Throughout this post, let $(P,\leq)$ be a poset. The interval topology $\tau_i(P)$ on $P$ is generated by $$\{P\setminus\downarrow x : x\in P\} \cup \{P\setminus\uparrow x : x\in P\},$$ where $\downarrow x = \{y\in P: y\leq x\}$ and $\uparrow x = \{y\in P: y\geq x\}$.

Now we define the order convergence topology, denoted by $\tau_o(P)$. By a set filter $\mathcal{F}$ on $P$ we mean a collection of subsets of $P$ such that:

  • $\emptyset \notin \mathcal{F}$;
  • $A, B\in \mathcal{F}$ implies $A\cap B\in \mathcal{F}$;
  • $U\in \mathcal{F}$, $U'\subseteq P$ and $U'\supseteq U$ implies $U'\in \mathcal{F}$.

If $S\subseteq P$ we define $S^u= \{x\in P: x\geq s\text{ for all } s\in S\}$, and $S^l= \{x\in P: x\leq s\text{ for all } s\in S\}$. If $\cal{F}$ is a set filter, then we set ${\cal F}^u = \bigcup\{F^u: F\in \cal{F}\}$ and define ${\cal F}^l$ similarly. For $x\in P$ and ${\cal F}$ a set filter on $P$ we write $${\cal F}\to x \textrm{ iff } \bigwedge\cal{F}^u = x = \bigvee \cal{F}^l.$$

Then we set $\tau_o(P)=\{U\subseteq P: \textrm{ for any } x\in U \text{ and any filter }\mathcal{F} \text{ with } \mathcal{F}\to x \text{ we have } U\in \mathcal{F}\}$. It is not hard to verify that this defines a topology.

Question: Given any poset $(P,\leq)$, does $\tau_i(P)\subseteq \tau_o(P)$ hold?


The answer is Yes, and it suffices to show that for $p\in P$ we have $(P\setminus \downarrow p) \in \tau_o(P)$ for all $p\in P$. (A similar argument then also shows that $(P\setminus \downarrow p) \in \tau_o(P)$, which proves that a subbasis of $\tau_i(P)$ is contained in $\tau_o(P)$.)

Let $x\in P\setminus \downarrow p$. This is equivalent to saying that $x\not\leq p$. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a filter such that $\mathcal{F}\to x$, so we have $x = \bigvee \mathcal{F}^l = \bigwedge\mathcal{F}^u$.

We assume that $(P\setminus\downarrow p)\not \in \mathcal{F}$ and derive a contradiction.

Now if $(P\setminus\downarrow p)\not \in \mathcal{F}$, then we have $F\cap \downarrow p \neq \emptyset$ for every $F\in\mathcal{F}$. We look at 2 cases concerning $\mathcal{F}^l$:

Case 1: $\mathcal{F}^l = \emptyset$. This implies that $x$ is the smallest element of $P$ because $x = \bigvee \emptyset$, but this means that $x\leq p$, contradicting our assumption.

Case 2: $\mathcal{F}^l \neq \emptyset$. So since every member $F\in\mathcal{F}$ intersects $\downarrow p$, we have $\mathcal{F}^l \subseteq \downarrow p$, which in turn implies $\bigvee \mathcal{F}^l \leq p$. But we have $\bigvee\mathcal{F}^l = x$, and $x\neq p$, contradiction.


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.