Download Closure Operators in Semiuniform Convergence Spaces

Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
DOI 10.2298/FIL1601131B
Published by Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics,
University of Niš, Serbia
Available at: http://www.pmf.ni.ac.rs/filomat
Closure Operators in Semiuniform Convergence Spaces
Mehmet Barana , Sumeyye Kulaa , T. M. Barana , M. Qasima
a Department
of Mathematics, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Abstract. In this paper, the characterization of closed and strongly closed subobjects of an object in category of semiuniform convergence spaces is given and it is shown that they induce a notion of closure
which enjoy the basic properties like idempotency,(weak) hereditariness, and productivity in the category
of semiuniform convergence spaces. Furthermore, T1 semiuniform convergence spaces with respect to
these two new closure operators are characterized.
1. Introduction
Semiuniform convergence spaces which form a strong topological universe, i.e., a cartesian closed
and hereditary topological category such that products of quotients are quotients are introduced in [30],
[31], [32], and [14]. It is well known, [30] or [32], that the construct Conv of Kent convergence spaces
can be bicoreflectively embedded in SUConv of semiuniform convergence spaces, and consequently, each
semiuniform convergence spaces has an underlying Kent convergence space, namely its bicoreflective
Conv-modification. The strong topological universe SUConv contains all (symmetric) limit spaces as well
as uniform convergence spaces [16] as a generalization of Weil’s uniform spaces [36] and thus all (symmetric) topological spaces and all uniform spaces. Since topological and uniform concepts are available
in SUConv, it is shown, in [31], that semiuniform convergence spaces are the suitable framework for
studying continuity, Cauchy continuity, uniform continuity, completeness, total boundedness, compactness, and connectedness as well as convergence structures in function spaces such as simple convergence,
continuous convergence, and uniform convergence. There are other known attempts to embed topological
and uniform spaces into a common topological supercategory (e.g. quasiuniform spaces by L. Nach [18],
syntopogeneous spaces by A. Császár [17], generalized topological spaces (=super topological spaces) by
D.B. Doitchinov [22], merotopopic spaces (=seminearness spaces) by M. Katétov [26], and nearness spaces
by H. Herrlich [23]) that have not even led to cartesian closed topological categories.
Closure operators are one of the principal topics both in Categorical Topology and Categorical Algebra.
In a category equipped with a notion of subobject and closure one may pursue topological concepts in a
context no longer confined to TOP-like categories.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 54B30, 54D10, 54A05, 54A20, 18B99, 18D15.
Keywords. Topological category, semiuniform convergence space, T0 objects, T1 objects.
Received: 20 February 2014; Revised: 31 August 2014; Accepted: 09 September 2014
Communicated by Dragan S. Djordjević
This research was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBTAK) under Grant No: 114F299
and Erciyes University Scientific Research Center (BAP) under Grant No: 5627
Email addresses: [email protected] (Mehmet Baran), [email protected] (Sumeyye Kula), [email protected] (T.
M. Baran), [email protected] (M. Qasim)
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
132
Closure operators have always been one of the main concepts in topology. For example, Herrlich [24] characterized coreflections in the category TOP of topological spaces by means of Kuratowski closure operators
finer than the ordinary closure. Hong [25] and Salbany [34] used closure operators to produce epireflective
subcategories of TOP.
A comprehensive study of closure operators in an (E,M)-category and their relations with subcategories
along with a variety of examples both in topology and algebra is presented in [19] and [21]. Dikranjan
and Giuli [19] introduced a closure operator of a topological category and used this to characterize the
epimorphisms of the full subcategories of the given topological category.
Baran, in [2] and [3], introduced the notion of (strong) closedness in set-based topological categories and
used these notions in [2], [5], [6], [7], [8], [10] and [11] to generalize each of the notions of compactness,
connectedness, Hausdorffness, perfectness, regular, completely regular, and normal objects to arbitrary
set-based topological categories. Moreover, it is shown, in [9], [10], and [12] that they form appropriate
closure operators in the sense of Dikranjan and Giuli [19] in some well-known topological categories.
The aim of this paper is to give the characterization of both closed and strongly closed subobjects of
an object in category of semiuniform convergence spaces and to show that they form appropriate closure
operators (in the sense of [19]) which enjoy the basic properties like idempotency, (weak) hereditariness,
and productivity in in category of semiuniform convergence spaces.
2. Preliminaries
Let E and B be any categories. The functor U : E → B is said to be topological or that E is a topological
category over B if U is concrete (i.e. faithful and amnestic), has small (i.e. sets) fibers, and for which every
U−source has an initial lift or, equivalently, for which each U−sink has a final lift [1] or [29]. Note that a
topological functor U : E → B is said to be normalized if constant objects, i.e. , subterminals, have a unique
structure.
Let E be a topological category and X ∈ E. A is called a subspace of X if the inclusion map i : A → X is
an initial lift (i.e., an embedding).
A filter α on a set B is said to be proper (improper) iff α does not contain (resp., α contains) the empty set,
φ. Let F(B) denote
the set of filters on
B. Let M ⊂ B and [M] = {A ⊂ B : M ⊂ A} and [x] = [{x}]. Note that α ∪ β
is the filter {U ∩ V | U ∈ α, V ∈ β } , α∩β = {U ∪ V | U ∈ α, V ∈ β } , and α × β = [{U × V : U ∈ α, V ∈ β}].
If α, β ∈ F(B × B), then α−1 = {U−1 : U ∈ α}, where U−1 = {(x, y) : (y, x) ∈ U}. If U ◦ V = {(x, y):there exist
z ∈ B with (x, z) ∈ V and (z, y) ∈ U} , φ for every U ∈ α and every V ∈ β, then α ◦ β is the filter generated
by {U ◦ V : U ∈ α, V ∈ β}.
Lemma 2.1. Let σ and δ be proper filters on B × B and f : B → C be a function. Then
(i) ( f × f )(σ ∩ δ) = ( f × f )(σ) ∩ ( f × f )(δ) and ( f × f )(α) ∪ ( f × f )(β) ⊂ ( f × f )(α ∪ β).
(ii) If σ ⊂ δ, then ( f × f )(σ) ⊂ ( f × f )(δ), and if δ is proper filter on C × C , then δ ⊂ ( f f −1 × f f −1 )(δ), where
( f f −1 × f f −1 )(δ) is the proper filter generated by {( f f −1 × f f −1 )(D) : D ∈ δ}.
