Kuratowski closure axioms

In topology and related branches of mathematics, the Kuratowski closure axioms are a set of axioms that can be used to define a topological structure on a set. They are equivalent to the more commonly used open set definition. They were first formalized by Kazimierz Kuratowski, ^[1] and the idea was further studied by mathematicians such as Wacław Sierpiński and António Monteiro, ^[2] among others.

A similar set of axioms can be used to define a topological structure using only the dual notion of interior operator. ^[3]

Definition

Kuratowski closure operators and weakenings

Let ${\displaystyle X}$ be an arbitrary set and ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$ its power set. A Kuratowski closure operator is a unary operation ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c}$ :\wp (X)\to \wp (X)} with the following properties:

[K1] It preserves the empty set: ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (\varnothing )=\varnothing }$;

[K2] It is extensive: for all ${\displaystyle A\subseteq X}$, ${\displaystyle A\subseteq \mathbf {c} (A)}$;

[K3] It is idempotent: for all ${\displaystyle A\subseteq X}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)=\mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (A))}$;

[K4] It preserves/ distributes over binary unions: for all ${\displaystyle A,B\subseteq X}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A\cup B)=\mathbf {c} (A)\cup \mathbf {c} (B)}$.

A consequence of ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} }$ preserving binary unions is the following condition: ^[4]

[K4'] It is monotone : ${\displaystyle A\subseteq B\Rightarrow \mathbf {c} (A)\subseteq \mathbf {c} (B)}$.

In fact if we rewrite the equality in [K4] as an inclusion, giving the weaker axiom [K4''] (subadditivity):

[K4''] It is subadditive: for all ${\displaystyle A,B\subseteq X}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A\cup B)\subseteq \mathbf {c} (A)\cup \mathbf {c} (B)}$,

then it is easy to see that axioms [K4'] and [K4''] together are equivalent to [K4] (see the next-to-last paragraph of Proof 2 below).

Kuratowski (1966) includes a fifth (optional) axiom requiring that singleton sets should be stable under closure: for all ${\displaystyle x\in X}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (\{x\})=\{x\}}$. He refers to topological spaces which satisfy all five axioms as T₁-spaces in contrast to the more general spaces which only satisfy the four listed axioms. Indeed, these spaces correspond exactly to the topological T₁-spaces via the usual correspondence (see below). ^[5]

If requirement [K3] is omitted, then the axioms define a Čech closure operator. ^[6] If [K1] is omitted instead, then an operator satisfying [K2], [K3] and [K4'] is said to be a Moore closure operator. ^[7] A pair ${\displaystyle (X,\mathbf {c} )}$ is called Kuratowski, Čech or Moore closure space depending on the axioms satisfied by ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} }$.

Alternative axiomatizations

The four Kuratowski closure axioms can be replaced by a single condition, given by Pervin: ^[8]

[P] For all ${\displaystyle A,B\subseteq X}$, ${\displaystyle A\cup \mathbf {c} (A)\cup \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (B))=\mathbf {c} (A\cup B)\setminus \mathbf {c} (\varnothing )}$.

Axioms [K1]–[K4] can be derived as a consequence of this requirement:

1. Choose ${\displaystyle A=B=\varnothing }$. Then ${\displaystyle \varnothing \cup \mathbf {c} (\varnothing )\cup \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (\varnothing ))=\mathbf {c} (\varnothing )\setminus \mathbf {c} (\varnothing )=\varnothing }$, or ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (\varnothing )\cup \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (\varnothing ))=\varnothing }$. This immediately implies [K1].
2. Choose an arbitrary ${\displaystyle A\subseteq X}$ and ${\displaystyle B=\varnothing }$. Then, applying axiom [K1], ${\displaystyle A\cup \mathbf {c} (A)=\mathbf {c} (A)}$, implying [K2].
3. Choose ${\displaystyle A=\varnothing }$ and an arbitrary ${\displaystyle B\subseteq X}$. Then, applying axiom [K1], ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (B))=\mathbf {c} (B)}$, which is [K3].
4. Choose arbitrary ${\displaystyle A,B\subseteq X}$. Applying axioms [K1]–[K3], one derives [K4].

