Existence of strongly proper dyadic subbases
Yasuyuki Tsukamoto

TL;DR
This paper proves that every locally compact separable metric space admits a strongly proper dyadic subbase, enabling a domain representation that is robust and independent of enumeration.
Contribution
It establishes the existence of strongly proper dyadic subbases for all locally compact separable metric spaces, advancing the theory of domain representations.
Findings
Every locally compact separable metric space has a strongly proper dyadic subbase.
Strongly proper dyadic subbases induce admissible domain representations.
The result is independent of the enumeration of the subbase.
Abstract
We consider a topological space with its subbase which induces a coding for each point. Every second-countable Hausdorff space has a subbase that is the union of countably many pairs of disjoint open subsets. A dyadic subbase is such a subbase with a fixed enumeration. If a dyadic subbase is given, then we obtain a domain representation of the given space. The properness and the strong properness of dyadic subbases have been studied, and it is known that every strongly proper dyadic subbase induces an admissible domain representation regardless of its enumeration. We show that every locally compact separable metric space has a strongly proper dyadic subbase.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
\lmcsheading
1–11Mar. 16, 2016Mar. 30, 2017
Existence of strongly proper dyadic subbases
Yasuyuki Tsukamoto
Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Japan.
Abstract.
We consider a topological space with its subbase which induces a coding for each point. Every second-countable Hausdorff space has a subbase that is the union of countably many pairs of disjoint open subsets. A dyadic subbase is such a subbase with a fixed enumeration. If a dyadic subbase is given, then we obtain a domain representation of the given space. The properness and the strong properness of dyadic subbases have been studied, and it is known that every strongly proper dyadic subbase induces an admissible domain representation regardless of its enumeration. We show that every locally compact separable metric space has a strongly proper dyadic subbase.
Key words and phrases:
Domain theory, subbases, separable metric spaces
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
I.1.1, F.3.2, F.4.1.
1. Introduction
Let be a second-countable Hausdorff space. We consider a subbase of which induces a coding for each point of . Since is second-countable, it has a subbase that is the union of countably many pairs of disjoint open subsets. A dyadic subbase is such a subbase with a fixed enumeration. Let , , be the -th pair of . For each point , the -th digit of the coding of will be decided between [math] and depending on which of and contains . Since may belong to none of the two, we allow undefinedness in the coding, and the bottom character is used in the sequence unless it is decided. Every sequence that contains the bottom character is called a bottomed sequence.
When a dyadic subbase is given, each point of is represented by a bottomed sequence . Every finite prefix of the bottomed sequence can be considered as a finite time state of the output of computation, and the properties of the set of these sequences have been studied. If is proper and is a conditional upper semilattice with least element (cusl), then we obtain an admissible domain representation of [6]. Whether is a cusl depends not only on itself but also on the enumeration of . It has been proved that is a cusl regardless of the enumeration of if and only if is strongly proper [7]. The definitions of proper and strongly proper dyadic subbases will be recalled in the next section.
We study a condition which ensures the existence of strongly proper dyadic subbases. It has been proved that every second-countable regular Hausdorff space has a proper dyadic subbase [2, 3]. First we give another proof of this fact that uses the metric induced by Urysohn’s metrisation theorem. Then we show that every locally compact separable metric space has a strongly proper dyadic subbase.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Bottomed sequences
Let be a finite set containing the bottom character , and the first infinite ordinal. As usual, an element of is identified with the set of its predecessors.
For an ordinal number , denotes the set of sequences of elements of of length , i.e., the maps from to . We identify a sequence with its infinite extension
[TABLE]
By this identification, we have if . For a sequence , its domain is defined as and its length as . A sequence is compact if is finite. The set of compact sequences is denoted by .
Let and be sequences of , an element and a finite ordinal. is the sequence which maps to and equals elsewhere. If is compact, then a concatenation is defined as
[TABLE]
The -fold concatenation of with itself is denoted by . Elements are identified with sequences of length one.
2.2. The domain
We set ordered by and . A topology of is defined as . We equip with the product order and the product topology. For all , we set , and the family forms a base of [4].
2.3. Dyadic subbases
We review proper and strongly proper dyadic subbases [5, 6, 7]. In this section, is a second-countable Hausdorff space. For a subset of , denotes the closure of , the interior of . The exterior of a subset is the set or equivalently .
{defi}
A dyadic subbase of is a map such that
- (1)
is a subbase of , 2. (2)
for all
For readability, is denoted by . We set for . If and are the exteriors of each other, then is their common boundary, and we have for . We use the notations
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for all . {defi} A dyadic subbase of is
- (1)
proper if . 2. (2)
strongly proper if for all .
For all , by De Morgan’s law, we obtain
[TABLE]
and therefore, we have . We have the following characterization of proper dyadic subbases.
