19

TL;DR. Given a topological space $X$, is there a natural way to "induce" a topology on $\mathcal{P}(X)$ from the topology of $X$ in such a way that 1) all the basic operations of set theory (intersections, unions, direct images, etc.) become continuous and 2) the topologies on $X$ and $\mathcal{P}(X)$ are compatible in a certain sense?


Given a topological space $X$, there are a couple of ways to assign a topology to its powerset $\mathcal{P}(X)$ that do not depend specifically on $X$. For example:

  • We can view $\mathcal{P}(X)$ as the hom $\operatorname{Hom}(X,2)$, put either the discrete, indiscrete, or Sierpiński topology on $2$, and consider the compact-open topology;
  • We can take the Alexandroff topology with respect to $\subset$ or $\supset$;
  • There are the so-called hit-and-miss topologies, of which the Vietoris and Fell topologies are examples.
  • (A non-example would be to define a topology on $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})$ using the order of $\mathbb{R}$.)

Given an assignment of topologies on $\mathcal{P}(X)$ from topologies on $X$ as above, we could consider the following sets of niceness conditions:

  1. The map $\iota\colon X\to\mathcal{P}(X)$ given by $x\mapsto\{x\}$ is continuous.
  2. Binary union ${\cup}\colon\mathcal{P}(X)\times\mathcal{P}(X)\to\mathcal{P}(X)$ is continuous.
  3. Binary intersection ${\cap}\colon\mathcal{P}(X)\times\mathcal{P}(X)\to\mathcal{P}(X)$ is continuous.
  4. Difference ${\setminus}\colon\mathcal{P}(X)\times\mathcal{P}(X)\to\mathcal{P}(X)$ is continuous.
  5. Arbitrary union ${\bigcup}\colon\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))\to\mathcal{P}(X)$ is continuous.
  6. Arbitrary intersection ${\bigcap}\colon\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))\to\mathcal{P}(X)$ is continuous.
  7. If $f\colon X\to Y$ is a continuous map of topological spaces, then so are its direct and inverse images \begin{align*} f_{*} &{}\colon\mathcal{P}(X)\to\mathcal{P}(Y),\\ f^{-1} &{}\colon\mathcal{P}(Y)\to\mathcal{P}(X). \end{align*}

I'm also interested in the following two sets of additional conditions that are a bit more specific:

More compatibility conditions between $X$ and $\mathcal{P}(X)$:

  1. For each $x\in X$, if $\{x\}$ is closed in $X$, then $\{\{x\}\}$ is closed in $\mathcal{P}(X)$.
  2. If $S\subset X$ is closed in $X$, then $\{S\}$ is closed in $\mathcal{P}(X)$.
  3. If $U\subset X$ is open in $X$, then $\{U\}$ is open in $\mathcal{P}(X)$.

Another niceness requirement for the topology on $\mathcal{P}(X)$:

  1. Given any monoid structure $(\star,1_X)$ on $X$ making it into a topological monoid, the map $$\circledast\colon\mathcal{P}(X)\times\mathcal{P}(X)\to\mathcal{P}(X)$$ given by $$U\circledast V:=\{uv\in X\ |\ u\in U,v\in V\}$$ is continuous.¹
  2. (Implies 11 by Tobias's second comment.) Given topological spaces $X$ and $Y$, the map $$\mathcal{P}(X)\times\mathcal{P}(Y)\to\mathcal{P}(X\times Y)$$ given by $(U,V)\mapsto U\times V$ is continuous.
  3. Given topological spaces $X$ and $Y$, the bijection $$\mathcal{P}(X)\times\mathcal{P}(Y)\to\mathcal{P}(X\sqcup Y)$$ given by $(U,V)\mapsto U\cup V$ is a homeomorphism.
  4. Given topological spaces $X$ and $Y$, the isomorphism of suplattices $$\mathcal{P}(X)\otimes\mathcal{P}(Y)\to\mathcal{P}(X\times Y)$$ is a homeomorphism, where $\otimes$ denotes the tensor product of suplattices (see Eric Wofsey's answer to Concrete description of the tensor product of suplattices?).