Alternatively, Monteiro (1945) had proposed a weaker axiom that only entails [K2]–[K4]: ^[9]

[M] For all ${\displaystyle A,B\subseteq X}$, ${\textstyle A\cup \mathbf {c} (A)\cup \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (B))\subseteq \mathbf {c} (A\cup B)}$.

Requirement [K1] is independent of [M] : indeed, if ${\displaystyle X\neq \varnothing }$, the operator ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} ^{\star }:\wp (X)\to \wp (X)}$ defined by the constant assignment ${\displaystyle A\mapsto \mathbf {c} ^{\star }(A):=X}$ satisfies [M] but does not preserve the empty set, since ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} ^{\star }(\varnothing )=X}$. Notice that, by definition, any operator satisfying [M] is a Moore closure operator.

A more symmetric alternative to [M] was also proven by M. O. Botelho and M. H. Teixeira to imply axioms [K2]–[K4]: ^[2]

[BT] For all ${\displaystyle A,B\subseteq X}$, ${\textstyle A\cup B\cup \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (A))\cup \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (B))=\mathbf {c} (A\cup B)}$.

Analogous structures

Interior, exterior and boundary operators

A dual notion to Kuratowski closure operators is that of Kuratowski interior operator, which is a map ${\displaystyle \mathbf {i}$ :\wp (X)\to \wp (X)} satisfying the following similar requirements: ^[3]

[I1] It preserves the total space: ${\displaystyle \mathbf {i} (X)=X}$;

[I2] It is intensive: for all ${\displaystyle A\subseteq X}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {i} (A)\subseteq A}$;

[I3] It is idempotent: for all ${\displaystyle A\subseteq X}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {i} (\mathbf {i} (A))=\mathbf {i} (A)}$;

[I4] It preserves binary intersections: for all ${\displaystyle A,B\subseteq X}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {i} (A\cap B)=\mathbf {i} (A)\cap \mathbf {i} (B)}$.

For these operators, one can reach conclusions that are completely analogous to what was inferred for Kuratowski closures. For example, all Kuratowski interior operators are isotonic, i.e. they satisfy [K4'], and because of intensivity [I2], it is possible to weaken the equality in [I3] to a simple inclusion.

The duality between Kuratowski closures and interiors is provided by the natural complement operator on ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$, the map ${\displaystyle \mathbf {n}$ :\wp (X)\to \wp (X)} sending ${\displaystyle A\mapsto \mathbf {n} (A):=X\setminus A}$. This map is an orthocomplementation on the power set lattice, meaning it satisfies De Morgan's laws: if ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}}$ is an arbitrary set of indices and ${\displaystyle \{A_{i}\}_{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\subseteq \wp (X)}$,

$${\displaystyle \mathbf {n} \left(\bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}A_{i}\right)=\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\mathbf {n} (A_{i}),\qquad \mathbf {n} \left(\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}A_{i}\right)=\bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\mathbf {n} (A_{i}).}$$

By employing these laws, together with the defining properties of ${\displaystyle \mathbf {n} }$, one can show that any Kuratowski interior induces a Kuratowski closure (and vice versa), via the defining relation ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c}$ :=\mathbf {nin} } (and ${\displaystyle \mathbf {i}$ :=\mathbf {ncn} }). Every result obtained concerning ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} }$ may be converted into a result concerning ${\displaystyle \mathbf {i} }$ by employing these relations in conjunction with the properties of the orthocomplementation ${\displaystyle \mathbf {n} }$.

Pervin (1964) further provides analogous axioms for Kuratowski exterior operators ^[3] and Kuratowski boundary operators, ^[10] which also induce Kuratowski closures via the relations ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c}$ :=\mathbf {ne} } and ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A):=A\cup \mathbf {b} (A)}$.