Proposition 1**.**
A dyadic subbase of is proper if and only if and are the exteriors of each other for all .
Proof 2.1**.**
For all , we have if and only if if and only if is the exterior of .
We show that if is proper, then for all , is the exterior of , i.e., is the interior of . Suppose that is proper. For all and , we have , and therefore,
[TABLE]
Hence, for all , we obtain
[TABLE]
Every sequence is decomposed into two sequences
[TABLE]
We have , and is an open subset of . Since is closed, we have . Similarly to Proposition 1, if is strongly proper, then and are the exteriors of each other in the space .
Proposition 2**.**
A dyadic subbase of is strongly proper if and only if for all , and are the exteriors of each other in the space .
Proof 2.2**.**
Since is closed, equals the closure of in the space . Therefore, we have if and only if if and only if is the exterior of in the space . Similarly to the proof of Proposition 1, we can see that if is strongly proper, then is the interior of in the space .
Let be a dyadic subbase of . We define a map as
[TABLE]
for and . We set
[TABLE]
The set is an algebraic pointed dcpo that is the ideal completion of . We quote some results known from [6, 7]: If is a proper dyadic subbase of a regular Hausdorff space , then is embedded in the space of minimal elements of . Moreover, if is compact in addition, then we have a quotient map and is homeomorphic to the space of minimal elements of . The triple is a domain representation of . If is a conditional upper semilattice with least element (cusl), then the domain representation is admissible ([6]). Whether is a cusl depends not only on the subbase itself but also on the enumeration of . It has been proved that is a cusl regardless of the enumeration of if and only if is strongly proper ([7]). We refer the reader to [1] for the notion of domain representations of topological spaces.
We give an example of a strongly proper dyadic subbase and show some modifications. {exa}[The Gray subbase of the unit interval] Let be the unit interval . For every non-negative integer , we define a function as . We set and for all . The family forms a subbase of , the Gray subbase.
We show that the Gray subbase is a strongly proper dyadic subbase. For every , we have , and the set is the common boundary of and . Note that and are disjoint if . Let be a bottomed sequence. We have because is closed and contains . Suppose that belongs to , and we assume for an , otherwise belongs to . Since and are disjoint for all , we get and . For every open neighbourhood of , we have . Since is open, we get . Therefore, every open neighbourhood of intersects with non-trivially. Hence, we obtain .
Remark 3**.**
We allow duplications in dyadic subbases, and a one point set has a strongly proper dyadic subbase given by and for all . However, such a duplication induces non-properness in general. Let be the Gray subbase of the unit interval. We have and . Therefore, if we enumerate a pair in twice, then we obtain a non-proper dyadic subbase.
{exa}
Let be the unit interval with the Gray subbase . We define as the one point compactification of , and let be the added point. Since we have and , has a dyadic subbase given by
[TABLE]
We have for all , and the properness of can be proved similarly. However, is not strongly proper because we have whereas .
3. Existence of strongly proper dyadic subbases
We will show the following.
Theorem 4**.**
Every locally compact separable metric space has a strongly proper dyadic subbase.
Every separable metric space is second-countable and regular Hausdorff. Urysohn’s metrization theorem states that every second-countable regular Hausdorff space is metrisable. Therefore, Theorem 4 states that every locally compact second-countable Hausdorff space has a strongly proper dyadic subbase. It is still an open problem whether every separable metric space has a strongly proper dyadic subbase.
3.1. Existence of proper dyadic subbases
First, we show the following.
Proposition 5**.**
Every separable metric space has a proper dyadic subbase.
Proposition 5 has been proved already in [2, 3]. Using the metric directly, we give another proof of this fact. The proof is simpler than the previous proofs, and the idea is useful for proving Theorem 4. Let be a function, a real number. We use the notations
[TABLE]
We will construct a dyadic subbase of the form
[TABLE]
for every and , where is a continuous function and is a real number for every .
We say that is a local maximum (resp. local minimum) of if is a maximum (resp. minimum) value of for some open subset . Local maxima and local minima are collectively called local extrema. If is a local maximum of , then there exists a point with its neighbourhood such that is empty. The point belongs to neither nor . Therefore, is not the exterior of . Similarly, if a local minimum, then there exists . Hence, local extrema should be avoided in order to obtain a proper dyadic subbase. We do not fix real numbers first, but give open intervals from which will be taken.
Lemma 6**.**
There exist a sequence of continuous functions and a sequence of open intervals such that the family is a subbase of if for .
Proof 3.1**.**
Since is separable, there exists a dense countable set . Suppose that is a family consisting of open intervals that forms a base of the space of positive real numbers. Note that if for all , then the set is dense in . Let be a map from onto . We define and . If for all , then the family is a subbase of because forms a base. By definition, and are disjoint for all .
As the following lemma shows, the set of local extrema is countable.
Lemma 7**.**
Every function has at most countably many local extrema.
