the following way:

(1) Ind(X)= −1 if and only if X = ∅. (2) Ind(X) ≤ n for n ≥ 0 if for every A ⊆ X and every open subset U ⊆ X containing A, there is an V ⊆ X such that A ⊆ V ⊆ V ⊆ U and Ind(∂V ) ≤ n − 1. ABBOTT DIMENSION 3

The value Ind(X) is then defined to be the least n for which Ind(X) ≤ n is true. In the event that Ind(X) 6≤ n for each n we say that Ind(X)= ∞. Theorem 2.3. If X is a separable and Y ⊆ X is any subspace, then Ind(Y ) ≤ Ind(X). Theorem 2.4. For each n, Ind(Rn) = n and for every K ⊆ Rn we have that Ind(K)= n if and only if K has nonempty interior in Rn. Theorem 2.5. If a separable metric space X is such that Ind(X)=0, then X is totally disconnected.

3. Abbott Dimension In this section we will define the Abbott dimension of Hausdorff spaces. We will show that this property is a topological invariant, that it satisfies the subspace theorem, and (most importantly for a definition of dimension) we will show that the Abbott dimension of Rn is n. However, before doing any of this some discussion of the inspiration for our definition, Edwin Abbott’s novel Flatland, is warranted.

The story of Flatland is broken up into two parts. The first part is an explanation of the eponymous country Flatland, a two dimensional world resembling R2, as told by the protagonist, a square. The society of Flatland is designed to be a satirical take on the culture of England at the time (the Victorian era). The second half of the story is the part that is most relevant for us. In this part the square dreams of a visit to the zero dimensional Pointland and the one dimensional Lineland. Later the square is visited by a from Spaceland, a three dimensional world resembling R3, who to the square appears as a circle of varying diameter. The sphere takes the square on a journey to three dimensional Spaceland. Throughout one finds that the notion of being from a “higher dimension” means that you can see “inside” the bodies of lower dimensional beings. Taking from the text we have the following quotes Though he had heard my voice when I first addressed him, the sounds had come to him in a manner so contrary to his experience that he had made no answer, “seeing no man,” as he expressed it, ”and hearing a voice as it were from my own intestines.” Until the moment when I placed my mouth in his World, he had neither seen me, nor heard anything except confused - sounds beating against - what I called his side, but what he called his inside or stomach; nor had he even now the least conception of the region from which I had come. -The square describing the king of Lineland Once more I felt myself rising through space. It was even as the Sphere had said. The further we receded from the object we beheld, 4 JEREMY SIEGERT

the larger became the field of vision. My native city, with the interior of every house and every creature therein, lay open to my view in miniature. We mounted higher, and lo, the secrets of the earth, the depths of mines and inmost caverns of the hills, were bared before me. -The square looking on Flatland from a three dimensional perspective One can find other quotes that display the idea of being able to “see inside” things of lower from a higher dimensional perspective. The task of defining dimension using this idea is then to formalize this notion of “sight”. We do so in the following way. Throughout the remainder of this paper all spaces are assume to be Hausdorff. For points x, y in a space X, not necessarily distinct, let C(x,y,X) be the collection of open connected subsets of X that contain both x and y. Definition 3.1. Let X be a nonempty Hausdorff space. We define the Abbott dimension of X, denoted Ab(X), in the following way. Let X0 denote the power set of X. Assuming Xn has been defined for n ≥ 0 define Xn+1 to be the collection of subsets Y ⊆ X for which there is some K ∈ Xn such that: (1) K ⊆ Y . (2) There is a z ∈ Y \ K such that for every x ∈ K there is a continuum Wx,z ⊆ Y containing x and z. (3) With z, x as in the previous item, there is a continuum Wx,z containing x and z such that for every open neighbourhood U of x in K there is a VU ∈ C(x,y,Y ) containing Wx,z such that x ∈ VU ∩ K ⊆ clY (VU ) ∩ K ⊆ U. Moreover, C(x,y,Y ) contains a neighborhood basis for Wx,z in Y . (4) If {Vα}α∈S is a collection of open sets in C(x,y,Y ) satisfying the previous item then there is an open neighbourhood U of x in K such that for all Vα such that clY (Vα) ∩ K ⊆ U we have that there is a D ⊆ ∂Y Vα such that D ∈ Xn.

Then Ab(X) is defined to be the greatest n for which Xn =6 ∅. If Xn =6 ∅ for all n, then Ab(X) is said to be infinite. Finally, we define Ab(∅)= −1.

