Dual closure operators and their applications (Q2515618)

In this very well-written article the authors address a very natural question, namely what is the categorical dual of the notion of closure operator. Closure operators arise by observing certain key properties of the topological closure operator, stating these properties categorically, and thus obtaining an abstract framework which allows one to import topological intuition to non-topological categories. E.g., non-trivial instances of closure operators on categories of algebras are well-known. Similarly to closure operators, interior operators arise from observing certain key properties of the interior operator of topological spaces, phrasing these properties categorically, again allowing topological intuition to be employed. Of course, topologically, the closure and interior operator are related by complementation and are equivalent. However, complementation (or a suitable similar construction) need to be present on an arbitrary category, and thus closure and interior operators in general are not to be expected to be equivalent. The starting point of the article is 1) that the notion of interior operator is the order dual, not the categorical dual, of the notion of closure operator; and 2) the uneasy feeling arising from the fact that most of the examples of interior operators arise from closure operators by applying a complementation operation (of sort). The authors methodically develop the notion of dual closure operators and present a beautiful theory taking a very pleasantly paced rhythm. While dual closure operators are related to interior operators, the two concepts are significantly different. In fact, the authors develop in detail non-trivial and very elegant examples of dual closure operators on categories of modules (as well as groups), in stark contrast to the fact that no non-trivial interior operator of on modules exists (or in fact on any abelian category). The need for a very careful development of the subject matter of the article is witnessed in the closing remarks, where, among other things, a few wrongly claimed interior operators appearing in the literature are pointed out. Historically, closure operators were introduced first and were positively received as categorical topology developed quickly. Interior operators took a while longer to make an appearance, possibly due to a lurking assumption that the theory of interior operators must be just the dualisation of the theory of closure operators. However, later claims of examples of interior operators not obtainable from closure operators appeared, and fueled research into interior operators on their own right. The article under review re-opens that debate and introduces the correct categorical dual of closure operators. Through the numerous algebraic examples and the beautiful theory it develops the article is a significant contribution to both algebra and (categorical) topology.