Proving order topology is normal without going through complete-normality
0
I've been looking extensively for a proof that any toset equipped with the order topology is normal. Every proof I've seen actually shows that the space is in fact completely normal, but they use complicated arguments about convex sets. I would like to know if there exists a simple way to prove directly that the order topology is normal, without going through complete-normality.
general-topology order-theory
asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:47
RlosRlos
987
add a comment |
0
I've been looking extensively for a proof that any toset equipped with the order topology is normal. Every proof I've seen actually shows that the space is in fact completely normal, but they use complicated arguments about convex sets. I would like to know if there exists a simple way to prove directly that the order topology is normal, without going through complete-normality.
general-topology order-theory
asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:47
RlosRlos
987
completely normal means that every subspace is normal, so it's not a real complication. In fact you can prove that the fact that an arbitrary ordered topological space is normal needs the axiom of choice so is always non-constructive, e.g. The standard proof I know shows that an ordered space is monotonically normal (stronger than completely normal, and has all sorts of other extra consequences) using an extra well-order on the set (so making the AC necessity obvious). It's a bit of case checking but not very hard.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 6:57
toset? You mean linearly ordered set?
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:01
Yes, I mean linearly ordered. So there is just no constructive proof of this fact? I find that amazing and rather odd, because it's usually not too hard to show that a given space is normal...
– Rlos
Dec 1 '18 at 7:08
In fact, normality is a hard thing to show for general spaces. Only metric spaces as a class are easy.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:25
add a comment |
0
0
0
I've been looking extensively for a proof that any toset equipped with the order topology is normal. Every proof I've seen actually shows that the space is in fact completely normal, but they use complicated arguments about convex sets. I would like to know if there exists a simple way to prove directly that the order topology is normal, without going through complete-normality.
general-topology order-theory
asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:47
RlosRlos
987
I've been looking extensively for a proof that any toset equipped with the order topology is normal. Every proof I've seen actually shows that the space is in fact completely normal, but they use complicated arguments about convex sets. I would like to know if there exists a simple way to prove directly that the order topology is normal, without going through complete-normality.
general-topology order-theory
general-topology order-theory
asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:47
RlosRlos
987
asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:47
RlosRlos
987
asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:47
RlosRlos
987
asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:47
RlosRlos
987
asked Dec 1 '18 at 6:47
RlosRlos
987
987
completely normal means that every subspace is normal, so it's not a real complication. In fact you can prove that the fact that an arbitrary ordered topological space is normal needs the axiom of choice so is always non-constructive, e.g. The standard proof I know shows that an ordered space is monotonically normal (stronger than completely normal, and has all sorts of other extra consequences) using an extra well-order on the set (so making the AC necessity obvious). It's a bit of case checking but not very hard.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 6:57
toset? You mean linearly ordered set?
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:01
Yes, I mean linearly ordered. So there is just no constructive proof of this fact? I find that amazing and rather odd, because it's usually not too hard to show that a given space is normal...
– Rlos
Dec 1 '18 at 7:08
In fact, normality is a hard thing to show for general spaces. Only metric spaces as a class are easy.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:25
add a comment |
completely normal means that every subspace is normal, so it's not a real complication. In fact you can prove that the fact that an arbitrary ordered topological space is normal needs the axiom of choice so is always non-constructive, e.g. The standard proof I know shows that an ordered space is monotonically normal (stronger than completely normal, and has all sorts of other extra consequences) using an extra well-order on the set (so making the AC necessity obvious). It's a bit of case checking but not very hard.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 6:57
toset? You mean linearly ordered set?
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:01
Yes, I mean linearly ordered. So there is just no constructive proof of this fact? I find that amazing and rather odd, because it's usually not too hard to show that a given space is normal...
– Rlos
Dec 1 '18 at 7:08
In fact, normality is a hard thing to show for general spaces. Only metric spaces as a class are easy.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:25
completely normal means that every subspace is normal, so it's not a real complication. In fact you can prove that the fact that an arbitrary ordered topological space is normal needs the axiom of choice so is always non-constructive, e.g. The standard proof I know shows that an ordered space is monotonically normal (stronger than completely normal, and has all sorts of other extra consequences) using an extra well-order on the set (so making the AC necessity obvious). It's a bit of case checking but not very hard.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 6:57
completely normal means that every subspace is normal, so it's not a real complication. In fact you can prove that the fact that an arbitrary ordered topological space is normal needs the axiom of choice so is always non-constructive, e.g. The standard proof I know shows that an ordered space is monotonically normal (stronger than completely normal, and has all sorts of other extra consequences) using an extra well-order on the set (so making the AC necessity obvious). It's a bit of case checking but not very hard.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 6:57
toset? You mean linearly ordered set?
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:01
toset? You mean linearly ordered set?
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:01
Yes, I mean linearly ordered. So there is just no constructive proof of this fact? I find that amazing and rather odd, because it's usually not too hard to show that a given space is normal...
– Rlos
Dec 1 '18 at 7:08
Yes, I mean linearly ordered. So there is just no constructive proof of this fact? I find that amazing and rather odd, because it's usually not too hard to show that a given space is normal...
– Rlos
Dec 1 '18 at 7:08
In fact, normality is a hard thing to show for general spaces. Only metric spaces as a class are easy.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:25
In fact, normality is a hard thing to show for general spaces. Only metric spaces as a class are easy.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:25
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021071%2fproving-order-topology-is-normal-without-going-through-complete-normality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021071%2fproving-order-topology-is-normal-without-going-through-complete-normality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
completely normal means that every subspace is normal, so it's not a real complication. In fact you can prove that the fact that an arbitrary ordered topological space is normal needs the axiom of choice so is always non-constructive, e.g. The standard proof I know shows that an ordered space is monotonically normal (stronger than completely normal, and has all sorts of other extra consequences) using an extra well-order on the set (so making the AC necessity obvious). It's a bit of case checking but not very hard.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 6:57
toset? You mean linearly ordered set?
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:01
Yes, I mean linearly ordered. So there is just no constructive proof of this fact? I find that amazing and rather odd, because it's usually not too hard to show that a given space is normal...
– Rlos
Dec 1 '18 at 7:08
In fact, normality is a hard thing to show for general spaces. Only metric spaces as a class are easy.
– Henno Brandsma
Dec 1 '18 at 7:25