In the above definition if Yn ∈ Xn and Yn−1 ∈ Xn is such that Yn−1 can be used to show that Yn ∈ Xn then we say that Yn−1 witnesses that Yn ∈ Xn, and denote this Yn−1 ≪n Yn. We also call the point z used in item (2), an observation point.

Before continuing some discussion of this definition is required. In short, the definition says that if a space X contains an n dimensional subspace that it can “see inside of” from some higher dimensional perspective, then it must be at least n + 1 dimensional. The continuum required in item (2) is meant to be a “line of sight” from the point of observation z to the point in the smaller dimensional subspace. The requirement for a connected basis of open sets about the continuum is meant to formalize being able to “narrow your gaze” onto whatever point in the ABBOTT DIMENSION 5 smaller dimensional subspace. Finally the requirement on the boundaries of those connected open sets is meant to formalize the perspective from z actually being a higher dimensional perspective.

Example 3.2. The Abbott dimension of a singleton is 0. Similarly, the Abbott dimension of any totally disconnected space is 0. A useful obvious fact is the following.

Lemma 3.3. Given a space and k ∈ N we have that Xk+1 ⊆ Xk. What one may immediately ask is if X is a space such that Ab(X)= n must it be the case that X ∈ Xn? The answer to this is no as can be seen in the following example. Example 3.4. Let X =({0}×{0}×R)∪{(q,r,s) | q,r,s ∈ Q, s ≥ 0}∪{(x, y, 0) ∈ 3 2 2 3 R | x + y ≤ 1} with the metric inherited from R . Then X ∈ X1 because of the negative part of the y-axis. However, X∈ / X2 as no open subset containing a point of the disc is connected. However, the disc itself is an element of X2. We will find it useful to work with spaces (or subspaces) X such that Ab(X)= n and X ∈ Xn. We codify this property in the following definition. Definition 3.5. We say that a space X is a model space if Ab(X) = sup{n ∈ N | X ∈ Xn}. Similarly, if Y ⊆ X is a subspace such that Ab(Y )= n and Y ∈ Xn we call Y a model subspace. Proposition 3.6. If X is a space with Ab(X) = n, then X contains a model subspace Y such that Ab(Y )= n.

Proof. If Ab(X) = n, then Xn =6 ∅ so there is a Y ⊆ X such that Y ∈ Xn. For every subspace K ⊆ Y we have that K ∈ Xm for some m ≤ n because Ab(X)= n. Therefore Y is a model subspace.  Corollary 3.7. If (X,d) is a nonempty metric space such that Ab(X)=0, then X is a model space. The definition of Ab, while inductive in nature, takes on a different flavor than the inductive dimensions Ind and ind in that, with the latter two dimension func- tions it is often easier to provide upper bounds for the dimension of space. However, with Ab the opposite is true. For a space X, establishing Ab(X) ≥ n only requires finding a nested sequence of n + 1 subspaces Y0 ≪1 Y1 ≪2 ··· ≪n Yn ⊆ X. In- deed, for R3 one may use a point, then a line segment containing that point, then a square one of whose sides is the segment, and finally a cube having that square as a side to show that Ab(R3) ≥ 3. In general we have, Proposition 3.8. For every n ≥ 1, Ab(Rn) ≥ n. 6 JEREMY SIEGERT

In what follows it will often be convenient to speak of nest sequence of subspaces as above. For the sake of brevity we give the following definition. Definition 3.9. A dimensional profile or simply profile of a space with Abbott dimension n is an ascending sequence of subspaces Y0,...,Yn such that Y0 ≪1 Y1 ≪2 ···≪n Yn. A profile Y0,...,Yn for a space X is called a model profile if Yn = Xn and Yk is a model space for each k. Given a property P , we will refer to a profile Y1,...,Yn for a metric space X as a P profile for X if every Yk has property P (e.g. a connected profile). If Ab(X)= ∞ we define a profile to be an infinite sequence of subspaces (Yi)i∈N such that Yi ≪i+1 Yi+1 for each i. Lemma 3.10. Every model space X of finite Abbott dimension admits a model profile. Proof. Let X be a given model space with Ab(X) = n. Then there is an element K ∈ Xn−1 such that K ≪n X. As K ⊆ X we have that Ab(K) ≤ n, and so by Proposition 3.6 there must be a model subspace Yn−1 ⊆ K with the same Abbott dimension as K. Because K witnesses X being in Xn and Yn−1 is a subset of K we have that Yn−1 witnesses X being in Xn as well. We may repeat this process to find Yk for 3 ≤ k ≤ n − 2, yielding a model profile for X.  Proposition 3.11. If X is a space with Ab(X)= n> 0, then for all 0 ≤ k ≤ n−1 there is a Y ⊆ X such that Ab(Y )= k. Proof. If k is such that 1 ≤ k ≤ n − 1 and there is no Y ⊆ X for which Ab(Y )= k then Xk = Xk+1. We will show that Xk = Xk+i for all i ≥ 1. If Y1 ∈ Xk+1 and Y2 ∈ Xk is a witnessing subset then there is a z ∈ Y1 such that for all x ∈ Y2 and every open U ⊆ Y2 containing x and z there is a V ∈ C(x,z,Y1) that witnesses z being a perspective point and there is some D ⊆ ∂Y1 (V ) that is in Xk. However, as Xk = Xk+1 we have that both Y2 and some D are in Xk+1, so Y1 ∈ Xk+2. As Xk+2 ⊆ Xk+1 we then have that Xk+1 = Xk+2. Inductively we have our claim. This implies that Xk =6 ∅ for all k ∈ N which contradicts Ab(X)= n.  Theorem 3.12. If (X,d) is locally connected then X is a model space.

