6
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathbb{S}$ be the Sierpinski space, that is $\mathbb{S}$ has $\{0,1\}$ as a base set, and $\tau = \{\emptyset, \{0\}, \{0,1\}\}$ as a topology.

The Sierpinski space $\mathbb{S}$ has the following property:

$(\star)$ Given any topological spaces $X,Y$ and a function $f:X\to Y$, then $f$ is continuous if for every continuous map $z:Y\to \mathbb{S}$ the map $z\circ f: X\to\mathbb{S}$ is continuous.

(Proof. If $f: X\to Y$ is not continuous, then there is $V\subseteq Y$ open such that $f^{-1}(V)$ is not open in $X$. Defining $z_V: Y\to \mathbb{S}$ as mapping $V$ to $0$ and $Y\setminus V$ to $1$ we immediately see that $z_V\circ f: X \to Z$ is not continuous.)

If a topological space $S$ has property $(\star)$ then we call it Sierpinski-like. (Maybe there is some standard terminology, but I wasn't able to find it.)

Soft question: How can Sierpinski-like spaces be characterized?

Concrete question: Do Sierpinski-like spaces have to be $T_0$? Or do they necessarily contain a non-empty open set $U_0$ such that $U_0\subseteq U$ for all open non-empty $U$?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Any space containing $\mathbb S$ as a subspace will work, hence the answer to both “concrete questions” is negative. $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2015 at 15:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ On second thought, that’s an if and only if characterization, actually. $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2015 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm I see - thanks! Maybe I should close the question - or alternatively, you can put your thoughts as an answer. $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2015 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ I always knew your Sierpiński's space as P.S.Alexandrov's space. Do you know the (hi)story? $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2015 at 16:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Regarding the origin of the terminology Sierpiński space, see my post on History of Science and Math. $\endgroup$
    – Lee Mosher
    Feb 16 at 13:01

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

The following are equivalent:

  1. $S$ is Sierpiński-like.

  2. $\mathbb S$ embeds in $S$ as a subspace.

  3. $S$ is not symmetric (i.e., $R_0$).

$2\to1$ follows from the facts that $\mathbb S$ is Sierpiński-like, and if $Y\subseteq Z$ is a subspace and $f\colon X\to Y$, then $f$ is continuous as a mapping $X\to Y$ iff it is continuous as a mapping $X\to Z$.

$2\leftrightarrow3$ is a restatement of the definition of $R_0$.

$1\to3$: If $S$ is $R_0$, then the points in the range of any continuous mapping $z\colon\mathbb S\to S$ are topologically indistinguishable, hence $z\circ f$ is continuous for any mapping $f\colon X\to\mathbb S$. Thus, taking any discontinuous mapping $X\to\mathbb S$ shows that $S$ is not Sierpiński-like.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not familiar with the non-symmetric*/$R_0 notion. Would you add it to your Answer? $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2015 at 16:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is not a terribly common separation axiom, it means that the Kolmogorov quotient is $T_1$. I’ve added a link to the definition. $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2015 at 17:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Emil, thank you (there is no end to the topological separation axioms :-) $\endgroup$ Jan 6, 2015 at 17:33

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.