arXiv · 1104.2793
We discuss relationships in Lindelof spaces among the properties "indestructible", "productive", "D", and related properties.
Franklin D. Tall, Leandro F. Aurichi. 2011-04-14. Lindelof spaces which are indestructible, productive, or D. https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2793
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We investigate the finite ultrametric spaces $(X,d)$ that have a given cardinality of the center of distances and a minimal cardinality of the set $X$. It is shown that such spaces are isometric if and only if their centers of distances are the same. The representing trees of these spaces are characterized up to isomorphism.
We give a negative answer to the question, posed by Ern\'e, whether every $3$-distributive lattice is $\omega$-distributive. More precisely, we exhibit a continuous frame that is $\kappa$-distributive for every integer $\kappa\geq 2$, but is not a wide coframe. The frame is the open-set lattice of a compact, locally compact, countably based $T_0$ topological meet-semilattice, obtained from Lawson's construction in the logarithmic form described by Goubault-Larrecq. The failure of $\omega$-distributivity is witnessed by an explicit matrix with countably many nonempty finite rows: all row joins are the same nonzero element, whereas every choice of one entry from each row has meet zero. The same space answers negatively Ern\'e's accompanying question whether every $4$-web space is a wide web space. All properties of the construction needed for these conclusions are proved directly.
We introduce the notion of perfect regularity as an appropriate weakening of perfect normality, both for spaces and locales. Various characterizations are given, using Dedekind-MacNeille completions, injective hulls, and sublocales. We place the new class of perfectly regular frames among various well-studied classes of frames. We also introduce the construction of perfect regularization of a completely regular frame, compare it to Isbell's well-known booleanization construction, and argue that it is at least as important as the latter.