Proof 3.2**.**
Let be a countable base of . Since each local extremum is an extremum of for some , the number of local extrema of is countable.
In order to obtain the properness property, we have only to avoid local extrema of finitely many functions. Therefore, we can avoid them.
Lemma 8**.**
Let be a subset of , a continuous function, a real number. If is not a local extremum of , then we have for .
Proof 3.3**.**
We can see . Suppose that and is an open neighbourhood of . Since is not a local extremum of , there exists such that , i.e., . Since and are open, we have . Since this holds for every open neighbourhood of , we obtain .
Proof 3.4** (Proof of Proposition 5).**
By Lemma 6 we can take a sequence of continuous functions and a sequence of open intervals, such that the family is a subbase of if for .
First, we take which is not a local extremum of , and set for . By Lemma 8, and are the exteriors of each other.
Let be a finite ordinal. Suppose that we have obtained a family such that for all . We take a real number which is not a local extremum of for all . We set for . For all and , we have
[TABLE]
by the assumption. Since is not a local extremum of , by Lemma 8, we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore, holds for all . Hence, we obtain a proper dyadic subbase inductively.
3.2. Fat points
In the proof of Proposition 5, could be a local extremum of for some . If is a local extremum of , then and are not the exteriors of each other in the space , and we fail to obtain the strong properness. We have to avoid such that an already chosen will be a local extremum of . In Section 3.3, we show that such real numbers can be avoided if the space is locally compact.
In the rest of this section, is a locally compact separable metric space. {defi} A subset is
- (i)
codense if . 2. (ii)
nowhere dense if . 3. (iii)
meagre if is a countable union of nowhere dense subsets.
Let be a non-negative integer, a continuous map. We say that a point is fat with respect to if has an interior point for every neighbourhood of . The set of all fat points with respect to is denoted by . For every subset , denotes the set of fat points of with respect to .
Lemma 9**.**
Let be a continuous map. For every subset , we have .
Proof 3.5**.**
Let be a point, its open neighbourhood. We can see . Since belongs to , has an interior point. Therefore, also has an interior point, and hence .
By definition, has no fat point with respect to if is codense. We show its converse.
Proposition 10**.**
Let be a non-negative integer, a continuous map. If is empty, then is codense.
We make a remark about the case in which is zero. is a one point set and every point is mapped to the same point by . Therefore, we have . Note that for every subset of a one point set, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, Proposition 10 holds in this case.
Baire category theorem states that every meagre subset of a complete metric space is codense. Since is a complete metric space, we have the following.
Lemma 11** (Baire category theorem).**
Every meagre subset of is codense.∎
Proof 3.6** (Proof of Proposition 10).**
Suppose that has no fat point and is a base of . Since is locally compact, all can be chosen to be relatively compact. For all , there exists a compact neighbourhood of such that is codense. Note that the image of a compact set by a continuous map is always compact and every compact codense subset is nowhere dense. Therefore, we have We can see that is meagre, and hence is codense by Lemma 11.
Let be continuous functions, a real number. We consider whether there exists such that is a local extremum of neither nor and is not a local extremum of . As the next proposition shows, if is not a local extremum of , then the set is meagre, and such a exists. Since we will deal with countably many functions, we prove this in an extended form.
Proposition 12**.**
Let be a continuous function, a non-negative integer, a continuous map, a real number which is not a local extremum of . The set is meagre.
Before proving Proposition 12, we provide two lemmas.
Lemma 13**.**
Suppose that and are as above. For any open subset of and any compact subset of , is nowhere dense for .
Proof 3.7**.**
For each , we have
[TABLE]
The right hand side is closed, and we will show that it is codense. Let be a non-empty open subset. We can see that is a locally compact separable metric space. Therefore, by Proposition 10, the set is not empty. By Lemma 9, we obtain
[TABLE]
Since is not a local extremum of , we obtain for , and thus has an interior point in . Thus, every non-empty open subset of intersects with non-trivially and, consequently, is codense for .
Lemma 14**.**
Suppose that and are as above. For any open subset of , is meagre for .
Proof 3.8**.**
Since is a locally compact separable metric space, there are compact sets , , such that . By Lemma 13, is nowhere dense for all and . Therefore, for each , their union
[TABLE]
is meagre.
Proof 3.9** (Proof of Proposition 12).**
Let be a countable base of . By Lemma 14, is meagre for all and . Therefore, their union
[TABLE]
is meagre.
Suppose that is a local extremum of for a point . There exists a base element such that is non-empty, and either or is empty. That is, belongs to for an . Therefore, we obtain
[TABLE]
We show that if the set of -tuples that we should avoid is meagre, then we have only to avoid a meagre subset at each step. For a real number , a hyperplane is defined as .
Proposition 15**.**
If is meagre, then the set is comeagre, i.e., its complement is meagre.
