1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to prove that an algebra of the ultrafilter monad $\mathrm{lim} : \beta X \to X$ is equivalent to a (compact hausdorff) topological space. I'm stuck at proving that it is a topological space in the first place - that a union of opens (defined by $U$ is open $:= \forall F \in \beta X, \, U \in F \implies \mathrm{lim} F \in U$) is open.

Suppose that $U_i$ is open for every $i$ in some arbitrary index set $I$. Then from $\cup_{i\in I} U_i \in F$, if I were to prove some $U_i \in F$, then by openness of $U_i$ we get $\mathrm{lim} F \in U_i \subset \cup_{i\in I} U_i$, proving the union is open.

The problem is that I can't find a way to get some $U_i \in F$. The contravariance of implication makes this definition of opens seem strange. I used the upwards closed hypothesis to prove that the intersection of two opens is open, when it seems like I should be using the finite intersection property to prove that, and upwards closure for this. Since ultrafilters are quite unconstructive, I tried assuming that each $U_i \not \in F$, but it seems like I need arbitrary intersection to prove that $\varnothing \in F$, deriving a contradiction.

Direction towards proving this, or corrections to an error I've made is preferred over a complete proof.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That seems more likely to be the definition for "$U$ is closed". It looks straightforward to prove that the class of $U$ satisfying this condition is closed under arbitrary intersections, and under finite unions. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Schepler Dec 13 '17 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, yes, this seems to read "U contains all its limit points". I got this definition off nlab and it seems suspiciously mangled. Perhaps it should read "if $x \in U$ and $lim \, F = x$, then $U \in F$"? $\endgroup$ – fhyve Dec 13 '17 at 20:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that would be equivalent to the original condition on $U^c$: if $F$ is an ultrafilter, then $U^c \in F$ is equivalent to $U \notin F$, and $\lim F \in U^c$ is equivalent to $\lim F \notin U$, so this would be the contrapositive of $\lim F \in U \Rightarrow U \in F$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Schepler Dec 13 '17 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ I've edited the nlab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/ultrafilter $\endgroup$ – fhyve Dec 13 '17 at 20:35
0
$\begingroup$

So to copy the definition in the nlab page, we have a notion of ultrafilter convergence $\xi$ that assigns to each ultrafilter $\mathcal{F}$ on $X$ a limit $\xi(\mathcal{F}) \in X$, and we define $U$ to be open iff for all $x \in U$, and all ultrafilters $\mathcal{F}$ with $\xi(\mathcal{F}) = x$ we have that $U \in \mathcal{F}$, and you want to verify the topology axioms, in particular the union axiom. So let $x \in U=\cup_i U_i$ where all $U_i$ are open, and let $\mathcal{F}$ be an ultrafilter converging to $x$, i.e. $\xi(\mathcal{F}) = x$. For some $j \in I$ we have $x \in U_j$ and by openness of $U_j$ we get that $U_j \in \mathcal{F}$; as $U_j \subseteq U$, we have $U \in \mathcal{F}$ as required.

Your definition for $U$ being open as $\forall \mathcal{F} \in \beta X$: $ U \in \mathcal{F}$ implies $\xi(\mathcal{F}) \in U$ does not quite work, in this setting. The nlab one I used above is the standard way of defining a topology from a convergence.

To see intersection of two opens $U \cap V$: pick $x \in U \cap V$ and $\mathcal{F} \in \beta X$ with $\xi(\mathcal{F}) = x$. Then $x \in U$ and $U$ open gives $U \in \mathcal{F}$, and likewise $V \in \mathcal{F}$ and then $U \cap V \in\mathcal{F}$ is clear from the filter axioms.

So intersections in the filter implies finite intersections of open sets, enlargement takes care of the union, just as you presumed.

The standard definition of $C \subseteq X$ being closed in a convergence is what you defined as open: for any $\mathcal{F} \in \beta X$, if $C \in \mathcal{F}$ then $\xi(\mathcal{F}) \in C$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do note that I just edited the nlab page (see above comments). It used to read $\forall F,\, x$, if $U \in F$ and $x = \xi (F)$, then $x \in U$, which is equivalent to my definition. With the correct definition, verifying that this definition gives a topology is simple. $\endgroup$ – fhyve Dec 13 '17 at 23:03
  • $\begingroup$ @fhyve Good that you edited then. It used to be correct on there, IIRC. With the correct definitions open and closed becomes nicely dual again. $\endgroup$ – Henno Brandsma Dec 13 '17 at 23:24

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.