0
$\begingroup$

Let $\kappa$ be a cardinal, and let $\text{Top}(\kappa)$ be the set of topological spaces $(X,\tau)$ such that $X\subseteq \kappa$. We pre-order $\text{Top}(\kappa)$ by

for $X, Y \in \text{Top}(\kappa)$ we set $X \to Y$ iff there is a continuous surjective map $f:X\to Y$.

We say $X\simeq Y$ iff $X\to Y$ and $Y\to X$. So the relation $\geq$ on $\text{Top}(\kappa)/\simeq$ defined by $[X]_\simeq \geq [Y]_\simeq$ iff $X\to Y$ is well-defined, and $(\text{Top}(\kappa)/\simeq, \geq)$ is a poset.

Is $(\text{Top}(\kappa)/\simeq, \geq)$ also a lattice? Is it complete? Has it been studied anywhere?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure if the empty set is considered a topological space, but in the context of this question it certainly should not be. $\endgroup$ – Goldstern Mar 25 '15 at 11:01
  • $\begingroup$ The Rudin-Keisler ordering can be formulated in terms of continuous mappings between spaces. In particular, if $X,Y$ are discrete spaces, then each mapping $f:X\rightarrow Y$ extends uniquely to a continuous map $\overline{f}:\beta X\rightarrow\beta Y$ between the Stone-Cech compactifications. If $u\in\beta X,v\in\beta Y$, then $v\leq_{RK}u$ iff there is a continuous mapping $f:X\rightarrow Y$ such that $\overline{f}(u)=v$. Similarly, the Wadge heirarchy is another notion of reducibility by continuous mappings. $\endgroup$ – Joseph Van Name Mar 25 '15 at 18:58
1
$\begingroup$

A partial answer: It is not a lattice, at least if you allow non-Hausdorff spaces.

For any natural numbers $n$ and $k$, write $\bf n+k$ for the sum of an indiscrete space of size $n$ (i.e., a space that has no nontrivial open sets) and an indiscrete space of size $k$. Then both $\bf 4$ and $\bf 2+1$ are lower bounds for the set $\{\bf 2+2, \, 3+1 \}$, but there is no greatest lower bound.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I have seen this partial order before (for a specific context) in Hart J.E., Kunen K., Bohr compactifications of discrete structures, Fund. Math. 160 (1999). Let me briefly explain the situation considered there:

Fix a set $A$. A pair $(X,\varphi)$ is a compactification of $A$ if $X$ is a compact Hausdorff space and $\varphi:A \to X$ is a (not necessarily injective) function such that $\varphi(A)$ is dense in $X$. Define $(X,\varphi) \leq (Y,\psi)$ if there exists a continuous $f:Y \to X$ such that $f \circ \psi=\varphi$. Note that the last condition implies that $f$ is surjective since $f(\psi(A))$ is dense in $X$.

Now just as you did, they define the equivalence relation and the partial order on the set $\mathbb{K}(A)$ of all equivalence classes: $(X,\varphi) \sim (Y,\psi)$ if and only if $(X,\varphi) \leq (Y,\psi)$ and $ (Y,\psi) \leq (X,\varphi)$; $[(X,\varphi)] \leq [(Y,\psi)]$ if and only if $(X,\varphi) \leq (Y,\psi)$. The following is Lemma 2.2.7:

$\mathbb{K}(A)$ is a complete lattice.

You can also add a topology and/or a first order structure to the set $A$ and study a restricted version of compactifications. For instance this gives a way of defining the Bohr compactification of a topological group.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.