Definition 2.2. (cf. [30] or [32])
1. A semiuniform convergence space is a pair (B, =), where B is a set = is a set of filters on B × B such that the
following conditions are satisfied:
(UC1 ) [x] × [x] belongs to = for each x ∈ B.
(UC2 ) β ∈ = whenever α ∈ = and α ⊂ β.
(UC3 ) α ∈ = implies α−1 ∈ =.
If (B, =) is a semiuniform convergence space, then the elements of = are called uniform filters.
0
0
2. A map f : (B, =) → (B , = ) between semiuniform convergence spaces is called uniformly continuous provided
0
that ( f × f )(α) ∈ = for each α ∈ =, where ( f × f )(α) is the proper filter generated by {( f × f )(D) : D ∈ α}.
3. The consctruct of semiuniform convergence spaces (and uniformly continuous maps) is denoted by SUConv.
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
133
2.2 A source { fi : (B, =) → (Bi , =i ), i ∈ I} in SUConv is an initial lift iff α ∈ = precisely when ( fi × fi )(α) ∈ =i
for all i ∈ I (cf. [30], [32] p.33 or [15] p.67).
2.3 An epi sink { fi : (Bi , =i ) → (B, =) in SUConv is a final lift iff α ∈ = implies that there exist i ∈ I and
βi ∈ =i such that ( fi × fi )(βi ) ⊂ α (cf. [30] , [15] p.67 or [32] p.263).
2.4 The discrete semiuniform convergent structure =d on B is given by =d = {[φ], [x] × [x] : x ∈ B}.
2.5 The indiscrete semiuniform convergent structure on B is given by = = F(B × B).
Note that SUConv is a strong topological universe [30].
Recall, in [32] p.31-32, that a generalized convergence space (in [28] and [35] , it is called a filter
convergence space and a convergence space, respectively) is pair (B, q), where B is a set and q ⊂ F(B) × B
such that the following are satisfied:
C1 ) ([x], x) ∈ q for each x ∈ B,
C2 ) (β, x) ∈ q whenever (α, x) ∈ q and β ⊃ α.
A generalized convergence space (B, q) is called a Kent convergence space [27] (in [28] p.1374, it is called
a local filter convergence space) provided that the following is satisfied:
C3 ) (α ∩ [x], x) ∈ q whenever (α, x) ∈ q.
0
0
C4 ) A map f : (B, q) → (B , q ) between generalized convergence spaces is called continuous provided
0
that (( f (α), f (x)) ∈ q for each (α, x) ∈ q.
C5 ) The category of generalized (filter) convergence spaces and continuous maps is denoted by GConv
in [32] (resp., FCO in [35]) , whereas its full subcategory of Kent ( local filter) convergence spaces is denoted
by Conv in [27] (resp., LFCO in [28] .
Note that every semiuniform convergence spaces (B, =) has an underlying Kent convergence spaces
(B, qγ= ) defined as follows: qγ= = {(α, x) : α ∩ [x] ∈ γ= }, where γ= = {β ∈ F(B) : β × β ∈ =} [32] or [30].
3. Closed Subsets of Semiuniform Spaces
In this section, we characterize the (strongly) closed subsets of a semiuniform convergence space.
Let B be set and p ∈ B. Let B ∨p B be the wedge at p [2], i.e., two disjoint copies of B identified at p, or in
other words, the pushout of p : 1 → B along itself (where 1 is the terminal object in Set, the category of sets).
More precisely, if i1 and i2 : B → B ∨p B denote the inclusion of B as the first and second factor, respectively,
then i1 p = i2 p is the pushout diagram. A point x in B ∨p B will be denoted by x1 (x2 ) if x is in the first (resp.
second) component of B ∨p B. Note that p1 = p2 .
The principal p−axis map, Ap : B ∨p B → B2 is defined by Ap (x1 ) = (x, p) and Ap (x2 ) = (p, x). The
skewed p−axis map, Sp : B ∨p B → B2 is defined by Sp (x1 ) = (x, x) and Sp (x2 ) = (p, x). The fold map at p,
5p : B ∨p B → B is given by 5p (xi ) = x for i = 1, 2 [2], [3].
Note that the maps Sp and 5p are the unique maps arising from the above pushout diagram for which
Sp i1 = (id, id) : B → B2 , Sp i2 = (p, id) : B → B2 , and 5p i j = id, j = 1, 2, respectively, where, id : B → B is the
identity map and p : B → B is the constant map at p [10].
The infinite wedge product ∨∞
p B is formed by taking countably many disjoint copies of B and identifying
∞
∞
them at the point p. Let B∞ = B × B × ... be the countable cartesian product of B. Define A∞
p : ∨p B → B by
∞
Ap (xi ) = (p, p, ..., p, x, p, ...), where xi is in the i-th component of the infinite wedge and x is in the i-th place
∞
∞
in (p, p, ..., p, x, p, ...), and 5∞
p : ∨p B −→ B by 5p (xi ) = x for all i ∈ I, [2], [3].
∞
Note, also, that the map Ap is the unique map arising from the multiple pushout of p : 1 → B for which
∞
A∞
i
p j = (p, p, ..., p, id, p, ...) : B → B , where the identity map, id, is in the j-th place [10].
Let U : E → Set be a topological functor, X an object in E with U(X) = B. Let M be a nonempty subset
of B. We denote by X/M the final lift of the epi U-sink q : U(X) = B → B/M = (B\M) ∪ {∗}, where q is the
epi map that is the identity on B\M and identifying M with a point ∗.
Let p be a point in B.
Definition 3.1. (cf. [2] or [3])
1. X is T1 at p iff the initial lift of the U−source {Sp : B ∨p B −→ U(X2 ) = B2 and 5p : B ∨p B −→ UD(B) = B}
is discrete, where D is the discrete functor which is a left adjoint to U.
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
134
∞
∞
∞
∞
∞
2. {p} is closed iff the initial lift of the U−source {A∞
p : ∨p B −→ U(X ) = B and ∇p : ∨p B −→ UD(B) = B} is
discrete.
3. M ⊂ X is closed iff {∗} , the image of M, is closed in X/M or M = ∅.
4. M ⊂ X is strongly closed iff X/M is T1 at {∗} or M = ∅.
5. If B = M = ∅, then we define M to be both closed and strongly closed.
Remark 3.2. 1. In Top, the category of topological spaces, the notion of closedness coincides with the usual ones [2],
and M is strongly closed iff M is closed and for each x < M there exist a neighborhood of M missing x. If a topological
space is T1 , then the notions of closedness and strong closedness coincide [9].
