5
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a topological space and $\mathrm{RO}(X)$ its complete boolean algebra of regular opens. Define well inside relation: $$U\prec V\iff\overline{U}\subseteq V.$$ Let $\mathcal C\subseteq\mathrm{RO}(X)$ be a chain such that (a) any two distinct elements of $\mathcal C$ are comparable w.r.t. $\prec$ and (b) $\mathcal C$ is strictly descending, i.e. for every $U$ in the chain there is $V$ in the same chain with $V\subsetneq U$.

Of course, the intersection of $\mathcal C$ does not have to be non-empty (e.g. take $\{(n,+\infty)\mid n\in\omega\}\subseteq\mathrm{RO}(\mathbf{R})$, with $\mathbf{R}$ the set of reals), but it is always non-empty if the space is compact.

Say that a chain $\mathcal C$ covers $\mathcal D$ iff for every $U\in\mathcal C$ there is $D\in\mathcal D$ such that $D\subseteq U$. Further, call $\mathcal C$ c-minimal if for every $\mathcal D$ covered by $\mathcal C$, $\mathcal C$ is also covered by $\mathcal D$.

My problem is whether for every non-empty c-minimal chain $\mathcal C$ (in an atomless $\mathrm{RO}(X)$) which satisfies (a) and (b), $\bigcap\mathcal C$ is non-empty.

EDIT: Changed the terminology since, as pointed in the comments, the one I used originally was a bit misleading.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your definition of co-initial seems strange to me, since it would be that $\mathcal{C}$ is a chain converging to a much smaller intersection than $\mathcal{D}$, but this isn't usually what is meant by "co-initial". Usually, co-initial would imply that the limit is the same. $\endgroup$ Dec 23, 2019 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ Your definition of strictly descending seems to rule out a chain with only one element. $\endgroup$ Dec 23, 2019 at 12:56
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, according to my definition one of the chains may happen to converge a larger (smaller) intersection than the other. And one-element chains are excluded. By the definition and by dependent choices every such chain is infinite. $\endgroup$
    – Mad Hatter
    Dec 23, 2019 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ My use of coinitial is the same as this one: en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/coinitial To be honest I have never encountered a different notion, but this may be my ignorance of course. $\endgroup$
    – Mad Hatter
    Dec 23, 2019 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe it woube more reasonable to say $\mathcal C$ covers $\mathcal D$ and reserve the coinitiality for mutual covering? $\endgroup$
    – Mad Hatter
    Dec 23, 2019 at 13:27

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Here is a provisional negative answer. If $\mathcal{C}$ is a c-minimal chain then $N=\bigcap\mathcal{C}$ is closed and nowhere dense (if nonempty): if the interior is nonempty take a nonempty regular open set $O$ such that $\overline{O}\subseteq \operatorname{int}N$. Then the chain $\mathcal{C}\cup\{O\}$ is covered by $\mathcal{C}$ but it does not cover it. This shows that a c-minimal chain does not have a minimum and that $\bigcap\mathcal{C}=\bigcap\{\overline{C}:C\in\mathcal{C}\}$ is closed. Now the chain $\{C\setminus N:C\in\mathcal{C}\}$ is c-minimal in $X\setminus N$ and its intersection is empty. This is provisional in the sense that I could not think of a c-minimal chain. For example, in the real line every chain is countable and by diagonalising a co-initial sequence one can construct a strictly smaller chain. Correction: every well-ordered (up or down) chain is countable; every chain still has a co-initial sequence.

Added 2023-01-09: Consider the ordinal $\omega_1$ with its order topology. It is well known that the intersection of two closed and unbounded sets is again closed and unbounded. From this we deduce that if $U$ and $V$ are open such that $U\prec V$ then either $\overline{U}$ is compact or $V$ contains an interval $[\alpha,\omega_1)$ for some $\alpha<\omega_1$. For is $\overline{U}$ is not compact then it is unbounded; the complement of $V$ is closed and disjoint from $\overline{U}$, and hence bounded. The chain $\mathcal{C}=\bigl\{[\alpha+1,\omega_1):\alpha<\omega_1\}$ consists of clopen sets and it satisfies conditions (a) and (b). If $\mathcal{C}$ covers a chain $\mathcal{D}$ then all members of $\mathcal{D}$ are unbounded and the comment above shows that every member of $\mathcal{D}$ contains a member of $\mathcal{C}$. Thus $\mathcal{C}$ is c-minimal and its intersection is empty.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Take the chain $\mathcal C=\{(-\frac{1}{n}, \frac{1}{n})\colon n\in\omega^+\}$. Then $\bigcap\mathcal C=\{0\}$, but $\{C\setminus N\colon C\in\mathcal C\}$ is not c-minimal in $X\setminus{N}$ , since it covers the chain $(-\frac{1}{n},0)$ but not vice versa. I believe that $\mathcal C$ is an example of a c-minimal chain. $\endgroup$
    – Mad Hatter
    Jan 5, 2020 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ It is not c-minimal, let $O=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty (\frac1{2n+1},\frac1{2n})$; The chain $\{O\cap C:C\in\mathcal{C}\}$ is covered by $\mathcal{C}$ but not vice versa. $\endgroup$
    – KP Hart
    Jan 5, 2020 at 10:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There was an error in the commenst above: the new family is not a a chain in the sense of the question. Here is a better chain: let $O_n=\bigcup_{k=n}^\infty (2^{-k}-2^{-k-n-2}, 2^{-k}+2^{-k-n-2})$; The chain $\{O_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is covered by $\mathcal{C}$ but not vice versa. add a comment $\endgroup$
    – KP Hart
    Jan 5, 2020 at 10:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MadHatter For this example: yes. Just to get a feeling for the problem. $\endgroup$
    – KP Hart
    Jan 8 at 9:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MadHatter I added a counterexample to my answer. $\endgroup$
    – KP Hart
    Jan 9 at 8:54

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.