17

A common characterization of a continuous function $f: X \to Y$ is that for any $S \subset X$, $f(\overline{S}) \subset \overline{f(S)}$. Similarly, closed maps are such that $f(\overline{S}) \supset \overline{f(S)}$, and there are some in terms of the interior as well. Trying to extrapolate, I came up with the following implications: $$f(S^\circ) \subset f(S)^\circ \iff f\text{ open} \qquad f^{-1}(T^\circ) \subset f^{-1}(T)^\circ \iff f\text{ continuous}$$ $$f(S^\circ) \supset f(S)^\circ \quad (\text{relation?}) \qquad f^{-1}(T^\circ) \supset f^{-1}(T)^\circ \iff f\text{ open}$$ $$f(\overline{S}) \subset \overline{f(S)} \iff f\text{ continuous}\qquad f^{-1}(\overline{T}) \subset \overline{f^{-1}(T)} \iff f\text{ open}$$ $$f(\overline{S}) \supset \overline{f(S)} \iff f\text{ closed} \qquad f^{-1}(\overline{T}) \supset \overline{f^{-1}(T)} \iff f\text{ continuous}$$

First of all, I am interested to know whether these are correct. Secondly, is there a way that I can see these as less a collection of facts, and more as a unified whole? Why should these be the correct implications? Perhaps, as I ask in a related question, a characterization in terms of filters would help?

Edit: I fixed some of the implications after Stefan's and Alan's helpful input.

Eric Auld
  • 28,997
  • 3
    The closure and interior operators as well as direct and inverse images can all be viewed as functors on the poset categories of (open) subsets of topological spaces. Try to interpret these as specific examples of more general categorical results. – Peter Haine Jun 09 '15 at 04:08
  • 1
    One view-from-outer-space comment: There are these things called Lawvere-Tierney topologies that vastly generalize topological spaces, and they work by axiomatizing a closure operator. I recommend looking into locale theory (e.g. Johnstone) for stuff like this. – Andrew Dudzik Jun 09 '15 at 04:13
  • @PeterHaine So e.g. try viewing the closure operator as a covariant functor from $\mathcal{P}(X)$ to the closed subsets? – Eric Auld Jun 09 '15 at 04:18
  • @EricAuld Something like that; I haven't thought too much about it, but it's worth a try. Also I forgot to mention before that both the closure and interior operators are monads on $ \mathcal{P}(X) $. – Peter Haine Jun 09 '15 at 04:20
  • 2
    @Slade a Lawvere-Tierney topology is something on a topos, which axiomatizes universal closure operations, ones stable under pullback along the many interesting maps in your average topos. The category of open sets of a space is very far from a topos, although it gives rise to one. Talking about Grothendieck topologies would be more to the point, but I think still not that relevant. You can axiomatize closure and interior operations on a poset. – Kevin Carlson Jun 09 '15 at 04:23
  • 2
    Eric and @PeterHaine probably view the closed sets as a subcategory such that the inclusion has a left adjoint, dually for the opens. $f^{-1}$ as a functor on powersets has two adjoints, and the direct image $f$ has one, so that might start getting somewhere. – Kevin Carlson Jun 09 '15 at 04:28
  • @KevinCarlson Yup. Was actually just typing that...but I was too slow... – Peter Haine Jun 09 '15 at 04:30
  • @KevinCarlson And I guess there is another covariant functor besides direct image which some people refer to as $\forall$ (and the direct image as $\exists$) which has the other adjoint. Maybe it's worth bringing that into the picture... – Eric Auld Jun 09 '15 at 05:05
  • Yeah, good point. I have never checked whether there are interesting results there. – Kevin Carlson Jun 09 '15 at 05:34
  • @KevinCarlson If I'm trying to demonstrate that some condition implies continuity in this formulation, what should I be trying to demonstrate? Maybe that there's a functor $\tilde{f}^{-1}$ from closed subsets of $Y$ to closed subsets of $X$ such that $\iota_X \circ \tilde{f}^{-1} = f^{-1} \circ \iota_Y$? Not hard to reason from that, but reasoning toward that seems tricky... – Eric Auld Jun 09 '15 at 05:44
  • Hm, it sounds easier than that when you consider that $\tilde f^{-1}\pi$ has to just be $f^{-1}$ restricted to the image of $\iota$. You really just want to say that $f^{-1}$ on the image of $\iota$ lands in the image of $\iota$, equivalently that that restriction factors through closeds of $Y$, though this may not be helpful yet... – Kevin Carlson Jun 09 '15 at 06:00
  • 1
    @KevinCarlson I think of a sober, $T_0$ topological space as a topos, and non-sober or non-$T_0$ spaces as pathological. When somebody has a problem with that, I remind them that any topological space can be recovered from a $\operatorname{Set}^{op}$-valued sheaf on its topos. But maybe that's just me. (oh, and Lawvere-Tierney topologies can be thought of as a generalization of Grothendieck topologies) – Andrew Dudzik Jun 09 '15 at 06:04
  • 1
    My comment was also partially pointing at another of Eric's other questions that I'm not prepared to answer in full. For example, a morphism of sober topological spaces is open exactly when the dual map on the frame of opens respects the Heyting algebra structure, which has something to do with filters. Anyway, still recommend Johnstone. – Andrew Dudzik Jun 09 '15 at 06:08
  • @Slade Sure, if you want to switch to the geometric morphism coming from a continuous map. But you have to pretty significantly change what the identities Eric posted look like, don't you? – Kevin Carlson Jun 09 '15 at 06:10
  • 1
    The relation $f^{-1}(\overline A)\subseteq \overline{f^{-1}(A)}$ is equivalent to openness of $f$, not to closedness. To see this, let $U$ be open. If $f(x)\in\overline{Y\setminus f(U)}$ for some $x\in U$, then $$x\in f^{-1}(\overline{Y\setminus f(U)})\subseteq\overline{X\setminus f^{-1}(f(U))}\subseteq\overline{X\setminus U}$$ contradicting the openness of $U$. On the other hand, if $f$ is open, then if $x$ is disjoint from the closure of $f^{-1}(A)$, then $f(x)$ must have a neighborhood disjoint from $A$, thus $x\not\in f^{-1}(\overline A)$. – Stefan Hamcke Jun 09 '15 at 10:53
  • Also, the first implication is actually an equivalence. The same holds for the last implication. – Stefan Hamcke Jun 09 '15 at 10:59
  • @StefanHamcke Strange that there is only one that is not an equivalence – Eric Auld Jun 09 '15 at 17:50
  • 2
    Well, actually all of them are equivalences, since the implication isn't true. Take for example $$f:\Bbb R\to[0,1] \ f(x)=\begin{cases} 0, & x\le 0 \ x, & 0\le x\le 1 \ 1, & 1\le x \end{cases}$$ Then $f([0,1])^\circ=[0,1]$ but $f([0,1]^\circ)=(0,1)$. – Stefan Hamcke Jun 09 '15 at 18:54
  • 1
    That one relation is indeed special. I don't know if there's any intuition as to why it doesn't imply nor is implied by anyone of continuity, openness, closedness. One may also wonder whether any combination of those properties and injectivity or surjectivity implies it. – Stefan Hamcke Jun 09 '15 at 19:04
  • I will just mention this recent question - which is about various conditions listed above: Characterizing continuous, open and closed maps via interior and closure operators – Martin Sleziak Oct 31 '22 at 12:07

