3
$\begingroup$

Does any relation $\propto\,\subseteq X\times \mathcal P(X)$ that extends $'\!\!\in'$ in the way that:

  1. $x\in M\Rightarrow x\propto M$
  2. $\neg\exists x\in X:x\propto\emptyset$
  3. $x\propto A \subseteq B \Rightarrow x\propto B$
  4. $x\propto A\cup B\Rightarrow x\propto A \vee x\propto B$

defines a closure operation on subsets of $X$ by $x\in \overline M \Leftrightarrow x\propto M$?

My approach is: all the sets $\overline M$ satisfies the axioms for closed sets:

  • $\emptyset$ is closed since $x\in\overline\emptyset\Leftrightarrow x\propto\emptyset \Leftrightarrow x\in\emptyset$
  • $X$ is closed since $x\in \overline X\Leftrightarrow x\propto X\Leftrightarrow x\in X$
  • $x\in \overline{A\cup B}\Leftrightarrow x\propto A\cup B\Leftrightarrow x\propto A \vee x\propto B\Leftrightarrow x\in\overline A\cup\overline B\quad$ (3 & 4)
  • $\displaystyle x\in\overline{\bigcap_iM_i}\Leftrightarrow x\propto\bigcap_iM_i\Leftrightarrow\forall i: x\propto M_i\Leftrightarrow\forall i: x\in \overline{M}_i\Leftrightarrow x\in\bigcap_i\overline{M}_i\quad$ (3)$\;\square$

I become unsure of the method when Hagen von Eitzen showed that a closure operation on $\mathcal P(X)$ I had defined with this method was faulty.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are some known axioms for closure operators and idempotent closure operators. Is it $\overline A\subseteq B$ $\Rightarrow$ $\overline A\subseteq\overline B$? I think your conditions 1, 2, 4 can be expressed as $M\subseteq\overline M$, $\overline\emptyset=\emptyset$, $\overline{A\cup B}\subseteq \overline A\cup\overline B$. I am not sure how to rephrase the condition 3 in a way which does not use $\propto$ but is expressed only using the closure operator. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 15 '15 at 11:33
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, 3 seems to be $\overline A\subseteq B$ $\Rightarrow$ $A\subseteq B$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 15 '15 at 14:42
  • $\begingroup$ May I ask how do we know that $(\forall i) x \propto M_i$ implies $x\propto \bigcap M_i$? (I see that the other implication follows from the 3rd condition, but I do not see how to get this one. This is part of equivalence in the last line of your proof.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 15 '15 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak: Thank you! It is a faulty equivalence - the equivalence of the lazy... I've become convinced that the four axioms of mine isn't enough to prove $\bar{\bar M}\subseteq \bar M$. There must be a fifth axiom - at least. $\endgroup$ – Lehs Jan 15 '15 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak: I'm unsure about your 3'th. As I read my axiom 3 it could be reformulated as $x\in\bar A\wedge A\subseteq B\implies x\in \bar B$. $\endgroup$ – Lehs Jan 15 '15 at 19:42
7
$\begingroup$

Your fourth argument is incorrect. As Martin Sleziak mentioned in the comments, $x\propto M_i$ for each $i\in I$ does not imply that $x\propto\bigcap_iM_i$. Consider the relation $\propto$ defined on $\Bbb R\times\wp(\Bbb R)$ by $x\propto A$ iff $x\in\operatorname{cl}A$, where the closure is taken in the usual Euclidean topology; this relation evidently satisfies all of your axioms. However, if we set $M_0=(0,1)$ and $M_1=(1,2)$, then $1\propto M_0$ and $1\propto M_1$, but $1\not\propto\varnothing=M_0\cap M_1$.

Note that this doesn’t mean that $M\mapsto\overline M$ isn’t a closure operator: the ordinary closure operator in $\Bbb R$ doesn’t satisfy your fourth condition, either. The real question is whether your axioms imply that if $x\propto\overline M$, then $x\in\overline M$, so that $M\mapsto\overline M$ is idempotent. Unfortunately, they don’t.

Define $\propto\subseteq\Bbb N\times\wp(\Bbb N)$ as follows: $n\propto A$ if and only if either

  • $n\in A$, or
  • $A\ne\varnothing$ and $n=\min(\Bbb N\setminus A)$.

It’s straightforward to check that $\propto$ satisfies conditions (1)-(4). However, $\overline{\{0\}}=\{0,1\}$, but $\overline{\{0,1\}\}}=\{0,1,2\}\ne\{0,1\}$: $2\propto\overline{\{0\}}$, but $2\notin\overline{\{0\}}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I agree that the axioms isn't enough. But if I add the axiom $x,y\propto M\implies x\propto M\cup\{y\}$? Or did I misunderstand? $\endgroup$ – Lehs Jan 15 '15 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Lehs: That’s won’t work: ordinary closure doesn’t satisfy it (take $M=(0,1)$, $x=0$, $y=1$), and my example with $\Bbb N$ does. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 15 '15 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Lehs: I was talking about two different examples. My first example, using ordinary closure in $\Bbb R$, does not satisfy your suggested property. My second example, using $\Bbb N$, does satisfy it, even though it doesn’t give you a closure operator. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 15 '15 at 17:48
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I saw that. I must check this and see if I can get it. Thanks a lot! $\endgroup$ – Lehs Jan 15 '15 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Lehs: You’re welcome! $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 15 '15 at 17:51

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.