• No se han encontrado resultados

T RAYECTOS BIO BIBLIOGRÁFICOS

In document Fronteras de la literatura y el cine (página 175-181)

PENSAR EN MOVIMIENTO

2. T RAYECTOS BIO BIBLIOGRÁFICOS

Recall that in Section 1.2.1 we identified three naturality criteria for struc- tural extensions of BST92(*). When the structure in question is the Bartha topology, these criteria manifest as:

N1) Under certain assumptions, the history-relative Bartha topologies are homeomorphic to a Minkowski spacetime.

N2) The Bartha topology possesses a certain universal property, in that it can be canonically reconstructed from its history-relative substructures. N3) The Bartha topology is compatible with any pre-existing BST92*con-

cepts.

In this section we will argue that conditionsN2andN3are satisfied. We will start with N3, since it is the most straightforward, and then we will tackle N2.

4.2.1 Compatibility with Pre-Existing Structure

There is not much interaction between the topological and the order-theoretic properties ofBST92*models. As Placek et. al observe, the only potential com- patibility issue is between the Bartha-topological convergence of sequences, and the order-theoretic concepts of suprema and infima. In this section, we will verify that (where relevant) these two notions of convergence are in fact one and the same. In order to do this, we first need a small lemma.

Lemma 4.12.Let hbe a history ofW. Then the sets:

x:={yh|xy}andx:={yh| yx}

are closed in the Bartha topology on h.

Proof. Consider first↑x. We show that the complement ish\↑xis open. Let zh\↑x, and let C be some maximal chain inh that passes throughz. In order to show that the Bartha condition is satified byz andC, it suffices to show the existence of somecinCsuch thatz < candch\↑x. Consider the subchain

C′ :=C∩ ↑x={cC |xc}.

then Ch\↑x, and we can pick any element above z. So, suppose that C

is non-empty. Since x lower-bounds C, thus by axiom BST3 the infimum

inf(C′) exists. This infimum must be distinct fromz; otherwisexz, which

contradicts zh\↑x. Since C is a maximal chain, in particular it is dense, so we can pick an element cC such that z < c < inf(C′). Whatever this

element is, it is strictly belowinf(C′), so lies in the complementh\↑x. Since

C is a maximal chain, there exists some element b below z in C. Thus we have the existence of two elements cand bof C such thatb < z < cand the

diamonddbcis fully contained withinh\↑x(see Figure 4.1 for the idea). Since

we picked bothzandCarbitrarily, it follows thath\↑xis open in the Bartha topology onh, and and thus its complementxis closed. The argument for

xis similar. ⊓⊔ x inf(C′ ) c z b C C

Fig. 4.1: The proof of Lemma 4.12

Using the above result, we can now show that on the level of histories, the topological and the order-theoretic notions of convergence coincide. This result comes in the form of the next two lemmas, where will show the compatibility for suprema and infima separately.

Lemma 4.13.Let h be a history, and Ch a countable chain indexed by the natural numbers, so thatcncminhiffnminN. Then suph(C) =x

iffC, when viewed as a sequence, converges toxin the history-relative Bartha topologyτh

B.

Proof. Suppose first that suph(C) =x, and letU an open neighbourhood of

x. Let D be a maximal extension of the chainC. SinceU is open, there are points b1 and b2 on D such that b1 < x < b2 and db1b2 ⊂U. Since b1 < x and both elements lie inD, it must be the case thatC6≤b1, since otherwise

this would contradict xas theleast upper bound of C. Hence there is some cNC such thatb1 ≤cN. SinceC is order-isomorphic to N, it follows that

b1 ≤ cm < x for all m > N. Since db1b2 ⊂ U, it follows that all such cm are contained within U, as required. SinceU was arbitrary, it follows that C converges toxinτh

B.

Conversely, suppose that C converges to x. We first show that Cx. Suppose towards a contradiction thatC6≤x, that is, there exists somecnC

such thatcn 6≤x. Thenx /∈ ↑cn, and thusxh\cn. It follows from Lemma

4.12 that h\↑cn is an open set containing x. Since C converges to x, there

exists some N ∈ N such that cmh\↑cn for all m > N. Fix such a cm.

Since cmh\↑cn, it follows that cn 6≤ cm, and thus cmcn (since C is a

and thuscnh\↑cn, a contradiction. We may thus conclude that no suchcn

exists, and thus Cx.

We now show thatx is the least upper bound of C. Suppose towards a contradiction that there is someyhsuch thatCy < x. Sincexandyare distinct, there is somez1 ∈hsuch that y < z1 < x. Sincehhas no maxima,

there is somez2inhsuch thatx < z2. Consider now the set (h\↑z2)∩(h\↓z1),

which by Lemma 4.12 is an open set. Since Cy < z1, that is,C⊂ ↓z1, it

follows that the set (h\↑z2)∩(h\↓z1) is an open neighbourhood ofxdisjoint

from C, which contradicts our assumption that C converges to x. Thus we may conclude that there is no suchy, from which it follows thatsuph(C) =x. ⊓ ⊔

We can now show the dual result to the above. Conceptually speaking, the proof is very similar, but here will replace up-arrows with down-arrows.

Lemma 4.14.Let C = {cn | n ∈ N} be a countable, lower-bounded chain

contained in some history h that is inversely order-isomorphic to N. Then inf(C) =xiff C, when viewed as a sequence, converges to xin the history- relative Bartha topologyτh

B.

