Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A bunch of new theorems #727

Open
Jianing-Song opened this issue Aug 29, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

A bunch of new theorems #727

Jianing-Song opened this issue Aug 29, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@Jianing-Song
Copy link
Collaborator

Jianing-Song commented Aug 29, 2024

Hi everyone, I will be soon back from summer holiday, and I would like to add the following theorems:

$\bullet$ ~empty + completely metrizable + ~has an isolated point $\Rightarrow$ ~cardinality $< \mathfrak{c}$: You can see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2304598 or https://mathoverflow.net/questions/22830/improvements-of-the-baire-category-theorem-under-not-ch for a proof.

$\bullet$ Sequentially discrete + Sequentially Compact $\Rightarrow$ finite: Quite obvious.

$\bullet$ LOTS + Connected $\Rightarrow$ Locally connected: The convex sets (including open intervals) of a connected LOTS are connected.

$\bullet$ LOTS + Path Connected $\Rightarrow$ Locally path connected: The convex sets (including open intervals) of a path-connected LOTS are path-connected. I believe that the fact should be as fundamental as the one above, but I couldn't find it directly on the Internet, so I'm writing it out: Suppose that we want to join $a < b$ by a path in a convex subset of a path-connected LOTS $X$. There is one path $\gamma$ in $X$. Define $t_0=\sup\{t\in[0,1]:\gamma(t)\le a\}$ and $t_1=\inf\{t\in[0,1]:\gamma(t)\ge b\}$, then by intermediate value theorem we must have $\gamma(t_0)=a$ and $\gamma(t_1)=b$. By definition $\gamma(t)\in[a,b]$ for $t\in[t_0,t_1]$, so we have found a path joining $a$ and $b$ in $[a,b]$.

$\bullet$ GO space + Locally Connected $\Rightarrow$ Weakly locally compact: Every point has a connected open neighborhood $U$ which is a connected LOTS by {T131}, and every closed interval of $U$ with respect to the order on $U$ giving the order topology is compact (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order#Completeness).

$\bullet$ GO space + sequentially discrete $\Rightarrow$ anticompact: Let $Y$ be a compact subset of a GO space $X$, then $Y$ is a compact LOTS by {T125}, so it is sequentially compact by {T488}, then finite by sequential discreteness of $X$.

$\bullet$ GO space + ~totally disconnected $\Rightarrow$ ~anticompact (in fact, has compact subsets of cardinality $\ge\mathfrak{c}$): Let $Y$ be a nontrivial connected subset of a GO space $X$, then $Y$ is a connected LOTS by {T131}, meaning that every closed interval of $Y$ with respect to the order on $Y$ giving the order topology is compact, and those nontrivial intervals have cardinality $\ge\mathfrak{c}$ as any nontrivial connected $T_4$ space does.

$\bullet$ GO space + extremally disconnected $\Rightarrow$ discrete: See https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4913523/1039170. The answer proofs for LOTS but the proof generalizes easily for GO-spaces as remarked in the original question.

How do you think of these theorems? Please don't hesitate to share your concerns! Thank you in advance.

@prabau
Copy link
Collaborator

prabau commented Aug 29, 2024

This is great! I have not looked in detail, but any result that was not previously derivable is a good addition to pi-base. Even better if the new result allows to derive new traits for some spaces, or to remove some redundant traits or strengthen previous results for example. I'd say just go for it and create some PRs, so each result can be analyzed and discussed.

One recommendation. Please do not create one huge PR with all the results. Instead, you can start creating some PR, one result at a time (or maybe more than one if two results are closely linked and need to be discussed together). That will make it easier to review and get things approved. If there are dependencies between results, it may be even better to wait until each PR is approved before starting the next one, so we can better see the dependencies when playing with it in the database. If each PR is short, we should be able to get to it quickly.

Also the usual guideline. Proofs that are short and pretty straightforward can be written directly in pi-base as justification. But anything more involved should refer to some post on mathse (or to something in books or the published literature of course).

@StevenClontz
Copy link
Member

Please do not create one huge PR with all the results. Instead, you can start creating some PR, one result at a time

💯 👆

Looking forward to your contributions @Jianing-Song :-D

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants