2
$\begingroup$

In Gillman and Jerrison's book, "Rings of Continuous Functions", they show a nice relationship between the set of z-ideals in C(X) and the set of filters on X. One can go for with this relationship; for example, proving the smallest measurable cardinal (if any exist) is strongly inaccessible, seems to be better understood from a filter perspective (rather than ideal).

Now instead of considering the spectrum of a ring, is there any usefulness to consider the set of filters (which consist of algebraic sets), and defining a topology on it? It just seems like some things (like analytic stuff) would be more natural working in a filter setting.

I suppose for a variety V, you could work with something like Filt(V) instead of Spec(V). Where Filt(V) consists of fixed filters of a certain type (each filter would correspond to a variety). Is there any study of this kind? Or is this analogy not very useful?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Notice, that for a tychonoff space X, the stone-cech compactification of X characterizes the set of ultrafilters on X (i.e. the points of BX are in one-one correspondence with the ultrafilters on X). This seems like it could be a useful generalization of the spectrum of a ring (at least for the maximal ideals of it). $\endgroup$ – six Oct 22 '12 at 5:25
  • $\begingroup$ filters and ultrafilters are used in real algebraic geometry, which has more connections to logic than the classical one, it seems. $\endgroup$ – Dima Pasechnik Oct 22 '12 at 5:26
  • $\begingroup$ It seems like I remember seeing something about how the Stone-Cech Compactification characterizes the spectra of a C*-algebra (which generalizes spectrum of ring). However, this might only be useful (and true) when X satisfies some specific conditions (completely regular). $\endgroup$ – six Oct 22 '12 at 5:42
  • $\begingroup$ Posted on math.SE: math.stackexchange.com/questions/218242 $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Oct 22 '12 at 8:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ six: (1) In the first paragraph of the question, "nonmeasurable" should be "measurable". (2)In your first comment, the canonical bijection between ultrafilters on $X$ and points in its Stone-Cech compactification is only for discrete $X$. In general, the Stone-CEch compactification is a quotient of the space of ultrafilters (and depends on the topology of $X$). (3) I don't see much difference between working with a filter $F$ and working with the ideal of complements of elements of $F$ (except that you might have to move to a different lattice, e.g., open sets vs. closed sets). $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Oct 22 '12 at 11:40

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.