Proof. Suppose first that inf(C) = x, and let U be an open subset of h containingx. Again we can extendCto a maximal chain that passes through xand proceed as in the previous lemma to conclude thatC converges tox.

Conversely, suppose thatC converges tox. Ifx6≤C, then there is some cnC such that x6≤ C. Then xh\↓cn, thus there is some N ∈ N such

that cmh\↓cn for allm > N. Then any suchcm will have to be abovecn,

and sinceCis inversely order-isomorphic toN, it follows thatm < nand thus cnh\↓cn, a contradiction. To see thatxis the greatest lower bound ofC,

we can use an argument symmetric to that of the previous lemma. Indeed – if there is someyhsuch thatx < yCthen again we can pick two elements z1, z2 in hsuch thatz1< x < z2< yC, and use that (h\↑z2)∩(h\↓z1) is

an open subset containingxthat is disjoint fromC. ⊓⊔

Now that we have verified that convergence coincides with suprema and infima on the history-relative Bartha topologies, we will do the same for the Bartha topologyτW

B onW.

Lemma 4.15.Let C = {cn | n ∈ N} be a countable, upper-bounded chain

contained in some historyhthat is order-isomorphic toN. Thensuph(C) =x

iffC, when viewed as a sequence, converges toxin the Bartha topology τW B .

Proof. Suppose first thatsuph(C). By Lemma 4.13 we know thatCconverges

to xinτh

B. Since this is a subspace ofτBW, C also converges toxin τBW. For

the converse, suppose thatCconverges toxinW, and lethbe some history that containsx. By Lemma 4.6,τh

B can also be viewed as an open subspace

ofW. Sincexh, it follows thatCalso converges toxinτh

the subspace topology τh

S is equal to τBh, so it follows7 that C converges to

xin hequipped with the history-relative Bartha topology. Thus by Lemma 4.13 it follows thatsuph(C) =x, as required. ⊓⊔

It should be clear that a result analogous to Lemma 4.14 also holds. From all of this, we can conclude that on bothτh

BandτBW, the notion of topological

convergence and infima/suprema coincide. The results of this section are then grounds to accept that condition N3 is satisfied by the Bartha topology on BST92*models.

4.2.2 Construction from History-Relative Topologies We will now show that the Bartha topologyτW

B is equivalent to an appropriate

adjunction of its history-relative Bartha topologies. In this section we will fix an enumeration H(W) = {hi | iI}, where (in accordance with Remark

1.14), I is assumed to be at most countably-infinite. The choice of such an “appropriate adjunction” should be fairly obvious – consider the tuple F = (X,A,F), where:

X consists of the topological spaces (hi, τBhi), • EachAij is the intersectionhihj

• Eachfij :Aijhj is the identity map.

It is not hard to see that the tupleF defines an adjunction system – the various conditions of Definition 3.7 follow trivially from the properties of the identity map and intersections. Thus we can form the adjunction spaceS

Fhi,

whose elements are equivalence classes of the form

[x, i] ={(y, j)|y=xandxhihj}.

In this context, the canonical mapsφi:hi →SFXi send eachxin hi to the

equivalence class [x, i]. We remark that the space S

Fhi is essentially a copy

ofW in which elements of W are indexed by the histories that they lie in. It should then come as no surprise that the following holds.

Theorem 4.16.The spaceS

Fhi equipped with the adjunction topologyτA is

homeomorphic to (W, τW B ).

Proof. Consider the inclusion mapsψi:hiW. These are clearly continuous

maps that meet the sufficient conditions of Lemma 3.10. As such, there is a unique continuous map g : S

FhiW. In this context, the map g sends

7 Leta

nbe a sequence that converges toxinX, and letAbe an open subspace of

X that containsx. LetUAbe open inA. ThenU =AV, whereV is open inX. SinceAis also open,U is open inX. Thus there is someN∈Nsuch that

anU for alln > N. SinceU was arbitrary, it follows thatan converges toxin

A (also, we can effectively viewan as a sequence lying inA since Ais open an

elements [x, i] toxinW. We now show thatgis a bijective open map. Thatg is bijective is fairly obvious: if [x, i] = [y, j] then x=y, henceg([x, i]) =x= y =g([y, j]), and if xW thenxlies in some historyhi, thus [x, i]∈SFhi

will be mapped toxunder g.

Suppose now thatU is some open subset ofS

Fhi. Then for eachi, the

set φi1(U) is open inhi (equipped with the topologyτBh). By Corollary 4.5

and Lemma 4.6, the historieshi are open subspaces of W, thus the inclusion

mapsψiare open8. As such, eachψi(φ−i1(U)) is open inW, and thus so is the

set S

i

−1

i (U). But this is precisely the set g(U). Indeed: xφ

−1 i (U) for

some iimplies that [x, i]∈U, thusg([x, i]) =x. Conversely, ifxg(U) then [x, i]∈U for somei, soxφi1(U). Henceg(U) =S

i

−1

i (U) is open inW,

and since we choseU arbitrarily, it follows thatg is an open map. The proof is complete by observing that all bijective maps that are both continuous and

open are homeomorphisms9.

The above theorem suggests that the Bartha topology on any BST92* model can be canonically expressed as an adjunction of its history-relative Bartha topologies. As such, the naturality conditionN2is satisfied.

In document Fronteras de la literatura y el cine (página 175-181)