6
$\begingroup$

Hartshorne (II Prop 2.6) defines a functor $t$ from the category of topological spaces to itself as follows: If $X$ is a topological space, define $t(X)=\{Z\subseteq X:Z\text{ is irreducible and closed}\}$. Assign $t(X)$ the topology with closed sets given by $t(Y)$ where $Y$ is a closed subset of $X$. If $f\colon X_1\to X_2$ is continuous, define $t(f)\colon t(X_1)\to t(X_2)$ by $t(f)(Z)=\overline{f(Z)}$. (See the question Hartshorne proposition II(2.6) for more details). Finally, he defines a function $\alpha\colon X\to t(X)$ (which one can easily show is continuous) by $\alpha(P)=\overline{\{P\}}$.

My question is concerning Abramo's answer to the above-linked question, namely that $\alpha(U)=t(X)-t(Y)$ for any open subset $U=X-Y$ of $X$. I seem to have produced a counterexample to this, and I was hoping that someone might point out where I messed up:

Let $X$ be the nonnegative integers with closed subsets given by $[n]=\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$ for $n\geq0$ and of course $X$ itself. Notice that each of these closed sets is irreducible. In particular, $X$ is irreducible. Now, the closure of any $n\in X$ is the set $[n+1]$, so applying $\alpha$ to $X$, we get $$ \alpha(X)=\{[1],[2],\ldots\}.$$ On the other hand, $$ t(X)-t(\emptyset) = t(X)=\{[1],[2],\ldots\}\cup \{X\}.$$ So, $t(X)-t(\emptyset)\neq \alpha(X)$. In fact, this shows that $\alpha(X)$ isn't even open, since $t(X)-\alpha(X)=\{X\}$ isn't closed (if $t(Y)=\{X\}$ for some closed $Y\subseteq X$, then $X\subseteq Y\subseteq X$, i.e. $Y=X$, a contradiction).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is the soberification functor for topological spaces. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Dec 16 '13 at 4:32
  • $\begingroup$ @ZhenLin What's the soberification functor? $\endgroup$ – Avi Steiner Dec 16 '13 at 4:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Avi: You can find this functor in texts about "pointless topology", for example Sketches of an elepehant, but also by googling "soberification". $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Dec 16 '13 at 10:30
2
$\begingroup$

I think I've figured it out:

The map $\alpha$ that Abramo defines, which for clarification purposes I'll call $\beta$, is not the map taking an open subset $U$ of $X$ to the closure of its points (i.e. the map $U\mapsto \left\{\overline{\{P\}}:P\in U\right\}$). What it is is the inverse to the pre-image map $\alpha^{-1}$ of the original map $\alpha$. To see this, let $U=X-Y\subseteq X$ be open. Then $$ \alpha^{-1}(\beta(U))=\alpha^{-1}(t(X)-t(Y))=X-\alpha^{-1}(t(Y)). $$ But $\alpha^{-1}(t(Y))$ is just $Y$: Since $Y$ is closed, and since $\overline{P}$ is necessarily irreducible, $P\in Y$ iff $\alpha(P)\in t(Y)$. So, $$ \alpha^{-1}(\beta(U)) = X-Y=U.$$ Conversely, let $V=t(X)-t(Y)$ be an open subset of $t(X)$, where $Y$ is a closed subset of $X$. Then $$ \beta(\alpha^{-1}(V))=\beta[\alpha^{-1}(t(X)-t(Y))]=\beta(X-Y)= t(X)-t(Y)=V.$$

$\endgroup$

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.