2. In general, for an arbitrary topological category, the notions of closedness and strong closedness are independent
of each other [3].
Theorem 3.3. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space and let p ∈ B. (B, =) is T1 at p iff for each x , p,
[x] × [p] < = and ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) < =.
Proof. Suppose that (B, =) is T1 at p. If [x]×[p] ∈ = for some x , p, then let α = [x1 ]×[x2 ]. Clearly, (π1 Sp ×π1 Sp )(α) =
[x] × [p] ∈ =, (π2 Sp × π2 Sp )(α) = [x] × [x] ∈ =, where πi : B2 → B, i = 1, 2, are the projection maps, and
(5p × 5p )([x1 ] × [x2 ]) = [x] × [x] ∈ =d , the discrete semiuniform convergence structure on B. Since (B, =) is T1 at p,
we get a contradiction. Hence, [x] × [p] < = for all x , p.
If ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∈ = for some x , p, then let α = ([x1 ] × [x1 ]) ∩ ([x2 ] × [x2 ]). By Lemma 2.1 (i),
(π1 Sp × π1 Sp )(α) = ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∈ =, (π2 Sp × π2 Sp )(α) = [x] × [x] ∈ =, (5p × 5p )(α) = [x] × [x] ∈ =d , a
contradiction since (B, =) is T1 at p. Hence, we must have ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) < = for all x , p.
Conversely, suppose that for each x , p, [x] × [p] < = and ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) < =. We need to show that
(B, =) is T1 at p ,i.e., by 2.2, 2.4, and Definition 3.1, we must show that the semiuniform convergence structure =W
on B ∨p B induced by Sp : B ∨p B → U((B2 , =2 )) = B2 and 5p : B ∨p B −→ U((B, =d )) = B is discrete, where =2 and
=d are the product semiuniform convergence structure on B2 and the discrete semiuniform convergence structure on
B, respectively. Let α be any filter in =W , i.e., (πi Sp × πi Sp )(α) ∈ =, i = 1, 2 and (5p × 5p )(α) ∈ =d . We need to show
that α = [xi ] × [xi ] (i = 1, 2) or α = [p] × [p] or α = [φ].
If (5p × 5p )(α) = [p] × [p], then α = [pi ] × [pi ] (i = 1, 2) since (5p )−1 {p} = {pi = (p, p)} (i = 1, 2).
If (5p × 5p )(α) = [φ], then α = [φ].
If (5p × 5p )(α) = [x] × [x] for some x ∈ B with x , p, then {x1 , x2 } × {x1 , x2 } ∈ α. Therefore α contains a finite
set and so there is some M0 ∈ α such that α = [M0 ]. Clearly, M0 ⊆ {x1 , x2 } × {x1 , x2 } and if i , j, then by the first
condition, it can be easily shown that (xi , x j ) < M0 and that M0 = {(x1 , x1 ), (x2 , x2 )} is not possible by the second
condition.
Hence, we must have α = [xi ] × [xi ] i = 1, 2, and consequently, by Definition 3.1, 2.2, and 2.4, (B, =) is T1 at
p.
Theorem 3.4. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space and p ∈ B. p is closed in B iff for each x ∈ B with
x , p, the following conditions hold.
(1) [x] × [p] < =,
(2) ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) < =,
(3) ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∩ ([p] × [x]) ∩ ([x] × [p]) < =,
Proof. Suppose that {p} is closed in B. If [x] × [p] ∈ = for some x , p, then let α = [x1 ] × [x2 ]. Note that
∞
∞
∞
∞
∞
(π1 A∞
p × π1 Ap )(α) = [x] × [p] ∈ =, (π2 Ap × π2 Ap )(α) = [p] × [x] ∈ =, (πi Ap × πi Ap )(α) = [p] × [p] ∈ = for i > 3
∞
∞
and (5p × 5p )(α) = [x] × [x] ∈ =d , a contradiction since {p} is closed in B. Hence, [x] × [p] < = for all x , p.
If ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∈ = for some x , p, then let α = ([x1 ] × [x1 ]) ∩ ([x2 ] × [x2 ]). By Lemma 2.1(i),
∞
∞
∞
(π1 A∞
p × π1 Ap )(α) = ([x] × [x])∩ ([p] × [p]) ∈ =, (π2 Ap × π2 Ap )(α) = ([p] × [p]) ∩ ([x] × [x]) ∈ = and for i > 3
∞
∞
∞
∞
(πi Ap × πi Ap )(α) = ([p] × [p]) ∈ = and (5p × 5p )(α) = [x] × [x] ∈ =d , a contradiction since {p} is closed in B.
Hence, ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) < = for all x , p.
If ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∩ ([p] × [x]) ∩ ([x] × [p]) ∈ = for some x , p, then let α = [{x1 , x2 , ...} × {x1 , x2 , ...}].
∞
It follows that for all i ∈ I, (πi A∞
p × πi Ap )(α) = ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∩ ([p] × [x]) ∩ ([x] × [p]) ∈ = and
∞
∞
(5p × 5p )(α) = [x] × [x] ∈ =d , a contradiction since {p} is closed in B.
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
135
Conversely, suppose that for each x ∈ B with x , p, [x] × [p] < =, ([x]
× [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p] < =, and ([x] ×
[x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∩ ([p] × [x]) ∩ ([x] × [p]) < =. We need to show that p is closed in B, i.e., by Definition 3.1,
∞
∞
∞
∞
∞
2.2, and 2.4, the semiuniform convergence structure =∞
on ∨∞
p B induced by Ap : ∨p B → U((B , = )) = B
W
∞
∞
∞
and 5p : ∨p B −→ U((B, =d )) = B is discrete, where = and =d is the product semiuniform convergence structure
on B∞ and the discrete semiuniform convergence structure on B, respectively. Let α be any filter in =∞
. Then
W
∞
∞
∞
(πi A∞
×
π
A
)(α)
∈
=,
for
each
i
∈
I
and
(5
×
5
)(α)
∈
=
.
By
2.4,
we
need
to
show
that
α
=
([x
]
×
[x
])(i
∈ I)
i p
i
i
d
p
p
p
or α = [(p, p, p...)] × [(p, p, p, ...)] or α = [φ]
∞
∞ −1
If (5∞
p × 5p )(α) = [p] × [p], then α = [(p, p, p...)] × [(p, p, p, ...)] since (5p ) {p} = {pi = (p, p, p, ...)}.
