3
$\begingroup$

An arbitrary union, or a finite intersection, of open sets in a topological space is again open. What name is given to the hypothetical property that an arbitrary intersection of open sets is open?

As an example, consider a partially ordered set $X$. Call a subset $U\subseteq X$ open if $y\le x\in U$ implies $y\in U$. (Bonus question: Are there other interesting examples?)

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It suffices in your example for the order relation to be only a pre-order. That is, you can allow x <= y <= x for distinct x, y. With this addition, the property is fully equivalent. Define x <= y if x is in every open set that y is in. $\endgroup$ Mar 16, 2010 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ Right; I noticed that in the Wikipedia article linked to from the answer. $\endgroup$ Mar 16, 2010 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ Does "arbitrary" intersection should include "empty" intersection? Then the whole space must be "open". Similarly, arbitrary union means the empty set is "open". This is what I would call a "complete lattice of sets". $\endgroup$ Mar 16, 2010 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerald: Yes. But the whole space, and the empty set, are already open per the definition of topology. Surely, “complete lattice of sets” is correct, but not so good when I wish to emphasize the topology aspect. So I'll stick with Alexandrov space. $\endgroup$ Mar 16, 2010 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ Harald: the reason I asked was that your original example usually does not have the whole space open. $\endgroup$ Mar 16, 2010 at 17:43

2 Answers 2

16
$\begingroup$

Alexandrov spaces.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Alexandrov topology and Alexandrov-discrete space are OK, but "Alexandrov spaces" is mostly used for something else... $\endgroup$ Mar 16, 2010 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ Peter May uses ‘Alexandrov space’ (really, ‘A-space’): math.uchicago.edu/~may/MISC/FiniteSpaces.pdf. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Mar 31, 2010 at 1:22
2
$\begingroup$

Harald, as Peter May observes in his notes on finite topological spaces (but as must already be standard), your pre-ordered sets provide the only examples. Indeed, if $X$ is an Alexandrov space (or Alexandrov-discrete space, whatever the terminology is), then we may impose a pre-order on it by demanding for $x, y \in X$ that $x \le y$ if and only if $x$ lies in every neighbourhood of $y$. This becomes a genuine partial order exactly when $X$ is $T_0$.

(Sorry; I didn't realise until after posting that Joel had already said this.)

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ In general, this is not a partial order, but only a partial pre-order, since it may be that x and y are distinct, but lie in all the same open sets together. But with pre-orders, what you say is true (and was observed previously in the comments to the question). $\endgroup$ Mar 31, 2010 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ Joel, thanks; I'm sorry that I missed your comment. I also forgot that we weren't assuming the spaces were $T_0$. Should I delete this answer? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Mar 31, 2010 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, its no problem. Probably its fine to keep the answer, if you correct it to explain about the pre-order business. But I think this issue also appears on the Wikipedia page. $\endgroup$ Mar 31, 2010 at 1:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.