# Kuratowski closure axioms

Last updated

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.

## Contents

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 isotonic: ${\displaystyle A\subseteq B\Rightarrow \mathbf {c} (A)\subseteq \mathbf {c} (B)}$.

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 ${\displaystyle \{A_{i}\}_{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}\subseteq \wp (X)}$,

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

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

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 ${\displaystyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$;

[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 ${\displaystyle \bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$.

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], ${\displaystyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\subseteq \mathbf {c} {\Big (}\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}{\Big )}}$. Also, by isotonicity [K4'], if ${\displaystyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\subseteq C_{i}}$for all indices ${\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}}$, then ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} {\Big (}\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}{\Big )}\subseteq \mathbf {c} (C_{i})=C_{i}}$ for all ${\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}}$, which implies ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} {\Big (}\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}{\Big )}\subseteq \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}}$. Therefore, ${\displaystyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}=\mathbf {c} {\Big (}\bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}{\Big )}}$, meaning ${\displaystyle \bigcap _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$.

[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 ${\displaystyle \bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}=\mathbf {c} {\Big (}\bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}{\Big )}}$. Thus, ${\displaystyle \bigcup _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}C_{i}\in {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ]}$.

### 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 ${\displaystyle B\in (\kappa \cap A^{\uparrow })}$, 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 ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }^{2}(A)=\bigcap _{B\in \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)^{\uparrow }\cap \kappa }B=\mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)}$, 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 ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(A)\cup \mathbf {c} _{\kappa }(B)\in (A^{\uparrow })\cap (B^{\uparrow })}$. But ${\displaystyle (A^{\uparrow })\cap (B^{\uparrow })=(A\cup B)^{\uparrow }}$, 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 ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{K}(X)}$ 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 ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}:\mathrm {Cls} _{K}(X)\to \mathrm {Atp} (X)}$ 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 ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {C}}\circ {\mathfrak {S}}={\mathfrak {1}}_{\mathrm {Cls} _{K}(X)}}$, the identity operator on ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{K}(X)}$. For a given Kuratowski closure ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} \in \mathrm {Cls} _{K}(X)}$, 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 ${\displaystyle \mathbf {c} (A)\in (A^{\uparrow }\cap {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ])}$. Now, let ${\displaystyle C\in (A^{\uparrow }\cap {\mathfrak {S}}[\mathbf {c} ])}$ 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 ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{K}(X)}$; 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 ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Cls} _{K}(X)}$ 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]

## Notes

1. Monteiro (1945) , p. 160.
2. Pervin (1964) , p. 44.
3. Pervin (1964) , p. 43, Exercise 6.
4. Kuratowski (1966) , p. 38.
5. "Moore closure". nLab. March 7, 2015. Retrieved August 19, 2019.
6. Pervin (1964) , p. 42, Exercise 5.
7. Monteiro (1945) , p. 158.
8. Pervin (1964) , p. 46, Exercise 4.
9. 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.
10. Pervin (1964) , p. 43, Exercise 10.
11. Pervin (1964) , p. 49, Theorem 3.4.3.
12. Pervin (1964) , p. 60, Theorem 4.3.1.
13. Pervin (1964) , p. 66, Exercise 3.
14. Pervin (1964) , p. 67, Exercise 5.
15. Pervin (1964) , p. 69, Theorem 5.1.1.
16. Pervin (1964) , p. 70, Theorem 5.1.2.
17. A proof can be found at this link.
18. Pervin (1964) , pp. 193–196.
19. Pervin (1964) , p. 51.

## Related Research Articles

In mathematics, a topological space is called separable if it contains a countable, dense subset; that is, there exists a sequence of elements of the space such that every nonempty open subset of the space contains at least one element of the sequence.

In mathematics, a topological space is, roughly speaking, a geometrical space in which closeness is defined but, generally, cannot be measured by a numeric distance. More specifically, a topological space is a set of points, along with a set of neighbourhoods for each point, satisfying a set of axioms relating points and neighbourhoods.

In commutative algebra the prime spectrum of a ring like R is the set of all prime ideals of R which is usually denoted by , in algebraic geometry it is simultaneously a topological space equipped with the sheaf of rings .

In mathematics, the closure of a subset S of points in a topological space consists of all points in S together with all limit points of S. The closure of S may equivalently be defined as the union of S and its boundary, and also as the intersection of all closed sets containing S. Intuitively, the closure can be thought of as all the points that are either in S or "near" S. A point which is in the closure of S is a point of closure of S. The notion of closure is in many ways dual to the notion of interior.