∞
∞
If (5p × 5p )(α) = [φ], then α = [φ].
∞
If (5∞
p × 5p )(α) = [x] × [x] for some point x in B with x , p, then α contains either a finite set of the form
W = {xi1 , xi2 , ...xin } × {xi1 , xi2 , ...xin } or an infinite set of the form W = {x1 , x2 , ...} × {x1 , x2 , ...}.
If W = {xi1 , xi2 , ...xin } × {xi1 , xi2 , ...xin } ∈ α, then α contains a finite set and so there is some M0 ∈ α such that
α = [M0 ]. Clearly, M0 ⊆ {xi1 , xi2 , ...xin } × {xi1 , xi2 , ...xin } and if ik , il for k, l = 1, 2, ..., n and k , l, then by the first
condition, it can be easily shown that (xik , xil ) < M0 and that M0 = {(xi1 , xi1 ), (xi2 , xi2 ), ..., (xin , xin )} is not possible by
the second condition.
Hence, α = [M0 ] = [xi ] × [xi ], (i ∈ I).
If W = {x1 , x2 , ...} × {x1 , x2 , ...} ∈ α, then α contains an infinite set M0 such that α = [M0 ]. Note that
∞
M0 ⊆ W = {x1 , x2 , ...} × {x1 , x2 , ...}. If M0 = W = {x1 , x2 , ...} × {x1 , x2 , ...}, then for each i ∈ I, (πi A∞
p × πi Ap )(α) =
([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∩ ([p] × [x]) ∩ ([x] × [p]) ∈ =. Hence, by the third condition, M0 = W = {x1 , x2 , ...} × {x1 , x2 , ...}
∞
is not possible. If M0 = {xk , xk+1 , ...} × {xm , xm+1 , ...} for k, m > 1 and m ≤ k, then, in particular, (πk A∞
p × πk Ap )(α) =
([x]×[x])∩([p]×[p])∩([p]×[x])∩([x]×[p]) ∈ =. Hence, by the third condition, M0 = {xk , xk+1 , ...}×{xm , xm+1 , ...} is
∞
not possible. If M0 = {(xi , x j ), i, j ∈ I, i , j}, then for each i ∈ I, (πi A∞
p × πi Ap )(α) = ([x] × [p]) ∈ = or ([x] × [p]) ∈ =.
Hence, by the first condition, M0 = {(xi , x j ), i, j ∈ I, i , j} is not possible.
∞
If M0 = {(xi , xi ), i ∈ I}, then for each i ∈ I, (πi A∞
p × πi Ap )(α) = ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∈ =. Hence,
by the second condition, M0 = {(xi , xi ), i ∈ I} is not possible. If M0 = {(xi , xi ), i ∈ I} ∪ {(xk , xk+1 )} or If M0 =
{(xi , xi ), i ∈ I} ∪ {(xk , xk+1 ), (xk+3 , xk )} or If M0 = {(xi , xi ), i ∈ I} ∪ {(xk , xk+1 ), (xk+1 , xk ), (xk+3 , xk+10 )}, k fixed, then
∞
(πk−1 A∞
p × πk−1 Ap )(α) = ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) ∈ =. Hence, by the second condition, these cases of M0 are not
possible.
Therefore, if α ∈ =∞
, then α = [xi ] × [xi ] (i ∈ I), α = [(p, p, p...)] × [(p, p, p, ...)] or [φ], i.e., by 2.4, the semiuniform
W
∞
∞
∞
∞
∞
∞
∞
convergence structure =∞
on ∨∞
p B induced by Ap : ∨p B → U((B , = )) = B and 5p : ∨p B −→ U((B, =d )) = B
W
is discrete. Hence, by Definition 3.1, {p} is closed in B.
Lemma 3.5. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space, φ , M ⊂ B, β ∈ = and q : U(X) = B → B/M =
(B\M) ∪ {∗} be the epi map that is the identity on B\M and identifying M with a point ∗. For all a, b ∈ B with a < M
and b ∈ M
(i) β ⊂ [b] × [a] or β ∪ ([M] × [a]) is proper iff (q × q)(β) ⊂ [∗] × [a].
(ii) β ∩ ([M] × [M]) ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) and β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is proper iff (q × q)(β) ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([∗] × [∗]).
(iii)(q × q)(β) ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([∗] × [∗]) ∩ ([∗] × [a]) ∩ ([a] × [∗]) iff the following conditions hold.
(I) β ⊂ [b] × [a] or β ∪ ([M] × [a]) is proper,
(II) β ⊂ [a] × [b] or β ∪ ([a] × [M]) is proper,
(III) β ∩ ([M] × [M]) ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) and β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is proper.
([M] × [a]) is proper for all a, b ∈ B with
Proof. (i) Suppose that β ∈ =, φ , M ⊂ B, β ⊂ [b]
× [a] or β ∪
[∗]
[a]
a < M
and
b
∈
M.
We
need
to
show
that
q
×
q
β
⊂
×
.
If
β ⊂ [b] × [a] , then by Lemma 2.1 (ii),
q × q β ⊂ q × q ([b] × [a]) = [∗] × [a] .
If β ∪ ([M] × [a]) is proper, then for all V ∈ β , V ∩ (M × {a}) , φ. Let W ∈ q × q β . There exists U ∈ β such
(M × {a}) , φ. Hence, (b, a) ∈ U for some
that W ⊃ q × q (U) . Since β ∪ ([M] × [a])
is proper, it follows that U ∩
b ∈ M and q × q ((b, a)) = (∗, a) ∈ q × q (U) ⊂ W, and consequently,
W
∈ [∗] × [a] and q × q β ⊂ [∗] × [a] .
Conversely, suppose that β ∈ =, a < M and q × q β ⊂ [∗] × [a] . If β * [b] × [a] and β ∪ ([M] × [a]) is
improper for some b ∈ M, then U ∩ (M × {a}) = φ for some U in β. It follows that (c, a) < U for all c ∈ M and
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
136
q × q ((c, a)) = (∗, a) < q × q (U) ∈ q × q β . Hence, q × q β * [∗] × [a] , a contradiction. Hence, β ⊂ [b] × [a]
or β ∪ ([M] × [a]) is proper for all a < M and b ∈ M.
(ii) Suppose
that β ∩ ([M] × [M]) ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) andβ ∪([M] × [M]) is proper. We
need to show that
[∗])
[∗]
[∗]
q × q β ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([∗]
×
.
