Monocoreflections of completely regular frames (Q2642576)

The notion of a nearness frame was introduced by \textit{B. Banaschewski} and \textit{A. Pultr} [Quaest. Math. 19, No. 1--2, 101--127 (1996; Zbl 0861.54023)]. In the article under review the author changes nomenclature slightly and, thus, by a nearness frame he means what would generally be known as a nearness frame with interpolative uniformly-below relation. Other terminology (such as ``fine'', ``locally fine'', etc.) are used in the standard way. The term ``strong'' has a slightly different meaning from the standard one. After a new (and quite ingenious) construction of the completion of a nearness frame, the author goes on to show that a strong nearness frame is locally fine if and only if its completion is fine. If \(X\) is a uniform space (in the usual sense), then the frame \({\mathfrak O}X\), endowed with its open uniform covers, is a strong nearness frame in sense of the article under review. So, a corollary to the author's result just cited is the fact that ``locally fine'' and ``subfine'' coincide for uniform frames, and hence for uniform spaces. The latter was proved by \textit{J. Pelant} in [Czech. Math. J. 37, 181--187 (1987; Zbl 0656.54020)]. The article also introduces what the author terms a functorial nearness structure. Then the main result proved is that there is a bijection between monocoreflections and strong, locally fine, completion stable, functorial nearness structures. The article closes with showing that certain types of nearnesses on a frame form a frame under subset inclusion.