In mathematics, a topological vector space is one of the basic structures investigated in functional analysis. A topological vector space is a vector space which is also a topological space, this implies that vector space operations be continuous functions. More specifically, its topological space has a uniform topological structure, allowing a notion of uniform convergence.

In mathematics, specifically in topology, the interior of a subset S of a topological space X is the union of all subsets of S that are open in X. A point that is in the interior of S is an interior point of S.

In topology and mathematics in general, the boundary of a subset S of a topological space X is the set of points which can be approached both from S and from the outside of S. More precisely, it is the set of points in the closure of not belonging to the interior of An element of the boundary of is called a boundary point of The term boundary operation refers to finding or taking the boundary of a set. Notations used for boundary of a set include and Some authors use the term frontier instead of boundary in an attempt to avoid confusion with a different definition used in algebraic topology and the theory of manifolds. Despite widespread acceptance of the meaning of the terms boundary and frontier, they have sometimes been used to refer to other sets. For example, Metric Spaces by E. T. Copson uses the term boundary to refer to Hausdorff's border, which is defined as the intersection of a set with its boundary. Hausdorff also introduced the term residue, which is defined as the intersection of a set with the closure of the border of its complement.

In mathematics, a closure operator on a set S is a function from the power set of S to itself that satisfies the following conditions for all sets

In mathematics, a field of sets is a mathematical structure consisting of a pair consisting of a set and a family of subsets of called an algebra over that contains the empty set as an element, and is closed under the operations of taking complements in finite unions, and finite intersections.

In topology, a proximity space, also called a nearness space, is an axiomatization of the intuitive notion of "nearness" that hold set-to-set, as opposed to the better known point-to-set notion that characterize topological spaces.

In mathematics, more specifically in point-set topology, the derived set of a subset of a topological space is the set of all limit points of It is usually denoted by

In mathematics, a topological space is usually defined in terms of open sets. However, there are many equivalent characterizations of the category of topological spaces. Each of these definitions provides a new way of thinking about topological concepts, and many of these have led to further lines of inquiry and generalisation.

In topology, a preclosure operator, or Čech closure operator is a map between subsets of a set, similar to a topological closure operator, except that it is not required to be idempotent. That is, a preclosure operator obeys only three of the four Kuratowski closure axioms.

In mathematics, a linear map is a mapping between two modules that preserves the operations of addition and scalar multiplication.

In mathematics, a polyadic space is a topological space that is the image under a continuous function of a topological power of an Alexandroff one-point compactification of a discrete space.

In topology, a subfield of mathematics, filters are special families of subsets of a set that can be used to study topological spaces and define all basic topological notions such a convergence, continuity, compactness, and more. Filters also provide a common framework for defining various types of limits of functions such as limits from the left/right, to infinity, to a point or a set, and many others. Special types of filters called ultrafilters have many useful technical properties and they may often be used in place of arbitrary filters.

In functional analysis and related areas of mathematics, a complete topological vector space is a topological vector space (TVS) with the property that whenever points get progressively closer to each other, then there exists some point towards which they all get closer to. The notion of "points that get progressively closer" is made rigorous by Cauchy nets or Cauchy filters, which are generalizations of Cauchy sequences, while "point towards which they all get closer to" means that this net or filter converges to Unlike the notion of completeness for metric spaces, which it generalizes, the notion of completeness for TVSs does not depend on any metric and is defined for all TVSs, including those that are not metrizable or Hausdorff.

In mathematics, a convergence space, also called a generalized convergence, is a set together with a relation called a convergence that satisfies certain properties relating elements of X with the family of filters on X. Convergence spaces generalize the notions of convergence that are found in point-set topology, including metric convergence and uniform convergence. Every topological space gives rise to a canonical convergence but there are convergences, known as non-topological convergences, that do not arise from any topological space. Examples of convergences that are in general non-topological include convergence in measure and almost everywhere convergence. Many topological properties have generalizations to convergence spaces.

In the mathematical field of set theory, an ultrafilter is a maximal proper filter: it is a filter on a given non-empty set which is a certain type of non-empty family of subsets of that is not equal to the power set of and that is also "maximal" in that there does not exist any other proper filter on that contains it as a proper subset. Said differently, a proper filter is called an ultrafilter if there exists exactly one proper filter that contains it as a subset, that proper filter (necessarily) being itself.