Abstract operators

Main article: Interior algebra

Notice that axioms [K1]–[K4] may be adapted to define an abstract unary operation ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} :L\to L}$ on a general bounded lattice ${\displaystyle (L,\land ,\lor ,\mathbf {0} ,\mathbf {1} )}$, by formally substituting set-theoretic inclusion with the partial order associated to the lattice, set-theoretic union with the join operation, and set-theoretic intersections with the meet operation; similarly for axioms [I1]–[I4]. If the lattice is orthocomplemented, these two abstract operations induce one another in the usual way. Abstract closure or interior operators can be used to define a generalized topology on the lattice.

Since neither unions nor the empty set appear in the requirement for a Moore closure operator, the definition may be adapted to define an abstract unary operator ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} :S\to S}$ on an arbitrary poset ${\displaystyle S}$.

Connection to other axiomatizations of topology

Induction of topology from closure

A closure operator naturally induces a topology as follows. Let ${\displaystyle X}$ be an arbitrary set. We shall say that a subset ${\displaystyle C\subseteq X}$ is closed with respect to a Kuratowski closure operator ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c}$ :\wp (X)\to \wp (X)} if and only if it is a fixed point of said operator, or in other words it is stable under${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} }$, i.e. ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (C)=C}$. The claim is that the family of all subsets of the total space that are complements of closed sets satisfies the three usual requirements for a topology, or equivalently, the family ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$ of all closed sets satisfies the following:

[T1] It is a bounded sublattice of ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$, i.e. ${\displaystyle X,\varnothing \in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$;

[T2] It is complete under arbitrary intersections, i.e. if ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}}$ is an arbitrary set of indices and ${\displaystyle \{C_{i}\}_{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\subseteq {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$, then ${\textstyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$;

[T3] It is complete under finite unions, i.e. if ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}}$ is a finite set of indices and ${\displaystyle \{C_{i}\}_{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\subseteq {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$, then ${\textstyle \bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$.

Notice that, by idempotency [K3], one may succinctly write ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]=\operatorname {im} (\mathbf {c} )}$.

Proof 1.

[T1] By extensivity [K2], ${\displaystyle X\subseteq \mathbf {c} (X)}$ and since closure maps the power set of ${\displaystyle X}$ into itself (that is, the image of any subset is a subset of ${\displaystyle X}$), ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (X)\subseteq X}$ we have ${\displaystyle X=\mathbf {c} (X)}$. Thus ${\displaystyle X\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$. The preservation of the empty set [K1] readily implies ${\displaystyle \varnothing \in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$. [T2] Next, let ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}}$ be an arbitrary set of indices and let ${\displaystyle C_{i}}$ be closed for every ${\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}}$. By extensivity [K2], ${\textstyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\subseteq \mathbf {c} \left(\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\right)}$. Also, by isotonicity [K4'], if ${\textstyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\subseteq C_{i}}$for all indices ${\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}}$, then ${\textstyle \mathbf {c} \left(\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\right)\subseteq \mathbf {c} (C_{i})=C_{i}}$ for all ${\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}}$, which implies ${\textstyle \mathbf {c} \left(\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\right)\subseteq \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}}$. Therefore, ${\textstyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}=\mathbf {c} \left(\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\right)}$, meaning ${\textstyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$. [T3] Finally, let ${\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}}$ be a finite set of indices and let ${\displaystyle C_{i}}$ be closed for every ${\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}}$. From the preservation of binary unions [K4], and using induction on the number of subsets of which we take the union, we have ${\textstyle \bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}=\mathbf {c} \left(\bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\right)}$. Thus, ${\textstyle \bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$.

Induction of closure from topology

Conversely, given a family ${\displaystyle \kappa }$ satisfying axioms [T1]–[T3], it is possible to construct a Kuratowski closure operator in the following way: if ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$ and ${\displaystyle A^{\uparrow }=\{B\in \wp (X)\ |\ A\subseteq B\}}$ is the inclusion upset of ${\displaystyle A}$, then

$${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A):=\bigcap _{B\in (\kappa \cap A^{\uparrow })}B}$$

defines a Kuratowski closure operator ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }}$ on ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$.

Proof 2.

