0
$\begingroup$

This question is in the spirit of another older question.

We say that a poset $(P,\leq)$ is Priestley-topologizable if there is a topology $\tau$ on $P$ such that $(P,\leq,\tau)$ is a Priestley space.

Is it true that a poset $(P,\leq)$ is Priestley-topologizable if and only if all its connected components are Priestley-topologizable?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Only one implication of the equivalence appearing in the question holds.

It is true that if each connected component of a poset $(P,\tau)$ can be endowed with a Priestley topology, then the same holds for the whole poset. There is a construction in the proof of Lemma 2.3 of this paper.

However, in the same paper in Lemma 2.4, a construction of a Priestley space $(P,\leq,\tau)$ is given such that one connected component of $(P,\leq)$ is not Priestley-topologizable.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A note -- if you're linking to arXiv, it's better to link to the abstract (arxiv.org/abs/0705.4259) rather than directly to the PDF. From the abstract, one can easily click through to the PDF; not so the reverse. And the abstract allows one to do things like see different versions of the paper, search for other things by the same authors, etc. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Harry Altman May 4 '15 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @HarryAltman , this makes sense, and I edited my post accordingly. $\endgroup$ – Dominic van der Zypen May 4 '15 at 10:55

Your Answer

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