On non-Hausdorff spaces (Q1203848): Difference between revisions

The author's introduction: ``Until about 1950 it seemed that, with few exceptions, topologists had a theorem which said ``all spaces are Hausdorff''. Early examples of the study of non-Hausdorff spaces are provided by the Sierpinski space, \textit{P. Alexandroff's} ``diskrete Räume'' [Mat. Sb. = Rec. Math. Moscou, N.S. 2, 501-518 (1937; Zbl 0018.09105)] (spaces in which arbitrary intersections of open sets are open), and the quasimetrizable spaces of \textit{W. A. Wilson} [Am. J. Math. 53, 675- 684 (1931; Zbl 0002.05503)]. More typical was the attitude of Bourbaki who had made Hausdorff part of the definition of compactness. \textit{J. L. Kelley's} book [General topology (1955; Zbl 0066.16604)] set the cat among the pigeons in 1955 by daring to omit the Hausdorff condition from many of its definitions. Since then there has been a continuing and growing interest in the study of non-Hausdorff spaces. \textit{A. Wilansky} [Am. Math. Mon. 77, 157-161 (1970; Zbl 0189.23103)] outlined a series of strategies designed to cope with the absence of the Hausdorff is not only possible but that it is imperative. Recent developments in the theory of continuous lattices and in theoretical computer science, see [\textit{G. Gierz}, \textit{K. H. Hofmann}, \textit{K. Keimel}, \textit{J. D. Lawson}, \textit{M. Mislove} and \textit{D. S. Scott}, A compendium of continuous lattices (1980; Zbl 0452.06001)]] and [\textit{M. Main}, \textit{A. Melton}, \textit{M. Mislove} and \textit{D. Schmidt} (editors), Mathematical foundations of programming language semantics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 298 (1988; Zbl 0635.00016)] for example, justify such a position. This paper is a reiteration of the plea [\textit{B. Banaschewski} and \textit{R.-E. Hoffmann} (editors), Continuous lattices, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 871 (1981; Zbl 0452.00011), p. iv] for `non-Hausdorff spaces as a legitimate object of study in general topology'. The paper is organized around in the theme of change as a tool in the hands of the topologist. We avoid any discussion of change in the axioms of the underlying set theory, restricting ourselves to ZFC. Rather than foundational changes we are interested in three kinds of changes in the superstructure, change of definition, of the problem, and of topology respectively. In this walk through the non-Hausdorff sections of the topological garden, the selection of flowers is a personal, almost random one and certainly not comprehensive. We stop to admire some longer than others''.