For the proof we need a lemma.
Lemma 16**.**
If is closed nowhere dense, then is nowhere dense in is comeagre.
Proof 3.10**.**
Let be a countable base of . For a real number , denotes the set . Note that if is not codense in , then an open subset of is contained in , and therefore, for some . For each , the set is nowhere dense because is nowhere dense. We can see that their union
[TABLE]
is meagre. Therefore, its complement is comeagre. Since is closed, is closed in . Hence, is comeagre.
Proof 3.11** (Proof of Proposition 15).**
Suppose that is meagre. There exists a countable covering , where is closed nowhere dense for . By Lemma 16, is comeagre for all . By De Morgan’s law, the intersection of countably many comeagre subsets is comeagre. Therefore, their intersection
[TABLE]
is comeagre. If , then is nowhere dense in for all , and therefore, is meagre in . Hence, the set is comeagre.
3.3. Proof of Theorem 4
3.3.1. Construction of a strongly proper dyadic subbase
By Lemma 6, we can take a sequence of real-valued continuous functions and a sequence of open intervals in , such that the family is a subbase of if for .
Every subset of is represented by the domain of a sequence of , where the top character means non-bottom. For a sequence , denotes the map given by .
Let be a finite ordinal. If we have a sequence and set for all and , then we define as
[TABLE]
for all , and . For each , we now define inductively a sequence such that
[TABLE]
First we define as follows. By Lemma 7, the set of local extrema of is countable for all with . Their union is countable. Therefore, we can take . We set for . Since , by Proposition 12, the set is meagre for all . Therefore, (11) holds for .
Let be a finite ordinal. Suppose that we have obtained a sequence such that (11) holds. For and with , we define a hyperplane . By Proposition 15, if , then the set
[TABLE]
is comeagre for all , and . Therefore, their intersection is comeagre. By Lemma 7, the set of local extrema of is countable for all and . Their union is countable. We can take from , and we set for . Since , we obtain
[TABLE]
Note that is a locally compact separable metric space for all . Since , by Proposition 12, is meagre for all and . Therefore, we can obtain a sequence which satisfies (11) for all inductively.
3.3.2. Proof of strong properness
Suppose that is a sequence of functions, is a sequence of real numbers, (11) holds for all and forms a subbase of , where for and . We can easily see that is a dyadic subbase of .
Lemma 17**.**
For all , is not a local extremum of for all with .
Proof 3.12**.**
In (11), setting , we can see that is not a local extremum of for all and . Since (11) holds for all , is not a local extremum of for all and .
Suppose that is a local extremum of for a sequence with . There exists an open subset such that is an extremum of . Take a point and set
[TABLE]
*Let be a sequence whose domain is the set . For all , either or is defined, and the defined one is contained in . Therefore, we obtain *
[TABLE]
We can see that is an extremum value of because is a subset of and contains the point . Since is open, is a local extremum of , a contradiction.
Proposition 18**.**
* is a strongly proper dyadic subbase.*
Proof 3.13**.**
Let be a sequence,
[TABLE]
its restriction. Since the cardinality of is finite, we can take a finite sequence such that , for some for all , and . We show that holds for all by induction. By definition, we have . Assume that we have and for some , and . By the assumption, we have . By Lemma 17, is not a local extremum of . By Lemma 8, we obtain .
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Hideki Tsuiki for his expert guidance and valuable discussions. I am also grateful to Haruto Ohta for technical advices. Finally, I thank the referees for valuable comments.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. Blanck. Domain representations of topological spaces. Theoretical Computer Science, Elsevier Science , 247:229–255, 2000.
- 2[2] H. Ohta, H. Tsuiki, and K. Yamada. Every separable metrizable space has a proper dyadic subbase. ar Xiv:1305.3393, 2013.
- 3[3] H. Ohta, H. Tsuiki, and S. Yamada. Independent subbases and non-redundant codings of separable metrizable spaces. Topology and its Applications, Elsevier Science , 93:1–14, 2011.
- 4[4] G. Plotkin. 𝕋 ω superscript 𝕋 𝜔 \mathbb{T}^{\omega} as a universal domain. Journal of Computer and System Science , 17:208–236, 1978.
- 5[5] H. Tsuiki. Dyadic subbases and efficiency properties of the induced { 0 , 1 , ⊥ } ω superscript 0 1 bottom 𝜔 \{0,1,\bot\}^{\omega} -representations. Topology Proceedings , 28(2):673–687, 2004.
- 6[6] H. Tsuiki and Y. Tsukamoto. Domain representations induced by dyadic subbases. Logical Methods in Computer Science , 11(1:17):1–19, 2015.
- 7[7] Y. Tsukamoto and H. Tsuiki. Properties of domain representations of spaces through dyadic subbases. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , available on Cambridge Journals Online, 2016.
