Companions of directed sets and the ordering lemma (Q2363297): Difference between revisions

From MaRDI portal
Set OpenAlex properties.
ReferenceBot (talk | contribs)
Changed an Item
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Property / Wikidata QID
 
Property / Wikidata QID: Q125027671 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q3994935 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: A note on transfinite sequences / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Modern analysis and topology / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: The Category of Cofinal Types. II / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Convergence in topology / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q3226265 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Set theory. An introduction to independence proofs / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q3996430 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Some properties related to [a,b]-compactness / rank
 
Normal rank

Latest revision as of 03:39, 14 July 2024

scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
Companions of directed sets and the ordering lemma
scientific article

    Statements

    Companions of directed sets and the ordering lemma (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    13 July 2017
    0 references
    A companion of a partially ordered set~\((D,{\leq})\) is a cofinal subset~\(C\) of~\(D\), endowed with a well-order~\(\preceq\) such that \(x\leq y\) implies \(x\preceq y\) whenever \(x,y\in C\). In case \(D\) is directed and \(f:D\to X\) is a net in some space~\(X\) one may ask how the net \(f_C\), the restriction of~\(f\) to~\(C\), relates to the original net~\(f\). Is it a subnet? If one converges then does the other? If one clusters then does the other? The author investigates these questions in detail and provides proofs for and counterexamples to various implications. One counterexample, that shows that clustering of~\(f_C\) does not imply clustering of~\(f\), invalidates a recently proposed solution of the problem whether normal linearly Lindelöf spaces are Lindelöf.
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    partial order
    0 references
    well-order
    0 references
    net
    0 references
    convergence
    0 references
    clustering
    0 references
    cofinality
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references