Question I. Does there exist a powerset topology satisfying (at least but not necessarily only) conditions 1–7? What about (1–7+11), 1–8, 1–9, or 1–10?

Question II. Given a topological space $X$, what is the finest topology on $\mathcal{P}(X)$ satisfying conditions 1–6? What about (1–6 + 11–14), or these plus any of 8–10? Lastly, in case this topology turns out to be definable in a way that is independent of $X$ (like the Vietoris topology), do we also have 7?


Footnotes.

¹The motivation for this is that $\circledast$ is the zero-categorical analogue of ordinary Day convolution, and we may compute it via a completely analogous coend formula when viewing subsets $U$ of $X$ as functions $\chi_U\colon X\to\{\mathrm{true},\mathrm{false}\}$, namely $\chi_U\circledast\chi_V=\int^{x,y\in X}\mathrm{Hom}_{X}(-,xy)\times\chi_U(x)\times\chi_V(y)$.

Emily
  • 10,517
  • 3
    Interesting! Maybe I'm confused, but wouldn't the indiscrete topology satisfy 1-7+11? – Tobias Fritz Feb 18 '23 at 07:17
  • 2
    Concerning 11, a canonical way to get that is if your $\mathcal{P}$ is a lax monoidal monad with a lax structure transformation $\mathcal{P}(X) \times \mathcal{P}(Y) \to \mathcal{P}(X \times Y)$, or equivalently if it's a strong monad with a strength $X \times \mathcal{P}(Y) \to \mathcal{P}(X \times Y)$. The existence of a strength may well be the simplest form of all these. (You can then use the composition $\mathcal{P}(X) \times \mathcal{P}(X) \to \mathcal{P}(X \times X) \to \mathcal{P}(X)$ to construct the convolution.) – Tobias Fritz Feb 18 '23 at 07:21
  • 1
    @TobiasFritz Thank you so much for your comments! You're absolutely right about the indiscrete topology; I guess the key to get an interesting powerset topology satisfying these conditions really is on the extra compatibility conditions 8–10. I tried before to define a notion of the "finest" powerset topology satisfying the conditions above (it looked a bit like this, but... – Emily Feb 18 '23 at 17:07
  • ...that quickly ran into size issues because of the requirement that direct/inverse images are continuous, which requires quantification over pairs of sets and eventually all sets; as in the link above... – Emily Feb 18 '23 at 17:07
  • That said, I guess we could still ask for the finest topology on a particular $X$ satisfying 1–6 or 8–14, then pray that it can be constructed/defined in a way that is independent of $X$ (like the Vietoris one), and finally check whether 7 is satisfied. (I've added this as a second question) – Emily Feb 18 '23 at 17:07
  • Also, now that you mention monoidality, I think that's actually an important "niceness condition" in and of itself: condition 7 essentially says that the covariant and contravariant powerset endofunctors on $\mathsf{Set}$ lift to endofunctors on $\mathsf{Top}$, so we might as well ask that the lax monoidal structure with respect to products does as well! (I've added this condition and two other similar ones to the question now) – Emily Feb 18 '23 at 17:08
  • (And finally let me apologise for the many, many conditions; I feel like the "spirit" of the question is really simple (is there a super nice powerset topology?), but trying to list all the conditions one would want of such a topology is kinda complicated =/) – Emily Feb 18 '23 at 17:14
  • 1
    @LSpice Thank you for the edits! I originally put the footnote on the comments, but I've moved it to the main question now that both it and the comment section have grown quite a bit – Emily Feb 18 '23 at 17:31
  • Re, one way to have the best of both worlds is to leave the footnote in the comments, but to make the footnote marker a link to the specific comment. But of course it also works just as well in the main body. – LSpice Feb 18 '23 at 17:37
  • 1
    @LSpice That's a great idea! (And aagh, I really have to make a habit of linking to comments...) Thanks so much again for the edits =) (The EOM page on the hit-and-miss topology is great by the way! I didn't know about it) – Emily Feb 18 '23 at 17:44

2 Answers2

4

1-7 together are pretty strong. You aren't going to have a procedure for doing this without most of the powerset topologies being indiscrete.

