2

A dense order is defined as an ordered set such that for any $x$ and $y$ such that $x < y$, there is a $z$ such that $x < z < y$.

A linear continuum is defined as a linearly ordered set that is both dense and complete (i.e. has the least upper bound property).

Is there a natural way of generalizing these definitions to sets that aren't linearly ordered? In particular, I'm thinking about sets with a metric such that (intuitively) between any two elements there is another element (for density) or a continuum of other elements (for continuity).

Thank you.

Alessio K
  • 10,679

3 Answers3

2

If you think of density as "between any two elements there is a third element", then density doesn't have a common direct analogue in general metric spaces. One alternative for a metric space $X$ with distance function $d$ is

For any $x\neq y\in X$, there is a $z\in X$ with $z\neq x,y$ such that $d(x,z)+d(z,y)=d(x,y)$

This says that $X$ has some point "directly between" any two points. This is a rather strict requirement, and not always satisfied in spaces you might want it to be. For instance, the unit circle in the plane with the metric defined as the length of the straight line segment between two points doesn't fulfill this property.

A weaker alternative is

For any $x\neq y\in X$, there is a $z\in X$ with $z\neq x,y$ such that $d(x,z), d(z,y)<d(x,y)$

This says that if you want to go from $x$ to $y$, but the distance is too big to go in a single step, there is an intermediate point $z$ that makes each of the two steps shorter. To borrow some geometric intuition, it roughly says that any line segment is the longest side in some triangle.

On the other hand, if you think of density as "there are points in the space which are arbitrarily close to any given point", then this does indeed translate directly to metric spaces as the property

For any $x\in X$ and any $\varepsilon>0$, there is a $y\in X$ with $y\neq x$ such that $d(x,y)<\varepsilon$

This is called "having no isolated points". It is also closer to what the word "dense" is used for in real analysis.

The least upper bound property has a very standard analogue. It's called a complete metric space. We say that a metric space $X$ is complete iff the following holds:

Any Cauchy sequence in $X$ converges

The notion of "Cauchy" captures the essence of "monotone and bounded above" for when ordering isn't an option. More specifically, a sequence $x_n\in X$ is Cauchy iff

For any $\varepsilon>0$, there is an $N\in \Bbb N$ such that $d(x_m, x_n)<\varepsilon$ whenever $m,n\geq N$

Arthur
  • 204,511
  • Thank you. This is super helpful. Two follow-up questions: (1) What's the relationship between the second and third characterizations of density (e.g. does either imply the other)? (2) Every discrete metric space is complete, according to Wikipedia. But that makes me confused about how completeness generalizes the notion of a continuum: I would think that discrete metric spaces would be excluded from that generalization. Or, did you mean that the generalization of the continuum comes from the generalizations of both density and completeness? – walrusplant Aug 31 '20 at 12:40
  • 1
    @walrusplant Regarding (1), I think there is no relationship between them. First counterexample: Take one point $p\in\mathbb{R}$ and an open intervall $I\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ such that $p\not\in I$. Use the usual metric on this space. This fulfills the second definition but not the third.

    Second counterexample: Take two disjoint open intervalls $I,J\subseteq \mathbb{R}$. Use the usual metric on $I$ and on $J$ but set $\text{d}(x,y)=1$ if $x\in I$ and $y\in J$. This should yield a metric, I think. This fulfills the third but not the second definition.

    – Lynn Otto Aug 31 '20 at 13:24
  • 1
    @walrusplant (1) No, there is no direct relation. They are two distinct concepts. If you, in the second property, also required that as you repeat the process can get all the intermediate distances as small as you'd like, then it implies the third property. On the other hand, the third property says nothing about direction or betweenness, so two closed, disjoint intervals on the real line satisfies the third but not the second. (2) As to continuum, I'm sorry. It is the least upper bound property that corresponds to completeness. I'll fix now. – Arthur Aug 31 '20 at 13:39
  • @Arthur (1) Is that additional requirement the same as convexity? (2) My original question was asking about how to generalize the notion of a continuum beyond linearly ordered sets. Your original response concerning Cauchy sequences made sense to me, but I just wanted to double check that the generalization of the notion of a continuum was supposed to be the conjunction of completeness and density (rather than merely completeness). – walrusplant Aug 31 '20 at 14:12
1

There are a couple of generalisations that may be of interest to you. In order theory, the notion of completeness makes sense for orders that are not linear, and simply means that every set of elements has both a greatest lower bound and least upper bound.