Proof. Assume that X ∈ Xm, X∈ / Xm+1, and Y ⊆ X is such that Y ∈ Xn for some n > m. Let Y2 ∈ Xn−1 witness Y ∈ Xn. If V ⊆ Y is a connected open set used to show Y ∈ Xn, then by the local connectedness of X we have that U = Vˆ ∩ Y for some connected open Vˆ ⊆ X. As ∂Y V ⊆ ∂X Vˆ we have that if Y ∈ Xn, then so must be X, contradicting X∈ / Xm+1. Therefore, X is a model space.  Corollary 3.13. Rn is a model space for every n ≥ 1. The next two results are easy consequences of the definition of Abbott dimension, but are none the less part of the bare minimum of the properties a dimension function ought to satisfy. ABBOTT DIMENSION 7

Theorem 3.14. If Y is a subspace of a space X, then Ab(Y ) ≤ Ab(X).

Proof. If X is a space and Y ⊆ X then for all K1,K2 ⊆ Y such that K1 ≪n K2 then K1 ∈ Yn−1 and K2 ∈ Yn. Continua in K2 are continua regardless of whether or not K2 is considered as subspace of Y or X. Similarly open connected subsets of K2 are open connected subsets of K2 regardless of whether K2 is considered as a subset of Y or X. Therefore K2 ∈ Xn and K1 ∈ Xn−1. Moreover K1 ≪n K2 as subsets of X. Therefore if n is the greatest natural number for which Yn =6 ∅ then Xn =6 ∅ as well. Therefore Ab(Y ) ≤ Ab(X).  Theorem 3.15. If X and Y are homeomorphic spaces, then Ab(X)= Ab(Y ). Proof. This result is immediate upon noting that homeomorphisms are continuous bijections that preserve open connected sets, continua, and neighborhood bases.  What remains to be shown for Abbott dimension is that it satisfies what is perhaps the most critical property of a dimension function, that the dimension of Rn is n. To do this we make use of Proposition 3.8 and the fact that we are about to establish, that Abbott dimension is bounded above by the large inductive dimension on separable metric spaces. Theorem 3.16. Let X be a separable model metric space with Ab(X) = n < ∞. Then Ind(X) ≥ n. Proof. As Ab(X) = 0 implies that X =6 ∅ we have that Ab(X) = 0 implies that Ind(X) ≥ 0. If Ab(X) = 1, then X necessarily contains a nontrivial connected set (some Wx,z as in the definition of Ab(X)) and Ind(X) = 0 implies X is totally disconnected, so Ind(X) ≥ 1. Now assume that the result holds for Ab(X) < n where n ≥ 2 and assume towards a contradiction that Ab(X)= n and Ind(X)= m < n where m ≥ 0 (note that Ind(X) = −1 yields an immediate contradiction as X =6 ∅). Then let Y0,Y1,...,Yn−1,X be a model profile for X. Let z ∈ X \ Yn−1 be a perspective point. If x ∈ Yn−1 and Wx,z ⊆ X is a continuum joining x and z as in the definition of Ab(X) then because the collection C(x,z,X) contains a neighborhood basis for Wx,z we have that there is some open subset V ⊆ X of Wx,z such that for all open Vˆ ⊆ X with Wx,z ⊆ Vˆ ⊆ V we have that Ind(∂X Vˆ ) ≤ m − 1 < n − 1. By the definition of Ab(X) we must have that there is a D ⊆ ∂X Vˆ such that D ⊆ Xn−1. As Ab(D) is finite there must be some H ⊆ D ⊆ Vˆ such that Ab(H) = n − 1. However, we then must have that Ind(H) ≤ m − 1 by Theorem 2.3. This contradicts our inductive hypothesis. Therefore Ind(X) ≥ n.  Theorem 3.17. Let X be a separable model metric space with Ab(X)= ∞. Then Ind(X)= ∞. Proof. Assume that X is a compact model metric space with Ab(X)= ∞. Assume towards a contradiction that Ind(X)= n< ∞. First note that Theorem 3.16 tells 8 JEREMY SIEGERT us that X can not contain any subspace Y such that Ab(Y ) > n. Certainly Ind(X) can not be 0 as that would imply that X is totally disconnected, but X contains nontrivial connected sets. Assume then Ind(X) > m for all m

