This is a follow-up question to Existence of injective neighborhood selection function as separation axiom.

Let $(X, \tau)$ be a topological space. If there is an injective map $f:X\to\tau$ such that $x\in f(x)$ for all $x\in X$, we call $f$ an injective neighborhood selection map.

We say a space is critical if it has an injective neighborhood selection map and every such map $f:X\to\tau$ is "almost surjective", i.e. $\text{im}(f) = \tau\setminus\{\emptyset\}$.

For example, if $\alpha$ is an ordinal, consider $\tau_\alpha = \{\emptyset\} \cup \{\alpha\setminus \beta: \beta \in \alpha\}$, which is the topology of upper sets. Then $(\alpha,\tau_\alpha)$ is critical.

Is every critical space isomorphic to $(\alpha, \tau_\alpha)$ for some ordinal $\alpha$? If not, is there an example of a critical space that is $T_1$ or even Hausdorff?

[EDIT: The second question has become obsolete, see Eric Wofsey's comment below.]

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A $T_1$ space (with more than one point) certainly can't be critical, because you can choose $f$ such that $X\setminus f(x)$ always has only one point. $\endgroup$ Mar 12 '15 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ That's right - thanks Eric! So the second part of the question is obsolete.. But I have no idea about the first part. $\endgroup$ Mar 12 '15 at 12:05

The answer is no. Consider the space $X=\{0,1,2\}$ with the topology $\tau=\{\emptyset,\{0\},\{1,2\},X\}$. There are precisely two injective neighborhood selectors, both of which are almost surjective in your sense. Namely, we must map $0\mapsto\{0\}$ and then $1$ and $2$ get mapped to $\{1,2\}$ and $X$, in either way.

So this space is critical in your sense, but the topology is not of your form $\tau_\alpha$ for any ordinal $\alpha$. For example, it is not $T_0$, since we cannot separate $1$ and $2$.

  • $\begingroup$ This example also appears in an answer at the other question: mathoverflow.net/a/199567/1946 $\endgroup$ Mar 12 '15 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ But there is also an i.n.sel. which is not almost surjective, namely such that $\ f(1)=f(2)=\{1\ 2\}$ (hence the above is not a counter-example). $\endgroup$
    – Wlod AA
    Dec 15 '18 at 4:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WlodAA That map is not injective. $\endgroup$ Dec 15 '18 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ Joel, thank you -- indeed, I forgot about the injectivity condition, my fault. $\endgroup$
    – Wlod AA
    Dec 16 '18 at 5:56

I claim that every finite $T_{0}$ critical space is isomorphic to $(n,\tau_{n})$.

Suppose that $X$ is a finite $T_{0}$-space. Let $\leq$ be the specialization ordering on $X$. Then $U\subseteq X$ is open if and only if $U$ is upwards closed. Then each finite $T_{0}$-space has an injective selector map, namely $x\mapsto{\uparrow}x$ is a neighborhood selector map.

Now suppose that $X$ is not linearly ordered. Then there are two elements $r,s\in X$ with $r\not\leq s$ and $s\not\leq r$. Then ${\uparrow}r\cup{\uparrow}s$ has no least element, so ${\uparrow}r\cup{\uparrow}s\neq{\uparrow}x$ whenever $x\in X$. Therefore $|X|<|\mathcal{T}\setminus\{\emptyset\}|$, so there is no surjective neighborhood selector map.

Therefore if $X$ is a finite critical $T_{0}$-space, then the specialization ordering on $X$ is a linear ordering and hence isomorphic to $(n,\tau_{n})$.

$\textbf{added 3/14/2015}$

I claim that the specialization ordering on any critical $T_{0}$-space must be well-founded. Suppose to the contrary that $(X,\mathcal{T})$ is a critical $T_{0}$-topological space whose specialization ordering is not well founded. Then there is some injective neighborhood selection map $j:X\rightarrow\mathcal{T}\setminus\{\emptyset\}$. However, since $X$ is not well-founded, there is a descending sequence $x_{0}>x_{1}>x_{2}>x_{3}>...$ Since $j(x_{n+1})$ is an upwards closed set containing $x_{n+1}$, we have $x_{n}\in j(x_{n+1})$ as well.

Now define a mapping $k:X\rightarrow\mathcal{T}\setminus\{\emptyset\}$ by letting $k(x_{n})=j(x_{n+1})$ for all $n\in\omega$ and where $k(x)=j(x)$ whenever $x\in X\setminus\{x_{n}|n\in\omega\}$. Then $k$ is an injective neighborhood selector map which is not surjective onto $\mathcal{T}\setminus\{\emptyset\}$. We conclude that every critical $T_{0}$-topological space has a well-founded specialization ordering.

I however claim that not every $T_{0}$-critical space is isomorphic to $(\alpha,\tau_{\alpha})$. Let $X=(\omega+1)\cup\{0'\}$ where $0'$ takes the place of an extra zero. Partially order $X$ by letting $\omega+1$ have its original partial ordering and where $0'\leq n$ whenever $n\neq 0$ but where $0\not\leq 0',0'\not\leq 0$. Give $X$ the topology $\mathcal{T}$ where a set $U\subseteq X$ is declared to be open if $U$ is upwards closed and where if $\omega\in U$ then $n\in U$ for some $n\in\omega$. Then $\leq$ is the specialization ordering for the topology $\mathcal{T}$.

I first claim that there is an injective neighborhood selector function. Simply let $j(0)=X\setminus\{0'\},j(0')=X\setminus\{0\},j(\omega)=X$ and $j(n)=\uparrow n$ for all $n\in\omega\setminus\{0\}$.

However, I claim that every injective neighborhood selector function is bijective. Suppose that $j:X\rightarrow\mathcal{T}\setminus\{\emptyset\}$ is a neighborhood selector function. Suppose that $j(\omega)\in X,X\setminus\{0\},X\setminus\{0'\}$. Then we have function $j[\{\omega,0,0'\}]\subseteq\{X,X\setminus\{0\},X\setminus\{0'\}\}$. Therefore $j$ maps $\{\omega,0,0'\}$ onto $\{X,X\setminus\{0\},X\setminus\{0'\}\}$. Therefore one can prove by induction that $j(n)=\uparrow n$ for all $n$.

Now assume that $j(\omega)=\uparrow n$ for some $n>0$. Then $j[\{\omega,0,...,n-1,0'\}]\subseteq\{\uparrow 1,...,\uparrow n,X,X\setminus\{0\},X\setminus\{0'\}\}$.

However, since $|\{\omega,0,...,n-1,0'\}|=n+2$ and $|\{\uparrow 1,...,\uparrow n,X,X\setminus\{0\},X\setminus\{0'\}\}|=n+2$, we have $j[\{\omega,0,...,n-1,0'\}]=\{\uparrow 1,...,\uparrow n,X,X\setminus\{0\},X\setminus\{0'\}\}$. By induction, we can conclude $j(m)=\uparrow m$ for each $m\in\omega$ with $m>n$. In this case, the function $j$ will turn out to be surjective.

We conclude that the space $X$ is critical, but $X$ is not isomorphic to any $(\alpha,\tau_{\alpha})$.

  • $\begingroup$ Excellent results -- thanks Joseph! $\endgroup$ Mar 14 '15 at 17:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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