<p>Given a locale <i>L</i>, the ordered collection <InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\textsf{S}_c(L)\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">S</mi> <mi>c</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <mi>L</mi> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> of joins of closed sublocales forms a frame—somewhat unexpectedly, as it is naturally embedded in the coframe of all sublocales of <i>L</i>, where by coframe we mean the order-theoretic dual of a frame. This construction has attracted attention in point-free topology: as a maximal essential extension in the category of frames, for its (non-)functorial properties, its relation to canonical extensions and exact filters of frames, etc. A central open question of the theory, posed by Picado, Pultr, and Tozzi in 2019, asked whether <InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\textsf{S}_c(L)\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">S</mi> <mi>c</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <mi>L</mi> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> is always a coframe, or whether there exists a locale for which this fails. In this paper, we resolve this question in the negative by constructing a locale <i>L</i> such that <InlineEquation ID="IEq3"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\textsf{S}_c(L)\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">S</mi> <mi>c</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <mi>L</mi> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> is not a coframe. The main challenge in such question lies in the difficulty of understanding exact infima in <InlineEquation ID="IEq4"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\textsf{S}_c(L)\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">S</mi> <mi>c</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <mi>L</mi> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>; we circumvent this by analysing a certain separation property satisfied by <InlineEquation ID="IEq5"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\textsf{S}_c(L)\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <msub> <mi mathvariant="sans-serif">S</mi> <mi>c</mi> </msub> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <mi>L</mi> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Joins of Closed Sublocales are not Always A Coframe

  • Igor Arrieta

摘要

Given a locale L, the ordered collection \(\textsf{S}_c(L)\) S c ( L ) of joins of closed sublocales forms a frame—somewhat unexpectedly, as it is naturally embedded in the coframe of all sublocales of L, where by coframe we mean the order-theoretic dual of a frame. This construction has attracted attention in point-free topology: as a maximal essential extension in the category of frames, for its (non-)functorial properties, its relation to canonical extensions and exact filters of frames, etc. A central open question of the theory, posed by Picado, Pultr, and Tozzi in 2019, asked whether \(\textsf{S}_c(L)\) S c ( L ) is always a coframe, or whether there exists a locale for which this fails. In this paper, we resolve this question in the negative by constructing a locale L such that \(\textsf{S}_c(L)\) S c ( L ) is not a coframe. The main challenge in such question lies in the difficulty of understanding exact infima in \(\textsf{S}_c(L)\) S c ( L ) ; we circumvent this by analysing a certain separation property satisfied by \(\textsf{S}_c(L)\) S c ( L ) .