V ⊆ Y3n as in the definition of Ab(Y3n) such that Ind(∂Y3n V ) ≤ n − 1 and that there is some D ⊆ ∂Y3n V that is in X3n−1. By Theorem 2.3 we must have that Ind(D) ≤ n − 1. Again employing Theorem 3.16 we must have that Ab(D) = ∞. However, this contradicts the inductive hypothesis that Ab(D) = ∞ implies that Ind(D) > m for all m < n. Therefore we must have that Ind(X) > n. Consequently, Ind(X)= ∞.  Corollary 3.18. If X is a separable metric space with Ab(X) < ∞ then Ab(X) ≤ Ind(X). Proof. If X is a separable metric space with Ab(X) = n, then there is a model subspace Y ⊆ X with Ab(Y ) = n by Proposition 3.6. By Theorem 3.16 we must have that Ab(Y ) ≤ Ind(Y ) and by Theorem 2.3, Ind(Y ) ≤ Ind(X). Then Ab(X)= Ab(Y ) ≤ Ind(Y ) ≤ Ind(X).  Corollary 3.19. For all n ≥ 1, Ab(Rn)= n.

4. Inequivalence of Ab with classical definitions In this section we will show that Abbott dimension does not agree with the classical definitions of dimension. Specifically we will show that the Abbott di- mension of the Knaster-Kuratowski fan is 0 while its large inductive dimension is 1. Then we will show that the Abbott dimension of hereditarily indecomposable continua is at most 1. However, as shown by Bing in [2], there are hereditarily indecomposable continua of arbitrarily high covering dimension (and consequently large inductive and small inductive dimension).

Let’s begin with the Knaster-Kuratowski fan. Its construction is as follows (and as found in [9]):

2 1 1 Let C denote the one thirds Cantor set in [0, 1] ×{0} ⊆ R and let z = 2 , 2 . Then let Y be the union of all line segments joining z to points of C. For a particular x ∈ C let Lx be the line segment in Y joining x to z. Now let C1 ⊆ C be the set of points that appear as endpoints of intervals removed in the construction of C, and let C2 be the complement of C1 in C. If x ∈ C1 define Lˆx = {(r, s) | s ∈ Q}. Similarly, if x ∈ C2 define Lˆx = {(r, s) | s∈ / Q}. The Knaster-Kuratowski fan ˆ is the space X = Sx∈C Lx. ABBOTT DIMENSION 9

The fan is well known for being a space that is connected, but not locally connected. It also has what is known as a dispersion point. That is, the point 1 1 z = 2 , 2  is such that X \{z} is totally disconnected. Theorem 4.1. If X is the Knaster Kuratowski fan, then Ab(X)=0 and Ind(X)= 1. Proof. As X is nonempty we have that Ab(X) ≥ 0. However, as X does not contain any nontrivial continua we have that Ab(X) < 1. Therefore Ab(X) = 0. However, as X is connected we must have that Ind(X) ≥ 1. Meanwhile X has empty interior in R2 and therefore Ind(X) < 1, so Ind(X) = 1.  Definition 4.2. A metric continuum K is called indecomposable if K can not be written as the union of two proper subcontinua. We say that K is hereditarily indecomposable if every subcontinuum of K is also indecomposable. Hereditarily indecomposable have the property that if two subcontinua intersect, then one must be contianed in the other. That is, if K is a hereditarily indecom- posable continuum and K1,K2 ⊆ K are subcontinua such that K1 ∩ K2 =6 ∅ then either K1 ⊆ K2 or K2 ⊆ K1. Theorem 4.3. If X is a hereditarily indecomposable continuum, then Ab(X) ≤ 1, and Ab(X)=0 if and only if X is a singleton. Proof. If X is not a singleton, then because X is a continuum we have that Ab(X) ≥ 1. Assume Y1 ≪k Y2 for some k with z ∈ Y2 an observation point. If x1, x2 ∈ Y1 are distinct points, then there are disjoint open neighbourhoods