First,
we
will
show
that
q
×
q
β
⊂
×
.
If
q
×
q
β
* [∗] × [∗] , then,
there exists W ∈ q × q β such that (∗, ∗) < W. Since W ∈ q × q β , there exists V ∈ β
such
that
q × q (V) ⊂ W.
(M × M) , φ and consequently, q × q (V ∩ (M × M)) = (∗, ∗) ∈
[M])
β ∪ ([M]
×
is
proper
implies
that
V
∩
q × q (V) ⊂ W. It follows
that (∗, ∗) ∈ W, a contradiction.
Therefore,
we must have
q × q β ⊂ [∗] × [∗]. By
Lemma 2.1 (i), q × q β ∩ ([M]
× [M])
= q × q β ∩ q × q ([M] × [M])= q × q β ∩ ([∗] × [∗]) = q × q β ,
and consequently q × q β = q × q (β ∩ ([M] × [M]) ⊂ q × q (([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]))= ([a] × [a])∩ ([∗] × [∗]).
Conversely, suppose that q × q β ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([∗] × [∗]) . We will show that β ∪ ([M] × [M])
is
proper. If
(W) ∈ q × q β ⊂ [∗]×[∗],
β∪([M] × [M]) is improper, then there exists W ∈ β such that W
∩(M
×
M)
=
φ.
q
×
q
(∗, ∗) ∈ q × q (W) . Hence, there exists x, y ∈ W such that q × q x, y = (∗, ∗) . It follows that
and consequently,
([M] × [M]) ⊂
x, y ∈ W ∩ (M × M) , a contradiction. Hence, β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is proper. Now, we
show that β ∩
([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) . If U ∈ β ∩ ([M] × [M]), then M × M ⊂ U ∈ β and q × q (U) ∈ q × q β ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩
([∗] × [∗]) = q × q (([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M])) . It follows that there exists V ∈ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) such that
q × q (V) ⊂ q × q (U) . Since V ∈ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) , V ∩ (M × M) , φ and V ⊂ V ∪ (M × M) =
−1
(q × q)−1 ((q × q)(V)) ⊂ q × q
q × q (U) = U ∪ (M × M) = U and consequently, U ∈ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]).
Hence, β ∩ ([M] × [M]) ⊂ ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) .
The proof of (iii) follows easily from the Parts (i) and (ii).
Theorem 3.6. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space. φ , M ⊂ B is closed iff for all a, b ∈ B with a < M,
b ∈ M and β ∈ =, the conditions (i), (ii), and (iii) hold.
(i) β * [a] × [b] and β ∪ ([a] × [M]) is improper.
(ii) β ∩ ([M] × [M]) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) or β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is improper.
(iii) β * [b] × [a] and β ∪ ([M] × [a]) is improper, or β * [a] × [b] and β ∪ ([a] × [M]) is proper, or β ∩ ([M] × [M]) *
([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) or β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is improper.
0
Proof. M is closed iff, by Definition 3.1, {∗} is closed in B/M iff, by Theorem 3.4, for each a , ∗ in B/M, [a] × [∗] < = ,
0
0
0
([a]×[a])∩([∗]×[∗]) < = , and ([a]×[a])∩([∗]×[∗])∩([a]×[∗])∩([∗]×[a]) < = , where = is the quotient semiuniform
0
structure on B/M that is induced by the map q : B → B/M iff, by definition of = and 2.3, for each β ∈ = and a < M,
(q × q)(β) * ([a] × [∗]), (q × q)(β) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([a] × [∗]), and (q × q)(β) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([∗] × [∗]) ∩ ([∗] × [a]) ∩ ([a] × [∗])
iff, by Lemma 3.5, for all a, b ∈ B and β ∈ = with a < M, b ∈ M, the conditions (i), (ii), and (iii) hold.
Theorem 3.7. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space. φ , M ⊂ B is strongly closed iff for all a, b ∈ B with
a < M, b ∈ M and β ∈ =, the following conditions hold.
(i) β * [a] × [b] and β ∪ ([a] × [M]) is improper.
(ii) β ∩ ([M] × [M]) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) or β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is improper.
0
Proof. M is strongly closed iff, by Definition 3.1, X/M is T1 at ∗ iff, by Theorem 3.3, for each a , ∗ in B/M,
[a]×[∗] < =
0
0
[a])
[∗])
and ([a]
×
∩
([∗]
×
<
=
iff,
by
definition
of
=
and
2.3,
for
each
β
∈
=
and
a
<
M,
q
×
q
β
* [a] × [∗] and
q × q β * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([∗] × [∗]) iff, by Lemma 3.5, for all a, b ∈ B and β ∈ = with a < M, b ∈ M, the conditions
hold.
Theorem 3.8. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space and p ∈ B. Then, the followings are equivalent.
(i) (B, =) is T1 at p.
(ii) {p} is strongly closed.
(iii) For each x , p, [x] × [p] < = and ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([p] × [p]) < =.
Proof. It follows from Theorem 3.3, Theorem 3.7, and Definition 3.1.
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
137
Note that the full subcategory SConv of SUConv whose object class consists of all convergence spaces
is isomorphic to full subcategory ConvS of Conv (= the category of Kent convergence spaces) whose
object class consists of all symmetric Kent convergence spaces ( Theorem 3.2 of [31] p. 473). A functor
G : ConvS → SConv is defined by G((B, q)) = (B, =q ), where =q = {β ∈ F(B × B) : ∃x ∈ B, ∃α ∈ F(B) with
(α, x) ∈ q such that β ⊃ (α × α)}
Let (B, q) be a Kent(local filter) convergence space and M ⊂ B. Define K(M) ={x ∈ B : there exists (α, x) ∈ q
such that α ∪ [M] is proper} [19] p.198. If K(M) = M, then M is said to be closed ( we call it as closedness in
the usual sense). M ⊂ B is closed in a semiuniform convergence space (B, =), if it is closed in its underlying
Kent convergence space (B, q= ), where q= = {(α, x) : α ∩ [x] ∈ γ= }, where γ= = {β ∈ F(B) : β × β ∈ =} [32] or
[30].
Let (B, q) be a Kent convergence space and M ⊂ B. Note that M ⊂ B is closed in the usual sense iff for all
a ∈ B if a < M, then α ∪ [M] is improper for all (α, x) ∈ q ([9], 2.7(1)).
Theorem 3.9. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space. φ , M ⊂ B is strongly closed iff M is closed in the
usual sense.