[K1] Since ${\displaystyle \varnothing ^{\uparrow }=\wp (X)}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(\varnothing )}$ reduces to the intersection of all sets in the family ${\displaystyle \kappa }$; but ${\displaystyle \varnothing \in \kappa }$ by axiom [T1], so the intersection collapses to the null set and [K1] follows. [K2] By definition of ${\displaystyle A^{\uparrow }}$, we have that ${\displaystyle A\subseteq B}$ for all ${\displaystyle B\in \left(\kappa \cap A^{\uparrow }\right)}$, and thus ${\displaystyle A}$ must be contained in the intersection of all such sets. Hence follows extensivity [K2]. [K3] Notice that, for all ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$, the family ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)^{\uparrow }\cap \kappa }$ contains ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)}$ itself as a minimal element w.r.t. inclusion. Hence ${\textstyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }^{2}(A)=\bigcap _{B\in \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)^{\uparrow }\cap \kappa }B=\mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)}$, which is idempotence [K3]. [K4'] Let ${\displaystyle A\subseteq B\subseteq X}$: then ${\displaystyle B^{\uparrow }\subseteq A^{\uparrow }}$, and thus ${\displaystyle \kappa \cap B^{\uparrow }\subseteq \kappa \cap A^{\uparrow }}$. Since the latter family may contain more elements than the former, we find ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\subseteq \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)}$, which is isotonicity [K4']. Notice that isotonicity implies ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\subseteq \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A\cup B)}$ and ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)\subseteq \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A\cup B)}$, which together imply ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\cup \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)\subseteq \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A\cup B)}$. [K4] Finally, fix ${\displaystyle A,B\in \wp (X)}$. Axiom [T2] implies ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A),\mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)\in \kappa }$; furthermore, axiom [T2] implies that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\cup \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)\in \kappa }$. By extensivity [K2] one has ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\in A^{\uparrow }}$ and ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)\in B^{\uparrow }}$, so that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\cup \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)\in \left(A^{\uparrow }\right)\cap \left(B^{\uparrow }\right)}$. But ${\displaystyle \left(A^{\uparrow }\right)\cap \left(B^{\uparrow }\right)=(A\cup B)^{\uparrow }}$, so that all in all ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\cup \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)\in \kappa \cap (A\cup B)^{\uparrow }}$. Since then ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A\cup B)}$ is a minimal element of ${\displaystyle \kappa \cap (A\cup B)^{\uparrow }}$ w.r.t. inclusion, we find ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A\cup B)\subseteq \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\cup \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)}$. Point 4. ensures additivity [K4].

Exact correspondence between the two structures

In fact, these two complementary constructions are inverse to one another: if ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{\text{K}}(X)}$ is the collection of all Kuratowski closure operators on ${\displaystyle X}$, and ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Atp} (X)}$ is the collection of all families consisting of complements of all sets in a topology, i.e. the collection of all families satisfying [T1]–[T3], then ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}:\mathrm {Cls} _{\text{K}}(X)\to \mathrm {Atp} (X)}$ such that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} \mapsto {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$ is a bijection, whose inverse is given by the assignment ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {C}}:\kappa \mapsto \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }}$.

Proof 3.

