SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2211.16052

Partial frames, their free frames and their congruence frames

Abstract

The context of this work is that of partial frames; these are meet-semilattices where not all subsets need have joins. A selection function, S, specifies, for all meet-semilattices, certain subsets under consideration, which we call the ``designated'' ones; an S-frame then must have joins of (at least) all such subsets and binary meet must distribute over these. A small collection of axioms suffices to specify our selection functions; these axioms are sufficiently general to include as examples of partial frames, bounded distributive lattices, sigma-frames, kappa-frames and frames. We consider right and left adjoints of S-frame maps, as a prelude to the introduction of closed and open maps. Then we look at what might be an appropriate notion of Booleanness for partial frames. The obvious candidate is the condition that every element be complemented; this concept is indeed of interest, but we pose three further conditions which, in the frame setting, are all equivalent to it. However, in the context of partial frames, the four conditions are distinct. In investigating these, we make essential use of the free frame over a partial frame and the congruence frame of a partial frame. We compare congruences of a partial frame, technically called S-congruences, with the frame congruences of its free frame. We provide a natural transformation for the situation and also consider right adjoints of the frame maps in question. We characterize the case where the two congruence frames are isomorphic and provide examples which illuminate the possible different behaviour of the two. We conclude with a characterization of closedness and openness for the embedding of a partial frame into its free fame, and into its congruence frame.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Anneliese Schauerte, John Frith. 2022-11-29. Partial frames, their free frames and their congruence frames. https://doi.org/10.46298/entics.10459

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Maximal Center of Distances of Finite Ultrametric Spaces and Perfect Binary Trees

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.

math.GN

A continuous $3$-distributive frame that is not $\omega$-distributive

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.

math.GN

An overlooked weakening of perfect normality: Perfect regularity in spaces and locales

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.

math.GN