Proof. Suppose that M is strongly closed. We show that M is closed in the usual sense. Suppose that for all a ∈ B with
a < M, and for all (α, a) ∈ q. Note that (α × α) ∈ =q ⊂ =, and in particular, by Theorem 3.7 (i), (α × α) ∪ ([a] × [M]
is improper, and consequently, α ∪ [M] is improper. Hence, M is closed in the usual sense.
Suppose that M is closed in the usual sense. We show that M is strongly closed. Suppose that for all a, b ∈ B with
a < M, b ∈ M and β ∈ =. We show that the conditions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 3.7 hold. β ∈ = implies that there
exists (α, a) ∈ q such that β ⊃ (α × α). We show that β * [a] × [b]. If β ⊂ [a] × [b], then α ⊂ [a] and α ⊂ [b] since
β ⊃ (α × α). It follows that α ∪ [M] is proper since b ∈ M and [M] ⊂ [b], a contradiction to M is being closed in
the usual sense. Hence, β * [a] × [b]. Now, we show that (β) ∪ ([a] × [M] is improper. Suppose that it is proper. It
follows that (α × α) ∪ ([a] × [M] is proper (since β ⊃ (α × α)}), and consequently, α ∪ [M] is proper, a contradiction.
The condition (ii) of Theorem 3.4 follows easily. Hence, M is strongly closed.
Remark 3.10. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space and φ , M ⊂ B. Then, by Theorem 3.6, Theorem 3.7,
and Theorem 3.9, if M is closed, then M is both strongly closed and closed in the usual sense.
4. Closure Operators
Let E be a set based topological category.
Recall, (cf. [19] p.132 or [21] p.25), that a closure operator C of E is an assignment to each subset M of (the
underlying set of) any object X of a subset CM of X such that:
a) M ⊂ CM;
b) CN ⊂ CM whenever N ⊂ M ;
c) (continuity condition). For each f : X → Y in E and M subset of Y, C( f −1 (M)) ⊂ f −1 (CM), or equivalently,
f (CM) ⊂ C( f (M)).
M ⊂ X is called C-closed (C-dense ) in X if CM = M (CM = X), and an E-morphism f : X → Y is called
C-closed if f (M) is C-closed in Y for each C-closed M in X [21].
A closure operator C is called idempotent if C(CM) = CM, and it is weakly hereditary if every subobject of
any object in E is C- dense in its C-closure [19] or [21].
The discrete closure operator δ is defined by setting δ(M) = M for each X ∈ E and M ⊂ X . The trivial
closure operator ∂ is defined by setting ∂(M) = X for each X ∈ E and M ⊂ X [21] p. 39 or [20] p.21.
The closure operators of E form a large
V complete lattice with
W δ and ∂ as bottomVand top elements. For
closure W
operators C and D the meet C D and the join C D are defined by (C D)(M) = C(M) ∩ D(M)
and ( C D)(M) = C(M) ∪ D(M) for each X ∈ E and M ⊂ X . The idempotent hull of a closure operator C
is denoted by Ĉ (this is the least idempotent closure operator above
C ) [19] p.134. A closureWoperator C is
W
said to be additive if for each X ∈ E and M and N ⊂ X , C(M N) = C(M) ∪ C(N) = C(M)V C(N) [19] or
[21], and it is called hereditary if for each X ∈ E and M and N ⊂ X with M ⊂ N, C(MN ) = N C(M), where
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
138
C(MN ) denotes C-closure of M in N [19] or [21].
More on closure operators can be found in [19], [20] and [21].
We, now, show that the notions of closedness and strong closedness form appropriate closure operators
clE and sclE of E, where E is the category SUConv of semiuniform convergence spaces and investigate which
of the properties idempotency, (weak) hereditariness, additivity and productivity are enjoyed by each of
them.
Definition 4.1. Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space and M ⊂ B. The (strong) closure of M is the
intersection of all (strongly) closed subsets of B containing M and it is denoted by clE (M) (resp. sclE (M)), where E is
the category SUConv.
0
Lemma 4.2. Let f : (A, = ) → (B, =) be in SUConv.
(1) If D ⊂ B is strongly closed, so also is f −1 (D).
(2) Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space. If N ⊂ B is strongly closed and M ⊂ N is strongly closed, so also
is M ⊂ B.
0
Proof. (1). Suppose D ⊂ B is strongly closed and for all a, b ∈ A with a < f −1 (D), b ∈ f −1 (D) and β ∈ = , we need to
show that
h
i
(i) β * [a] × [b] and β ∪ [a] × f −1 (D) is improper.
h
i h
i
h
i h
i
h
i h
i
(ii) β ∩ f −1 (D) × f −1 (D) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ f −1 (D) × f −1 (D) or β ∪ f −1 (D) × f −1 (D) is improper.
Note that f (a), f (b) ∈ B with f (a) < D, f (b) ∈ D, and ( f × f )(β) ∈ =. Since D is strongly closed, by Theorem 3.7, we
have
(i) ( f × f )(β) * f (a) × f (b) and ( f × f )(β) ∪ f (a) × [D] is improper.
(ii) ( f × f )(β) ∩ ([D] × [D]) * f (a) × f (a) ∩ ([D] × [D]) or ( f × f )(β)∪ ([D]h × [D])iis improper.
If ( f × f )(β) * f (a) × f (b) , then clearly we get β * [a]×[b]. We show that β∪ [a] × f −1 (D) is improper. Suppose
i
h
that it is proper. By Lemma 2.1, we have ( f × f )(β) ∪ f (a) × [D] ⊂ ( f × f )(β) ∪ f (a) × f f −1 (D) ⊂ ( f × f )(β ∪
([a] × [ f −1 (D)]), and consequently ( f × f )(β) ∪ f (a) × [D] is proper, a contradiction. Hence, β ∪ ([a] × [ f −1 (D)])
is improper.
h
i h
i
If ( f × f )(β) ∩ ([D] × [D]) * f (a) × f (a) ∩ ([D] × [D]), then we get β ∩ f −1 (D) × f −1 (D) * ([a] × [a]) ∩
h
i h
i
h
i h
i
f −1 (D) × f −1 (D) . It remains to show that β ∪ f −1 (D) × f −1 (D) is improper. Suppose that it is proper. By
h
i h
i
Lemma 2.1, we have ( f × f )(β)∪([D] × [D]) ⊂ ( f × f )(β)∪ f f −1 (D) × f f −1 (D) ⊂ ( f × f )(β∪([ f −1 (D)]×[ f −1 (D)]),
and consequently ( f × f )(β) ∪ ([D] × [D]) is proper, a contradiction. Hence, β ∪ ([ f −1 (D)] × [ f −1 (D)]) is improper.