First we prove that ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {C}}\circ {\mathfrak {S}}={\mathfrak {1}}_{\mathrm {Cls} _{\text{K}}(X)}}$, the identity operator on ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{\text{K}}(X)}$. For a given Kuratowski closure ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} \in \mathrm {Cls} _{\text{K}}(X)}$, define ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} ':={\mathfrak {C}}[{\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]]}$; then if ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$ its primed closure ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} '(A)}$ is the intersection of all ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} }$-stable sets that contain ${\displaystyle A}$. Its non-primed closure ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)}$ satisfies this description: by extensivity [K2] we have ${\displaystyle A\subseteq \mathbf {c} (A)}$, and by idempotence [K3] we have ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {c} (A))=\mathbf {c} (A)}$, and thus ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)\in \left(A^{\uparrow }\cap {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]\right)}$. Now, let ${\displaystyle C\in \left(A^{\uparrow }\cap {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]\right)}$ such that ${\displaystyle A\subseteq C\subseteq \mathbf {c} (A)}$: by isotonicity [K4'] we have ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)\subseteq \mathbf {c} (C)}$, and since ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (C)=C}$ we conclude that ${\displaystyle C=\mathbf {c} (A)}$. Hence ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)}$ is the minimal element of ${\displaystyle A^{\uparrow }\cap {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$ w.r.t. inclusion, implying ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} '(A)=\mathbf {c} (A)}$. Now we prove that ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}\circ {\mathfrak {C}}={\mathfrak {1}}_{\mathrm {Atp} (X)}}$. If ${\displaystyle \kappa \in \mathrm {Atp} (X)}$ and ${\displaystyle \kappa ':={\mathfrak {S}}[{\mathfrak {C}}[\kappa ]]}$ is the family of all sets that are stable under ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }}$, the result follows if both ${\displaystyle \kappa '\subseteq \kappa }$ and ${\displaystyle \kappa \subseteq \kappa '}$. Let ${\displaystyle A\in \kappa '}$: hence ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)=A}$. Since ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)}$ is the intersection of an arbitrary subfamily of ${\displaystyle \kappa }$, and the latter is complete under arbitrary intersections by [T2], then ${\displaystyle A=\mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\in \kappa }$. Conversely, if ${\displaystyle A\in \kappa }$, then ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)}$ is the minimal superset of ${\displaystyle A}$ that is contained in ${\displaystyle \kappa }$. But that is trivially ${\displaystyle A}$ itself, implying ${\displaystyle A\in \kappa '}$.

We observe that one may also extend the bijection ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}}$ to the collection ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{\check {C}}(X)}$ of all Čech closure operators, which strictly contains ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{\text{K}}(X)}$; this extension ${\displaystyle {\overline {\mathfrak {S}}}}$ is also surjective, which signifies that all Čech closure operators on ${\displaystyle X}$ also induce a topology on ${\displaystyle X}$. ^[11] However, this means that ${\displaystyle {\overline {\mathfrak {S}}}}$ is no longer a bijection.

Examples

• As discussed above, given a topological space ${\displaystyle X}$ we may define the closure of any subset ${\displaystyle A\subseteq X}$ to be the set ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)=\bigcap \{C{\text{ a closed subset of }}X|A\subseteq C\}}$, i.e. the intersection of all closed sets of ${\displaystyle X}$ which contain ${\displaystyle A}$. The set ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)}$ is the smallest closed set of ${\displaystyle X}$ containing ${\displaystyle A}$, and the operator ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c}$ :\wp (X)\to \wp (X)} is a Kuratowski closure operator.
• If ${\displaystyle X}$ is any set, the operators ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\top },\mathbf {c} _{\bot }:\wp (X)\to \wp (X)}$ such that
  $${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\top }(A)={\begin{cases}\varnothing &A=\varnothing ,\\X&A\neq \varnothing ,\end{cases}}\qquad \mathbf {c} _{\bot }(A)=A\quad \forall A\in \wp (X),}$$
  are Kuratowski closures. The first induces the indiscrete topology ${\displaystyle \{\varnothing ,X\}}$, while the second induces the discrete topology ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$.

• Fix an arbitrary ${\displaystyle S\subsetneq X}$, and let ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{S}:\wp (X)\to \wp (X)}$ be such that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{S}(A):=A\cup S}$ for all ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$. Then ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{S}}$ defines a Kuratowski closure; the corresponding family of closed sets ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} _{S}]}$ coincides with ${\displaystyle S^{\uparrow }}$, the family of all subsets that contain ${\displaystyle S}$. When ${\displaystyle S=\varnothing }$, we once again retrieve the discrete topology ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$ (i.e. ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\varnothing }=\mathbf {c} _{\bot }}$, as can be seen from the definitions).
• If ${\displaystyle \lambda }$ is an infinite cardinal number such that ${\displaystyle \lambda \leq \operatorname {crd} (X)}$, then the operator ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\lambda }:\wp (X)\to \wp (X)}$ such that
  $${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\lambda }(A)={\begin{cases}A&\operatorname {crd} (A)<\lambda ,\\X&\operatorname {crd} (A)\geq \lambda \end{cases}}}$$
  satisfies all four Kuratowski axioms. ^[12] If ${\displaystyle \lambda =\aleph _{0}}$, this operator induces the cofinite topology on ${\displaystyle X}$; if ${\displaystyle \lambda =\aleph _{1}}$, it induces the cocountable topology.