In metric spaces, the `equivalent' notion of density here would probably be that the space was dense-in-itself. In other words, every point $x$ of your metric space $M$ should be the limit of some sequence of points in $M-\{x\}$.

Metric spaces do have a notion of completeness. This is that every Cauchy sequence in the space converges to a limit point in the space. However, if you want a continuum of elements that "lie between" any other two, you will need more than this, since your metric space may be in two far apart pieces. You probably want what is called a "length space", which is a metric space where the distance between two points is the greatest lower bound of the lengths of all paths between two points. Here a short path between two points $x$ and $y$ gives you a continuum of points approximately between $x$ and $y$.

  • Thank you, this is helpful. Is a length space the same as a path-connected space? – walrusplant Aug 31 '20 at 12:49
  • 1
    In general, I do not know if they are the same. Every length space is path connected though, by definition I think. In some cases, you can `recover' the usual metric as a length of paths, see this overflow question for examples: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/130528/is-every-connected-metrizable-locally-path-connected-space-a-length-space – Brandon du Preez Aug 31 '20 at 13:02
  • Another question I was wondering from the article on dense-in-itself: Is every perfect set (i.e. closed and containing no isolated points) complete? – walrusplant Aug 31 '20 at 13:49
  • Completeness is a concept that only really works for metric spaces, not just any subset of a topological space. So if you have a perfect set (or any closed set!) in a complete metric space, then it is complete as a metric subspace, because it inherits all the needed limit points from the bigger complete space. – Brandon du Preez Aug 31 '20 at 14:29
0

There is a subclass of topological spaces called LOTS (linearly ordered topological spaces), which is a linearly ordered set $(X,<)$ with as its topology the order topology (with as subbase the standard upper and lower sets).

It turns out (and Munkres essentially shows this in his text, and it's a classic fact) that $X$ as a topological space is connected iff it is order dense and order complete. (So the order is a linear continuum, in Munkres' terminology). This is a nice illustration of how a purely topological fact about the space can be characterised in pure order terms, because of the order topology connection. Many such characterisations and facts about LOTS are known (it was a popular subject in topology in the 70's and 80's); they form quite a special class. There are generalisations (GO-spaces) and special metrisation theorems that apply to LOTS and theorems that allow us to determine whether a given topological space is actually a LOTS (even when the order might not be pre-given), like metrisation theorems are to metric spaces.

Long story short: the "generalisation" of a linear continuum is just a connected space (i.e. the corresponding notion from LOTS-es vis à vis general spaces). Historically it's the other way around of course: we knew connected spaces and when you look for what a connected LOTS is, you get exactly the linear continua.

Henno Brandsma
  • 250,824
  • Thanks. I'm confused about why a topological space is connected iff it's dense and complete. For example, if I understand correctly, (0, 1) with domain R is connected and dense. But isn't it incomplete since it doesn't contain the limit points 0 and 1? – walrusplant Sep 01 '20 at 08:04
  • @walrusplant See my answer here. And $(0,1)$ does have the lub property: if a subset has an upper bound in the space it has a supremum in that space. But e.g. $(\frac12,1)$ has no upperbound (in $(0,1)$) so need not have a supremum (for the lub property of $(0,1)$). Order completeness is not sequence completeness... – Henno Brandsma Sep 01 '20 at 21:13
  • I'm not sure I understand your answer. It still seems to me that (0, 1) is connected but not complete. And answers to some other questions on math.stackexchange seemed to confirm this: see here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1501244/disconnectedness-completeness-and-compactness. Am I misunderstanding something? – walrusplant Sep 28 '20 at 07:09