(2). Suppose N ⊂ B and M ⊂ N are (strongly) closed, for all a, b ∈ B with a < M, b ∈ M, and β ∈ =. By Theorem 3.7,
we need to show that
(i) β * [a] × [b] and β ∪ ([a] × [M]) is improper.
(ii) β ∩ ([M] × [M]) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) or β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is improper.
Suppose a < N. Since N ⊂ B is strongly closed, by Theorem 3.7, we have
(i) β * [a] × [b] and β ∪ ([a] × [N]) is improper.
(ii) β ∩ ([N] × [N]) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([N] × [N]) or β ∪ ([N] × [N]) is improper.
Consequently, we get (i) β * [a] × [b] and β ∪ ([a] × [M]) is improper.
(ii) β ∩ ([M] × [M]) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) or β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is improper (since M ⊂ N).
0
Suppose that a ∈ N. Since the inclusion map i : (N, = ) → (B, =) is initial lift and β ∈ =, it follows from 2.2 that
0
−1
−1
(i × i) (β) ∈ = ( note that (i × i) (β) = β ∪ [N] × [N] and β ⊂ (i × i)((i × i)−1 (β)). Since M ⊂ N is strongly closed
and a, b ∈ N, a < M, b ∈ M, by Theorem 3.7 ,
(i) (i × i)−1 (β) * [a] × [b] (and consequently, β * [a] × [b] and (i × i)−1 (β) ∪ ([a] × [M]) = β ∪ ([a] × [M]) is improper.
(ii) (i × i)−1 (β) ∩ ([M] × [M]) = β ∩ ([M] × [M]) * ([a] × [a]) ∩ ([M] × [M]) or (i × i)−1 (β) ∪ ([M] × [M]) =
β ∪ ([M] × [M]) is improper. Hence, by Theorem 3.7, M ⊂ B is strongly closed (since M ⊂ N).
0
Lemma 4.3. Let f : (A, = ) → (B, =) be in SUConv.
(1) If D ⊂ B is closed, so also is f −1 (D).
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
139
(2) Let (B, =) be a semiuniform convergence space. If N ⊂ B is closed and M ⊂ N is closed, so also is M ⊂ B.
Proof. It is similar to the proof of the Lemma 4.2 by using Theorem 3.6 instead of Theorem 3.7.
Theorem 4.4. Let E be SUConv. Both sclE and clE are idempotent, weakly hereditary, productive, and hereditary
closure operators of E .
Proof. It follows from Definition 4.1, Lemma 4.2, Lemma 4.3, Exercise 2.D, Theorems 2.3 and 2.4, and Proposition
2.5 of [21].
Let E be a set based topological category and C be a closure operator of E.
E0C = { X ∈ E : x ∈ C({y}) and y ∈ C({x}) implies x = y}.
E1C = {X ∈ E : ∀x ∈ X, C({x}) = {x}}.
For E = Top, the category of topological spaces and C = K, the ordinary closure, we obtain the class of
T0 -spaces and T1 -spaces, respectively.
Theorem 4.5. Let E be SUConv and (B, =) ∈ E. Then, the followings are equivalent.
(1) (B, =) ∈ E1scl .
(3) (B, =) is T1 .
(4) (B, =) is T0 .
(5) for any distinct pair of points x and y in B, [x] × [y] < = and ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([y] × [y]) < =.
Proof. It follows from Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 4.4, Theorem 4.6, and Remark 4.7(1) of [13].
Let U : E → Set be a topological functor. Recall that a full and isomorphism-closed subcategory S of E is
a) epireflective in E iff it is closed under the formation of products and extremal subobjects (i.e., subspaces);
b) quotient-reflective in E iff it is epireflective and is closed under finer structures (i.e., if X ∈ S, Y ∈ E,
U(X) = U(Y), and id : Y → X is a E-morphism, then Y ∈ S).
Theorem 4.6. Let E = SUConv. The subcategory E1scl is quotient-reflective in E.
Proof. It is easy to see that this subcategory is full, isomorphism-closed, closed under formation of subspaces, and
closedQunder finer structures. It remains to show thatit is closed under formation of products. Let (Bi , =i ) and
B = i∈I Bi . Suppose (Bi , =i ) ∈ E1scl . We show that (B, =) ∈ E1scl , where = is the product structure on B. Suppose
there exist x , y in B such that [x] × [y] ∈ = or ([x] × [x]) ∩ ([y] × [y]) ∈ =. It follows that there exists m ∈ I
such that xm , ym in Bm and (πm × πm )([x] × [y]) = [xm ] × [ym ] ∈ =m or, by Lemma 2.1, (πm × πm )([x] × [x]) ∩
([y] × [y])) = ([xm ] × [xm ]) ∩ ([ym ] × [ym ]) ∈ =m , a contradiction. Hence, for any x , y in B, [x] × [y] < = and
([x] × [x]) ∩ ([y] × [y]) < =, i.e., (B, =) ∈ E1scl .
Hence, the subcategory E1scl is a quotient-reflective subcategory of E.
Let (B, q) be a generalized (filter) convergence space and M ⊂ B. Define K(M) ={x ∈ B : there exists (α, x) ∈ q
such that α ∪ [M] is proper} [19] p.198 and K∗ (M) = {x ∈ B : K({x}) ∩ M , ∅} ={x ∈ B : (∃c ∈ M) and ([x], c) ∈ q}
[20] p.21. Note that K, the ordinary Kuratowski operator, and its opposite K∗ are closure operators. If
K(M) = M, then M is said to be closed ( we call it as closedness in the usual sense). M ⊂ B is closed in a
semiuniform convergence space (B, =), if it is closed in its underlying Kent convergence space (B, q= ), where
q= = {(α, x) : α ∩ [x] ∈ γ= }, where γ= = {β ∈ F(B) : β × β ∈ =} [32] or [30].
Remark 4.7. (1) Let (B, q) be a Kent (local filter) convergence
space and M ⊂ B.
W
(i) By ([9], 2.6(4)), M is strongly closed iff M is K K∗ - closed (the join of K and K∗ ) .
(ii) By ([9], 2.7(1)), M is closed (in the usual sense) iff for x ∈ B if there exists (α, x) ∈ q such that α ∪ [M] is proper,
then x ∈ M.