3 Answers3

5

The links between these properties become a lot simpler once we examine their duals. Consider the functor $f_\forall :\mathcal{P}(X) \to \mathcal{P}(Y)$ given by $$f_\forall (S) := \{ y \in Y: f(x)=y \implies x \in S\}.$$ One could say it is dual to the normal direct image functor which we might call $f_\exists$. $f_\forall$ is right adjoint to the functor $f^{-1}$, and $f_\exists$ is left adjoint to $f^{-1}$. In other words, $$f(S) \subseteq T \iff S \subseteq f^{-1}(T), \qquad \text{and}$$ $$f^{-1}(T) \subseteq S \iff T \subseteq f_\forall (S).$$ Note that $f(S^c)=f_\forall (S)^c$. This implies that any statement about particular sets, containment, and images remains true if you replace the set with its complement, replace $f_\exists$ with $f_\forall$, and switch the order of containment. For example, $$f^{-1}(f(A)) \subseteq B \iff f^{-1}(f(A))^c \supseteq B^c \iff f^{-1}(f_\forall (A^c)) \supseteq B^c.$$ Also, we can dualize statements involving the interior or closure operators if we simply switch them. So for instance $$f(\overline{S}) \subseteq f_\forall(f^{-1}(T^c)^\circ) \iff f_\forall((S^c)^\circ) \supseteq f(\overline{f^{-1}(T)}).$$

Since the relations we are looking at are supposed to hold for all sets, we don't have to worry about whether we're considering the complement or not, and we can say that $$f(S^\circ) \subseteq f(S)^\circ \quad \text{for all }S \subseteq X \iff f_{\forall}(\overline{S}) \supseteq \overline{f_\forall(S)}\quad \text{for all }S \subseteq X. \tag{*}$$ Note finally that $f$ takes open sets to open sets iff $f_{\forall}$ takes closed sets to closed sets and vice versa.

Now it becomes clear that these conditions are linked up. Concerning the relations in the second column, $$f^{-1}(T^\circ) \supseteq f^{-1}(T)^\circ \quad \forall T \iff f^{-1}(\overline{T}) \subseteq \overline{f^{-1}(T)} \quad \forall T,\,\, \text{and} \tag{**}$$ $$f^{-1}(T^\circ) \subseteq f^{-1}(T)^\circ \quad \forall T \iff f^{-1}(\overline{T}) \supseteq \overline{f^{-1}(T)} \quad \forall T.$$ It so happens that $\bigg( f^{-1}(T^\circ) \supseteq f^{-1}(T)^\circ \,\, \forall T \iff f$ continuous$\bigg)$ is fairly obvious, because both conditions are in terms of the behavior of $f^{-1}$. On the other hand, $f$ being open is not handily related to the behavior of $f^{-1}$, and I would argue that $\bigg( f^{-1}(T^\circ) \supset f^{-1}(T)^\circ \iff f\text{ open} \bigg)$ is less obvious (my strategy would be to start by using the left adjointness of $f_\exists)$.

