3
$\begingroup$

I am looking for constructively valid references for the following two related facts:

  1. discrete topological spaces are sober,

  2. the points of a locale coproduct are the disjoint union of the points of the cofactors.

Neither is difficult, but nor are they so trivial that a reference might be dispensed with.

Item (1) is, of course, classically contained in the statement that Hausdorff spaces are sober, but, constructively, “sober” is a fairly strong notion (e.g., $\mathbb{Q}$ may fail to be sober even though it is Hausdorff in any reasonable sense of the word). Concerning (2), I am surprised not to find the statement anywhere (e.g., I couldn't find it in Picado & Pultr's book Frames and Locales: Topology without points).

For completeness of MathOverflow, here is a full proof of (1):

Let $X$ be a set: to say that $X$ with the discrete topology $\mathscr{P}(X)$ is sober amounts to saying that frame homomorphisms $\Omega^X \to \Omega$ (where $\Omega := \mathscr{P}(1)$ is the frame of truth values, i.e., the powerset of a singleton $1 = \{\bullet\}$ and of course $\Omega^X$ is isomorphic to $\mathscr{P}(X)$) correspond bijectively to evaluation maps $\hat x\colon \Omega^X \to \Omega, v \mapsto v(x)$ for $x \in X$. It is obvious that $\hat x = \hat y$ implies $x=y$ (just evaluate at $e_x$ defined below), so the real question is whether every frame homomorphism $\Omega^X \to \Omega$ is of this form.

So, consider $\varphi\colon \Omega^X \to \Omega$ a frame homomorphisms. Denote by $e_x \in \Omega^X$ the element given by the map $X \to \Omega$ that is the characteristic function of a singleton, that is, $z \mapsto \{\bullet : z=x\}$, and let $\check\varphi\colon X\to \Omega$ be $x \mapsto \varphi(e_x)$. Since $e_x \wedge e_y \leq \bigvee\{\top : x=y\}$ in $\Omega^X$, we have (a) $\check\varphi(x) \wedge \check\varphi(y) \leq \{\bullet : x=y\}$ in $\Omega$, and since $\bigvee\{e_x : x\in X\} = \top$ in $\Omega^X$, we have (b) $\bigvee\{\check\varphi(x) : x\in X\} = \top$ in $\Omega$. These two facts tell us of the set $S := \{x\in X : \check\varphi(x)\} \subseteq X$ whose characteristic function is $\check\varphi$ that (a) any two elements of $S$ are equal, and (b) $S$ is inhabited (it has an element); so $S$ is a singleton, say $S = \{s\}$. We then have $\check\varphi(x) = \{\bullet : x=s\}$, and more generally, $\varphi(v) = \varphi(\bigvee\{e_x : v(x)\}) = \bigvee\{\check\varphi(x) : v(x)\} = v(s)$ so that $\varphi = \hat s$ is the evaluation at $s$. ∎

(This, of course, uses the principle of unique choice to select $s$ in $S$, so, just to be clear, when I say “constructively”, the principle of unique choice is permissible.)

A proof of (2) can be obtained similarly by analysing frame homomorphisms $\varphi \colon \prod_{i\in I} L_i \to \Omega$ where $(L_i)_{i\in I}$ is a family of frames and $\prod_{i\in I} L_i$ denotes their product (which is the frame of opens of the coproduct locale). As a matter of fact, I believe we can deduce (2) from (1) by considering the composite map $\Omega^I \to L \to \Omega$ of $\varphi$ with the product $\Omega^I \to L := \prod_{i\in I} L_i$ of all morphisms $\Omega \to L_i$ (given by $p \mapsto \bigvee\{\top_{L_i} : p\}$): according to (1), this composite $\Omega^I \to \Omega$ is of the form $\hat\imath$ for some uniquely defined $i\in I$, and then it's easy to see that $\varphi$ factors through the $L_i$ factor (I'm not sure this is much simpler than actually rewriting the proof, though).

I may have been a bit uselessly verbose in the above proof, but I don't think it's entirely trivial either. So, does this already appear somewhere in the literature?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree, this is surprisingly difficult to find in the literature — the one place I thought I remembered seeing it was Johnstone Stone spaces, but on a quick skim I can’t find it there. Every couple of years I find myself redoing (1) as an exercise, and it’s always more non-trivial than I expect; I don’t think I’ve ever found a substantially simpler version than what you give here. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 13:53
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, one other thought: this result could show up is Mikkelsen’s construction of colimits in elementary toposes, via showing that the contravariant power-set functor is monadic; and the proof has to work in arbitrary toposes, so must certainly be constructive. That monadicity is close enough to this result that (iirc) one fairly direct way to prove it is essentially by showing this. But I don’t remember where (if anywhere) I’ve seen that proof written, and looking up a couple of references for Mikkelsen’s theorem, they prove the monadicity indirectly, using monadicity theorems. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ For $1$, why not just use discreteness to equate the completely prime open filters with the completely prime filters ($=$ points) and thus conclude sobriety? To be honest, I'm not even sure what definition of discreteness or sobriety you will accept. $\endgroup$
    – Tyrone
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Tyrone “Discreteness” means the frame of opens is $\mathscr{P}(X)$: so the question is to check that the frame homomorphisms $\mathscr{P}(X)\to\Omega$ are “the same” as elements of $X$. Yes you can see them as completely prime filters, but AFAICT you'll still need to argue that (a) if a c.p. filter contains two singletons $\{x\}$ and $\{y\}$ then $x=y$, and (b) since it contains the union of all singletons $\{x\}$ for $x\in X$ it contains one of them, so it contains a unique singleton, so, etc. — this is pretty much exactly the proof I wrote down in the question. $\endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 15:20

0

You must log in to answer this question.