1
$\begingroup$

Let's call a space $(X,\tau)$ minimal $T_0$ if it is $T_0$ and for every topology $\sigma\subseteq \tau$ with $\sigma \neq \tau$ we have that $(X,\sigma)$ is not $T_0$ any more.

We say $x\leq y$ in a $T_0$-space $(X,\tau)$ if and only if every open neighborhood of $x$ is an open neighborhood of $y$. It's easy to verify that for $T_0$-spaces, this relation is a partial order. We call it the partial order associated to $(X,\tau)$.

Question: if $(X,\tau)$ is minimal $T_0$, is the associated order total?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ An interesting follow up question would be "if $(X,\mathcal{T})$ is a $T_{0}$-space, then does there exist a minimal $T_{0}$-space $(X,\mathcal{S})$ with $\mathcal{S}\subseteq\mathcal{T}$?" $\endgroup$ – Joseph Van Name Apr 5 '15 at 2:48
5
$\begingroup$

This conjecture is correct. I claim that if the topological space is minimal $T_{0}$, then the specialization ordering is total. We shall prove this result by contrapositive, so we shall show that if the specialization ordering is not linear, the the topology is not a minimal $T_{0}$. The idea in this proof is similar to the proof that Joel David Hamkins gave for finite spaces. If the specialization ordering is not a linear ordering, then we want to extend the specialization ordering to a larger partial ordering and give that larger partial ordering a smaller $T_{0}$ topology. However, instead of extending the partial ordering all the way to a linear ordering, we shall extend the partial ordering in a minimal way so that we can control the new partial ordering and new topology since Zorn's lemma does not give us much control over the new topology.

Suppose that $(X,\mathcal{T})$ is a $T_{0}$-space and let $\leq$ denote the specialization ordering on $X$. Suppose that $\leq$ is not a total ordering.

Since $X$ is not total ordering, there are two element $p,q\in X$ with $p\not\leq q$ and $q\not\leq p$. We shall now extend the partial ordering $\leq$ to a larger partial ordering $\preceq$ on $X$ so that $p\preceq q$ in the least way.

Define $\preceq$ to be the relation such that $x\preceq y$ if and only if $x\leq y$ or $x\leq p,q\leq y$. I claim that $\preceq$ is a partial ordering, and the proof that $\preceq$ is a partial ordering is a routine verification.

Reflexivity: The ordering $\leq$ is clearly reflexive.

Transitivity: Now assume that $x\preceq y$ and $y\preceq z$. Then we shall prove that $\preceq$ is transitive in the four following cases:

Case 1. $x\leq y;y\leq z$: Clearly $x\leq z$, so $x\preceq z$.

Case 2. $x\leq y;y\leq p,q\leq z$: In this case, $x\leq p,q\leq z$, so $x\preceq z$

Case 3. $x\leq p,q\leq y;y\leq z$: We have $x\leq p,q\leq z$, so $x\preceq z$

Case 4. $x\leq p,q\leq y;y\leq p,q\leq z$: We have $x\leq p,q\leq z$, so $x\preceq z$.

Symmetry: Suppose that $x\preceq y,y\preceq x$. Then we shall prove $x=y$ in the following four cases:

Case 1. $x\leq y;y\leq x$: Clearly $x=y$.

Case 2. $x\leq y;y\leq p,q\leq x$: This case is impossible for it implies that $q\leq x\leq y\leq p$ hence $q\leq p$ a contradiction.

Case 3. $x\leq p,q\leq y;y\leq x$: This case also impossible since it implies that $q\leq y\leq x\leq p$ which is also a contradiction.

Case 4. $x\leq p,q\leq y;y\leq p,q\leq x$: This case is impossible as well since it implies that $p\leq x\leq q$, a contradiction.

We therefore conclude that $\preceq$ is a partial ordering. Now give $X$ the topology $\mathcal{S}$ generated by the subbasis $(\downarrow^{\preceq}x)^{c}$ where $\downarrow^{\preceq}x=\{r\in X|r\preceq x\}$. Then $\preceq$ is the specialization ordering on $\mathcal{S}$. I now claim that $\mathcal{S}\subseteq\mathcal{T}$ and we shall prove this claim by showing that each downset $\downarrow^{\preceq}z$ is closed in $\mathcal{T}$ in two cases.

Case 1: $q\not\leq z$. Suppose that $q\not\leq z$. Then $x\preceq z$ if and only if $x\leq z$ or $x\leq p,q\leq z$. However, since $q\not\leq z$, we have $x\preceq z$ if and only if $x\leq z$. Therefore, $\downarrow^{\preceq}z=\downarrow^{\leq}z$, so $\downarrow^{\preceq}z$ is closed in $X$.

Case 2: $q\leq z$. Suppose that $q\leq z$. Then $x\preceq z$ if and only if $x\leq z$ or $x\leq p,q\leq z$. However, since $q\leq z$, we conclude that $x\preceq z$ if and only if $x\leq z$ or $x\leq p$. Therefore $\downarrow^{\preceq}z=\downarrow^{\leq}z\cup\downarrow^{\leq}p$, so $\downarrow^{\preceq}z$ is closed in $\mathcal{T}$.

We have now shown that each set $\downarrow^{\preceq}z$ is closed in $(X,\mathcal{T})$, so each set $(\downarrow^{\preceq}z)^{c}$ is open in $(X,\mathcal{T})$. Since $\mathcal{S}$ is generated by the subbasis consisting of the sets of the form $(\downarrow^{\preceq}z)^{c}$, we conclude that $\mathcal{S}\subseteq\mathcal{T}$. Furthermore, we have $\mathcal{S}\neq\mathcal{T}$ since these spaces have different specialization orderings.

$\textbf{Remark}$ The minimal $T_{0}$-spaces are in a one-to-one correspondence with the class of all totally ordered sets since every totally ordered set has a unique minimal $T_{0}$-topology. In particular, if $(X,\leq)$ is a totally ordered set, then the unique minimal $T_{0}$-topology on $X$ is generated by the basis consisting of sets of the form $\{x\in X|x>x_{0}\}$. In particular, if $A\subseteq X$, then $A$ is open if and only if $A$ is an upwards closed set and either $A$ has no least element or $A$ has a least element $a$ and $a$ has an immediate predecessor.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Let me show at least that for a finite space $X$, the answer is yes. Suppose that $(X,\tau)$ is a minimal $T_0$ topology on a finite set $X$, and that $\leq$ is the associated specialization order that you define, which since the space is $T_0$ we know is a partial order, rather than merely a pre-order, as it is for topological spaces in general. Note that every open set is an up-set, but also, the converse is true in a finite space: in a finite space, a set is open if and only if it is an up-set.

Every partial order extends to a total order, so let $\leq^*$ be a total order on $X$ extending $\leq$, and let $\tau^*$ be the associated topology, so that the $\tau^*$ open sets are the up-sets with respect to $\leq^*$. Since every set that is upward closed with respect to $\leq^*$ is also upward closed with respect to $\leq$, it follows that $\tau^*\subset\tau$. And $\tau^*$ is $T_0$, because $\leq^*$ is a total order. By minimality, therefore, we conclude $\tau=\tau^*$, and it follows that $\leq=\leq^*$ and so the specialization order is linear.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nice! Maybe the argument can be made to work for infinite spaces as well? $\endgroup$ – Dominic van der Zypen Mar 31 '15 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is what I had hoped, but I haven't yet managed it. $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Mar 31 '15 at 13:34
  • $\begingroup$ Joseph, please go ahead and post it! $\endgroup$ – Joel David Hamkins Mar 31 '15 at 14:07

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.