Now for the relations on the left hand side, note that $$ \bigg( f(S^\circ) \subset f(S)^\circ \,\, \forall S \iff f \text{ open} \bigg) \iff \bigg( f(\overline{S}) \supset \overline{f(S)}\,\, \forall S \iff f \text{ closed} \bigg), \tag{#}$$ by (*) and since $f$ is open iff $f_\forall$ is closed and vice versa. The reason we can obtain this equivalence is that the dual properties openness and closedness are formulated terms of the behavior of $f_\exists$, as are the conditions. Again it so happens that $f(S^\circ) \subset f(S)^\circ \,\, \forall S \iff f \text{ open}$ is fairly obvious because both are in terms of the behavior of $f_\exists$.

This leaves only conditions $f(S^\circ) \supset f(S)^\circ$ and $f(\overline{S}) \subset \overline{f(S)}$. Unfortunately, we we have both inconveniences at once: the conditions are not equivalent like in (**), and the property that adheres to the latter (continuity) is not in terms of the behavior of $f_\exists$ so it is not easy to dualize it and find a convenient formulation for the former, as we did in (#).

Eric Auld
  • 28,997
2

Concerning the mystery relation $f(S^\circ)\supseteq f(S)^\circ$, I've spent a while trying to relate this to continuity in some way, and all of the inequalities go the wrong way. So instead of looking for positive theorems, I'm looking at counterexamples. Consider the functions: $$f(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{11}x&x\in\mathbb{Q}\\-x&x\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}\end{array}\right.$$ and $$g(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{11}\vert x\vert&x\in\mathbb{Q}\\-\vert x\vert&x\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}.\end{array}\right.$$ The function $f$ fails the test, but $g$ passes the test. This is because the range of $g$ has no interior. But the range of $f$ equals $\mathbb{R}$. Then if you look at the set $f(S)^\circ$ for $S=(\mathbb{R}^-\setminus\mathbb{Q})\cup\mathbb{Q}^+$, you find $f(S^\circ)=f(\emptyset)=\emptyset$ is not a superset of $f(S)^\circ=\mathbb{R}^+$. But in the case of $g$, you find $g(S)^\circ=\emptyset$ for all $S\subseteq\mathbb{R}$. So the test passes trivially.

But the functions are really the same if you restrict them to one half of the real line. Thus the condition $f(S^\circ)\supseteq f(S)^\circ$ has a highly non-local character. It doesn't seem to have much relation to continuity. But maybe I'll change my mind if I look at it further. This relation should mean something.

PS. According to my investigation of this, if $f$ is injective and the range of $f$ is an open subset of $Y$, then $f$ is continuous if and only if $f(S^\circ)\supseteq f(S)^\circ$ for all $S\subseteq X$. I can't see how to remove the requirement for the range to be an open set. Maybe it can't be done. I'm fairly sure the injectivity is going to be very difficult to remove as a condition. The need for constraints on $f$ seems to make this condition different to the others.

I should also mention that the open range condition is only required in order to show that the relation implies continuity. You only need injectivity and continuity to get the relation $f(S^\circ)\supseteq f(S)^\circ$ for all $S\subseteq X$.

And one more comment. Define $h:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}$ like this. $$h(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{11}x&x<1\\2&x=1\end{array}\right.$$ This function is injective, and it fairly clearly satisfies $h(S^\circ)\supseteq h(S)^\circ$ for all $S\subseteq X=[0,1]$. But it is very clearly not continuous. The range is also not an open subset of $\mathbb{R}$. So I think your 8 conditions are unfortunately lacking some symmetry for just this one condition.

And as just one more "last comment", I found the formulas in the question to resemble in some ways the sequent calculus. I wonder if there is some kind of connection there.

  • 1
    It seems that $f(S^\circ)\supseteq f(S)^\circ$ implies continuity if the range is open (in particular if $f$ is surjective), while continuity implies $f(S^\circ)⊇f(S)^\circ$ if $f$ is injective. – Stefan Hamcke Jun 10 '15 at 17:50
0

The comments section for this question is too big. So I'm putting my comment down here in the answers section.

It seems to me that $f$ is continuous if and only if $f^{-1}(\bar T)\supseteq\overline{f^{-1}(T)}$ for all subsets of $Y$. I checked this a couple of times and could find no error. Then I looked it up in Kelley, "General topology", 1955, page 86. He agrees with me. So you can replace that arrow with a double arrow.