Properties

• Since any Kuratowski closure is isotonic, and so is obviously any inclusion mapping, one has the (isotonic) Galois connection ${\displaystyle \langle \mathbf {c}$ :\wp (X)\to \mathrm {im} (\mathbf {c} );\iota :\mathrm {im} (\mathbf {c} )\hookrightarrow \wp (X)\rangle }, provided one views ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$as a poset with respect to inclusion, and ${\displaystyle \mathrm {im} (\mathbf {c} )}$ as a subposet of ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$. Indeed, it can be easily verified that, for all ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$ and ${\displaystyle C\in \mathrm {im} (\mathbf {c} )}$, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)\subseteq C}$ if and only if ${\displaystyle A\subseteq \iota (C)}$.
• If ${\displaystyle \{A_{i}\}_{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}}$ is a subfamily of ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$, then
  $${\displaystyle \bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\mathbf {c} (A_{i})\subseteq \mathbf {c} \left(\bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}A_{i}\right),\qquad \mathbf {c} \left(\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}A_{i}\right)\subseteq \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\mathbf {c} (A_{i}).}$$
• If ${\displaystyle A,B\in \wp (X)}$, then ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)\setminus \mathbf {c} (B)\subseteq \mathbf {c} (A\setminus B)}$.

Topological concepts in terms of closure

Refinements and subspaces

A pair of Kuratowski closures ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{1},\mathbf {c} _{2}:\wp (X)\to \wp (X)}$ such that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{2}(A)\subseteq \mathbf {c} _{1}(A)}$ for all ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$ induce topologies ${\displaystyle \tau _{1},\tau _{2}}$ such that ${\displaystyle \tau _{1}\subseteq \tau _{2}}$, and vice versa. In other words, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{1}}$ dominates ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{2}}$ if and only if the topology induced by the latter is a refinement of the topology induced by the former, or equivalently ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} _{1}]\subseteq {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} _{2}]}$. ^[13] For example, ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\top }}$ clearly dominates ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\bot }}$(the latter just being the identity on ${\displaystyle \wp (X)}$). Since the same conclusion can be reached substituting ${\displaystyle \tau _{i}}$ with the family ${\displaystyle \kappa _{i}}$ containing the complements of all its members, if ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{\text{K}}(X)}$ is endowed with the partial order ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} \leq \mathbf {c} '\iff \mathbf {c} (A)\subseteq \mathbf {c} '(A)}$ for all ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$ and ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Atp} (X)}$ is endowed with the refinement order, then we may conclude that ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}}$ is an antitonic mapping between posets.

In any induced topology (relative to the subset A) the closed sets induce a new closure operator that is just the original closure operator restricted to A: ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{A}(B)=A\cap \mathbf {c} _{X}(B)}$, for all ${\displaystyle B\subseteq A}$. ^[14]

Continuous maps, closed maps and homeomorphisms

A function ${\displaystyle f:(X,\mathbf {c} )\to (Y,\mathbf {c} ')}$ is continuous at a point ${\displaystyle p}$ iff ${\displaystyle p\in \mathbf {c} (A)\Rightarrow f(p)\in \mathbf {c} '(f(A))}$, and it is continuous everywhere iff

$${\displaystyle f(\mathbf {c} (A))\subseteq \mathbf {c} '(f(A))}$$

for all subsets ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$. ^[15] The mapping ${\displaystyle f}$ is a closed map iff the reverse inclusion holds, ^[16] and it is a homeomorphism iff it is both continuous and closed, i.e. iff equality holds. ^[17]