U1, U2 ⊆ Y1 containing x1 and x2 respectively. Then there is a continuum Wz,x1 ⊆ Y2 that contains x1 and z. Moreover, there is a connected open V1 ⊆ Y2 containing

Wz,x1 and such that x1 ∈ clY2 (V1) ∩ Y1 ⊆ U1. Similarly there is a continuum Wz,x2 and corresponding connected open set V2 ⊆ Y2. However, as z is an element of

Wz,x1 and Wz,x2 we must have that Wz,x1 ⊆ Wz,x2 or Wz,x2 ⊆ Wz,x1 . This would imply that clY2 (V1) ∩ Y1 6⊆ U1 and clY2 (V2) ∩ Y1 6⊆ U2. This is a contradiction. Our beginning assumption was that Y1 contained distinct points. We must then have that Y1 is a singleton, and singletons are in X0 and no other Xk. Therefore we have that Ab(X) ≤ 1.  We conclude with a question about axiomatizations. Specifically, axiomatiza- tions for the covering dimension dim are given by Hayashi for Euclidean subspaces and separable metric spaces in [5] and [6], and for general metric spaces by Char- alambous in [3]. As Abbott dimension does not agree with dim on separable metric spaces or first question is:

Question 4.4. Which axioms in the axiomatizations of Hayashi and Charalambous are not satisfied by Ab? 10 JEREMY SIEGERT

The next two questions concern themselves with the relationship between Ab- bott dimension and the classical definitions directly.

Question 4.5. Are there metric continua X1,X2 such that dim(X1)= dim(X2), but Ab(X1) =6 Ab(X2). A positive answer to the above question would indicate that Abbott dimension is not a “poorer” invariant than the classical definitions of dimension.

Our final question is aimed at a more abstract goal. Given two dimension func- tions d1 and d2 we may have that the functions induce compatible order structures on a class of spaces. Made more explicit, we might say that given a class E of topological spaces that dimension functions d1,d2 : E → N ∪ {−1, 0, ∞} are com- mensurable if the identity mapping on the class E is monotone. That is, d1 and d2 are commensurable if either d1(X)

Question 4.6. Are Abbott dimension and the classical definitions of dimension commensurable on continua? That is, for all continua X,Y do we have that

(Ab(X) < Ab(Y )) =⇒ (dim(X) ≤ dim(Y )) or

(dim(X) < dim(Y )) =⇒ (Ab(X) ≤ Ab(Y )) Finding a (subjectively) intuitive definition of dimension d that is topologically invariant, satisfies the subspace theorem, and satisfies d(Rn) = n that is also incommensurable with the classical definitions of dimension on continua could provide some very interesting insights into our conception of “dimension”.

References [1] Edwin A. Abbott. Flatland. MAA Spectrum. Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. An edition with notes and commentary by William F. Lindgren and Thomas F. Banchoff. [2] R. H. Bing. Higher-dimensional hereditarily indecomposable continua. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 71:267–273, 1951. ABBOTT DIMENSION 11

[3] M. G. Charalambous. Axiomatic characterizations of the dimension of metric spaces. Topology Appl., 60(2):117–130, 1994. [4] Ryszard Engelking. Dimension theory, volume 19 of North-Holland Mathemat- ical Library. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-Oxford-New York; PWN—Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw, 1978. Translated from the Polish and revised by the author. [5] Yoshiaki Hayashi. An axiomatic characterization of the dimension of subsets of Euclidean spaces. Topology Appl., 37(1):83–92, 1990. [6] Yoshiaki Hayashi. Axiomatic characterization of the dimension of separable metric spaces. S¯ugaku, 44(2):181–183, 1992. [7] Witold Hurewicz and Henry Wallman. Dimension Theory. Princeton Mathe- matical Series, vol. 4. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1941. [8] A. R. Pears. Dimension theory of general spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England-New York-Melbourne, 1975. [9] Lynn Arthur Steen and J. Arthur Seebach, Jr. Counterexamples in topology. Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY, 1995. Reprint of the second (1978) edition. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA Email address: [email protected]