First note that if $X$ is a set and $\tau$ is at topology on $\mathcal{P}(X)$ satisfying 2-4, then the function $A \mathbin{\Delta} B = (A \cup B) \setminus (A \cap B)$ is continuous, which implies that for fixed $B\subseteq X$, the map $A \mapsto A \mathbin{\Delta} B$ is a homeomorphism. Therefore for any $A$ and $B$ in $\mathcal{P}(X)$, there is a homeomorphism of $(\mathcal{P}(X),\tau)$ taking $A$ to $B$ (namely the map $C \mapsto C \mathbin{\Delta} (A \mathbin{\Delta} B)$).

When I say a topology is non-trivial, I mean specifically that it is not indiscrete.

Lemma. If $X$ is a set and $(\mathcal{P}(X),\tau)$ satisfies 2-4, then the closure $F$ of $\{\varnothing\}$ is a filter (i.e., $A \subseteq B \in F \Rightarrow A \in F$ and $A\in F \wedge B \in F \Rightarrow A \cup B \in F$). In particular, $\tau$ is non-trivial if and only if the $X \notin F$.

Proof. Suppose that $A \notin F$ and $B \supseteq A$. Since $\cap$ is continuous, we have that $G = \{C : C \cap A \in F\}$ is closed. Clearly $\varnothing \in G$, so $F \subseteq G$. Furthermore, $B \notin G$, so $B \notin F$.

For showing that $F$ is closed under unions, first note that it is sufficient to show it for disjoint $A,B \in F$. So assume that $A,B \in F$ and $A$ and $B$ are disjoint. Since $C \mapsto C \mathbin{\Delta} B$ is a homeomorphism, we have that $A \in F$ if and only if $A \mathbin{\Delta} B \in \overline{\{B\}}$ (since $\varnothing \mathbin{\Delta} B = B$). Therefore $A \mathbin{\Delta} B \in \overline{\{B\}} \subseteq F$, as required.

For the final statement. Since $\mathcal{P}(X)$ has a transitive homeomorphism group, $\tau$ is non-trivial if and only if $F$ is not all of $\mathcal{P}(X)$. Since $F$ is a filter, this happens if and only if $X \notin F$. $\square_{\text{Lemma}}$

Proposition. For any topological space $X$, if $(\mathcal{P}(X),\tau_1)$ and $(\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X)),\tau_2)$ satisfy 1-5 and 7 and $\tau_1$ is non-trivial, then $X$ is discrete.

Proof. To hopefully make this proof a little bit easier to read, I'm going to denote the empty set as $\varnothing_1$ when we're thinking about it as an element of $\mathcal{P}(X)$ and as $\varnothing_2$ when we're thinking about it as an element of $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))$.

Let $F_1$ be the $\tau_1$-closure of $\{\varnothing_1\}$, and let $F_2$ be the $\tau_2$-closure of $\{\varnothing_2\}$. Since $\tau_1$ is non-trivial, $X \notin F_1$ by the lemma. Since $\bigcup: \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X)) \to \mathcal{P}(X)$ is continuous, we have that $\bigcup^{-1}(F_1)$ is a closed set in $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))$. Since $\varnothing_2 \in \bigcup^{-1}(F_1)$, we have that $F_2 \subseteq \bigcup^{-1}(F_1)$, i.e., if $A \in F_2$, then $\bigcup A \in F_1$. Therefore, in particular, $\{X\} \notin F_2$.