Separation axioms

Let ${\displaystyle (X,\mathbf {c} )}$ be a Kuratowski closure space. Then

• ${\displaystyle X}$ is a T₀-space iff ${\displaystyle x\neq y}$ implies ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (\{x\})\neq \mathbf {c} (\{y\})}$; ^[18]
• ${\displaystyle X}$ is a T₁-space iff ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (\{x\})=\{x\}}$ for all ${\displaystyle x\in X}$; ^[19]
• ${\displaystyle X}$ is a T₂-space iff ${\displaystyle x\neq y}$ implies that there exists a set ${\displaystyle A\in \wp (X)}$ such that both ${\displaystyle x\notin \mathbf {c} (A)}$ and ${\displaystyle y\notin \mathbf {c} (\mathbf {n} (A))}$, where ${\displaystyle \mathbf {n} }$ is the set complement operator. ^[20]

Closeness and separation

A point ${\displaystyle p}$ is close to a subset ${\displaystyle A}$ if ${\displaystyle p\in \mathbf {c} (A).}$This can be used to define a proximity relation on the points and subsets of a set. ^[21]

Two sets ${\displaystyle A,B\in \wp (X)}$ are separated iff ${\displaystyle (A\cap \mathbf {c} (B))\cup (B\cap \mathbf {c} (A))=\varnothing }$. The space ${\displaystyle X}$ is connected iff it cannot be written as the union of two separated subsets. ^[22]

See also

• Characterizations of the category of topological spaces
• Čech closure operator  – Closure operatorPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
• Closure operator  – mathematical operatorPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
• Closure algebra
• Preclosure operator  – Closure operator
• Pretopological space  – Generalized topological space
• Topological space  – Mathematical space with a notion of closeness

Notes

1. Kuratowski (1922).
2. Monteiro (1945) , p. 160.
3. Pervin (1964) , p. 44.
4. Pervin (1964) , p. 43, Exercise 6.
5. Kuratowski (1966) , p. 38.
6. Arkhangel'skij & Fedorchuk (1990) , p. 25.
7. "Moore closure". nLab. March 7, 2015. Retrieved August 19, 2019.
8. Pervin (1964) , p. 42, Exercise 5.
9. Monteiro (1945) , p. 158.
10. Pervin (1964) , p. 46, Exercise 4.
11. Arkhangel'skij & Fedorchuk (1990) , p. 26.
12. A proof for the case ${\displaystyle \lambda =\aleph _{0}}$ can be found at "Is the following a Kuratowski closure operator?!". Stack Exchange. November 21, 2015.
13. Pervin (1964) , p. 43, Exercise 10.
14. Pervin (1964) , p. 49, Theorem 3.4.3.
15. Pervin (1964) , p. 60, Theorem 4.3.1.
16. Pervin (1964) , p. 66, Exercise 3.
17. Pervin (1964) , p. 67, Exercise 5.
18. Pervin (1964) , p. 69, Theorem 5.1.1.
19. Pervin (1964) , p. 70, Theorem 5.1.2.
20. A proof can be found at this link.
21. Pervin (1964) , pp. 193–196.
22. Pervin (1964) , p. 51.

References

• Kuratowski, Kazimierz (1922) [1920], "Sur l'opération A de l'Analysis Situs" [On the operation A in Analysis Situs](PDF), Fundamenta Mathematicae (in French), vol. 3, pp. 182–199.
• Kuratowski, Kazimierz (1966) [1958], Topology, vol. I, translated by Jaworowski, J., Academic Press, ISBN   0-12-429201-1, LCCN   66029221 .
  • —— (2010). "On the Operation Ā Analysis Situs". ResearchGate. Translated by Mark Bowron.
• Pervin, William J. (1964), Boas, Ralph P. Jr. (ed.), Foundations of General Topology, Academic Press, ISBN   9781483225159, LCCN   64-17796 .
• Arkhangel'skij, A.V.; Fedorchuk, V.V. (1990) [1988], Gamkrelidze, R.V.; Arkhangel'skij, A.V.; Pontryagin, L.S. (eds.), General Topology I, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 17, translated by O'Shea, D.B., Berlin: Springer-Verlag, ISBN   978-3-642-64767-3, LCCN   89-26209 .
• Monteiro, António (1945), "Caractérisation de l'opération de fermeture par un seul axiome" [Characterization of the operation of closure by a single axiom], Portugaliae mathematica (in French), vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 158–160, MR   0012310, Zbl   0060.39406 .

External links

• Alternative Characterizations of Topological Spaces