V
(iii) By ([9], 2.5(1)), M is closed (in our sense) iff M is K K∗ - closed (the meet of K and K∗ ).
(iv) By (i), (ii), and (iii), if M is strongly closed, then M is closed (in both senses).
(v)By (ii) and (iii), if M is closed (in the usual sense), then M is closed (in our sense).
M. Baran et al. / Filomat 30:1 (2016), 131–140
140
(2) Let U : E → Set be a topological functor, X an object in E and p ∈ U(X) be a retract of X, i.e., the initial lift
h : 1̄ → X of the U−source p : 1 → U(X) is a retract ([4], Theorem 2.6). Then if X is Ti , then X is Ti at p, i = 0, 1
but the converse of implication is not true, in general.
(3) Let (B, q) be a Kent (local filter) convergence space and M ⊂ B.
By ([9], Theorem 2.5(2)), if (B, q) is T1 , then all subsets of B are closed (in our sense) and M is strongly closed iff M is
closed (in the usual sense).
(4) By 3.4 of [10], for E = Top and C = sclE , K, K∗ or C = clE , E1C is the class of T1 -spaces.
W ∗
W
(5) By 2.2.6 of [2], cl=Top = K and scl=Top = K[
K , the idempotent hull of K K∗ . Furthermore, if a topological
space X is T1 , then cl=Top = K = scl=Top .
V ∗
V
W ∗
(6) For E = LFCO, by Theorem 2.5 of [9], clE = K[
K , the idempotent hull of K K∗ , and sclE = K[
K . In
particular, if X is T1 , then clE = δ, the discrete closure operator and sclE = K.
(7) For an arbitrary set based topological category E, it is not known, in general, whether clE and sclE are closure
operators in the sense of [19] or not.
Acknowlegment. We would like to thank the referee for his valuable suggestions.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
J. Adámek, H. Herrlich, and G.E. Strecker, Abstract and Concrete Categories, Wiley, New York, 1990.
M. Baran, Separation properties, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math., 23 (1992), 333-341.
M. Baran, The notion of closedness in topological categories, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae, 34 (1993), 383-395.
M. Baran, Generalized Local Separation Properties, Indian J. pure appl. 25 (6) (1994), 615-620.
M. Baran, and H. Altındiş, T2 -objects in topological categories, Acta Math. Hungar., 71 (1996), no. 1-2, 41-48.
M. Baran, A notion of compactness in topological categories, Publ. Math. Debrecen, 50 (1997), no. 3-4, 221-234.
M. Baran, Completely Regular Objects and Normal Objects in topological categories, Acta Math. Hungar., 80 (1998), 211-224.
M. Baran, T3 and T4 -objects in topological categories, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math., 29 (1998), 59-69.
M. Baran, Closure operators in convergence spaces, Acta Math. Hungar., 87 (2000), 33-45.
M. Baran, Compactness, perfectness, separation, minimality and closedness with respect to closure operators, Applied Categorical
Structures, 10 (2002), 403–415.
M. Baran and M. Kula, A note on connectedness, Publ. Math. Debrecen, 68 (2006), no. 3-4, 489-501.
M. Baran and J. Al-Safar, Quotient-Reflective and Bireflective Subcategories of the category of Preordered Sets, Topology and its Appl.,158
(2011), 2076-2084, DOI 10.1016/j.topol.2011.06.043.
M. Baran, S. Kula, and A. Erciyes, T0 and T1 semiuniform convergence spaces, Filomat, 27 (2013), no. 4, 537546, DOI
10.2298/FIL1304537B.
A. Behling Einbettung Uniformer Ráume in Topologische Universen, Thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, 1992.
R. Beattie, and H.P. Butzmann, Convergence Structers and Applications to Functional Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002).
C.H. Cook and H.R. Fisher, On Equicontinuity and Continuous Convergence , Math. Ann., 159 (1965), 94-104.
A. Császár, Foundations of General Topology , Macmillan, New York, (1963).
P. Fletscher and W.F. Lindgren, Quasi-Uniform Spaces , Marcel Dekker, New York, 1982.
D. Dikranjan and E. Giuli, Closure operators I, Topology Appl., 27 (1987), 129-143.
D. Dikranjan, E. Giuli and W. Tholen, Closure Operators II, Proceedings of the International Conference on Categorical Topology,
(Prague,1988) (World Scientific Publ., Singapore,1989) 297-335.
D. Dikranjan and W. Tholen, Categorical Structure of Closure Operators, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1995.
D.B.Doitchinov, A Unified Teory of Topological Spaces, Proximity Spaces and Uniform Spaces, Soviet Math. Dokl., 5 (1964), 595-598.
H. Herrlich, Topological Structures, In: Math. Centre Tracts, Math. Centrum, Amsterdam, 52 (1974), 59-122.
H. Herrlich, Limit-Operators and Topological coreflection, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 146,(1969), 203-210.
H.H. Hong, Limit Operators and Reflective Subcategories, Topo 72 II Pittsburg Internat. Confer., Lecture Notes Math. 378(Springer,
Berlin, 1973).
M. Katétov, On Continuity Structures and Spaces of Mappings, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae, 6 (1965), 257-278.
D. C. Kent, Convergence Functions and Their Related Topologies, Fund. Math., 54 (1964), 125-133.
L. D. Nel , Initially Structured Categories and Cartesian Closedness, Canad. Journal of Math., 27 (1975), 1361-1377.
G. Preuss, Theory of Topological Structures. An Approach to Topological Categories, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, 1988.
G. Preuss, Cauchy Spaces and Generalizations, Math. Japonica, 38 No. 5(1993), 803-812.
G. Preuss, Semiuniform Convergence Spaces, Math. Japonica, 41 No.3(1995), 465-491.
G., Preuss, Foundations of topology, An approach to Convenient topology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, (2002).
G., Preuss, Non-Symmetric Convenient Topology And its Relations to Convenient Topology, Topology Proc., 29 (2005), 595-611.
S. Salbany, Reflective Subcategories and Closure Operators, in in Proc. First Categorical Topology Symposium, Lecture Notes in
Math., 540 (Springer, Berlin, 1976), 548-565.
F. Schwarz, Connections Between Convergence and Nearness, Lecture Notes in Math., Springer-Verlag 719 (1978), 345-354.
A. Weil, Sur les Espaces á Structures et sur la topologie Générale, Hermann, Paris, 1937.