By 7, every homeomorphism $f$ of $\mathcal{P}(X)$ induces a homeomorphism $f_\ast$ of $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))$. Each such homeomorphism $f_\ast$ fixes $\varnothing_2$ and takes singletons to singletons (specifically, for any $A \in \mathcal{P}(X)$, $f_\ast(\{A\}) = \{f(A)\}$). By the discussion before the lemma, the homeomorphism group of $\mathcal{P}(X)$ is transitive. Therefore $\{A\} \notin F_2$ for every $A \in \mathcal{P}(X)$ and so $F_2 = \{\varnothing_2\}$ (because $F_2$ does not contain one particular singleton, $\{X\}$, so it does not contain any singletons, since it needs to be invariant under any homeomorphisms of $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))$ fixing $\varnothing_2$).

Consider the function $(x,y) \mapsto \{x\} \cap \{y\}$ from $\mathcal{P}(X) \times \mathcal{P}(X) \to \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))$. By 1 and 3, this is continuous. Since $\{\varnothing_2\}$ is closed, this implies that the off diagonal $\{(x,y) \in \mathcal{P}(X) \times \mathcal{P}(X): x \neq y\}$ is closed and therefore the diagonal is open. It's relatively straightforward to show that if the diagonal of $Y^2$ is open, then $Y$ has the discrete topology. Therefore $\tau_1$ is discrete. Repeating the argument again (since now we know that $\{\varnothing_1\}$ is closed) gives that the topology on $X$ is discrete. $\square$

Emily
  • 10,517
James Hanson
  • 10,311
  • Wow, this is amazing, thank you so much! (Sorry also for taking a little while to finally reply, I was carefully going through each step of the proof, and that took a while.) Would it be okay to ask a few questions about it? – Emily Mar 01 '23 at 20:27
  • I see why a homeomorphism $f$ of $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))$ fixing $\emptyset_2$ should satisfy $F_2\subset f(F_2)$, but why should we also have $F_2=f(F_2)$?
  • – Emily Mar 01 '23 at 20:28
  • I was looking further at the case of the Vietoris topology these days and realised that my assumption for $f^{-1}$ to be continuous when $f$ is so might not be so natural, as in that context a closed and open (but not necessarily continuous) map $f$ already induces a continuous $f^{-1}$
  • – Emily Mar 01 '23 at 20:29
  • (although the notion of continuity for $f^{-1}$ here is the relational one, i.e. that whenever $V$ is open in $\mathcal{P}(Y)$, the sets \begin{gather}{U\in\mathcal{P}(X)\ |\ U\cap f^{-1}(V)\neq\emptyset},\{U\in\mathcal{P}(X)\ |\ U\subset f^{-1}(V)}\end{gather} are also open in $\mathcal{P}(X)$). – Emily Mar 01 '23 at 20:29
  • In this direction, do you know how restrictive just 1–4 + ($f$ continuous $\Rightarrow$ $f_$ continuous) would be? (where $f_$ continuous is either as a function or as relation, I'd love to know either answer) – Emily Mar 01 '23 at 20:29
  • 1
    Regarding 1), the inverse of a homeomorphism that fixes $\varnothing_2$ is also a homemomorphism that fixes $\varnothing_2$, so you also have that $F_2 \subseteq f^{-1}(F_2)$, which implies $f(F_2) \subseteq F_2$.

    I would need to think about 2).

    – James Hanson Mar 03 '23 at 06:36
  • Thank you very much, I see it now! Could I ask one last question? In the end of the proof of the lemma, I understand the implication ($\tau$ trivial $\Rightarrow$ $F=\mathcal{P}(X)$), but I haven't yet been able to understand why we also have $\tau$ non-trivial $\Rightarrow$ $F\neq\mathcal{P}(X)$. Could you please explain why this hols? (And sorry if this is a silly question!) – Emily Mar 03 '23 at 15:36
  • 1
    @Emily If $\tau$ is non-trivial, then there is a non-empty closed proper subset $G \subset \mathcal{P}(X)$. Since $\mathcal{P}(X)$ has a transitive homeomorphism group, this implies that there is a non-empty closed proper subset $G'$ containing $\varnothing$. Therefore, since $F \subseteq G'$, $F \neq \mathcal{P}(X)$. – James Hanson Mar 03 '23 at 17:12
  • Thank you so much, I'm finally able to understand this point as well! – Emily Mar 03 '23 at 20:16