Both my definition and description of properties of regular funcoids were erroneous. (The definition was not compatible with the customary definition of regular topological spaces due an error in the definition, and its properties included mathematical errors.)
I have rewritten the erroneous section of my book.
Now it is shown that being regular for a funcoid is equivalent to each of the following formulas:
These formulas seem not being an example of math beautify. So I suspect that the traditional definition of regular topospaces should be amended (or rather not to produce a terminology conflict, replaced with an other algebraically more elegant concept).
Today I’ve took the bold decision to put my math research book online free (under Creative Commons license), with LaTeX source available for editing by anyone at a Git hosting.
Because of conflict of licensing, it seems not that my book will be never published officially.
However publishing in Git has some advantages:
- If I want to add to the books something new, it is easy; no need for official edition-2.
- It is easy to correct errors as soon as they are found and reported.
Please read my book and also contribute to its editing.
In previous post I stated that pointfree reloids can be defined as filters on pointfree funcoids.
Now I suggest also an alternative definition of pointfree reloids: Pointfree reloids can be defined as filters on products of atoms of posets and .
In the case if and are powerset lattices, this definition coincides with the definition of reloids (and with the definition of pointfree reloids given in the previous post).
After I defined pointfree funcoids which generalize funcoids (see my draft book) I sought for pointfree reloids (a suitable generalization of reloids, see my book) long time.
Today I have finally discovered pointfree reloids. The idea is as follows:
Funcoids between sets and denoted are essentially the same as pointfree funcoids (where denotes filters on a set ).
Reloids between sets and denoted are essentially the same as filters (where is the category of binary relations between sets.)
But, as I’ve recently discovered (see my book), is essentially the same as . So .
This way (for every posets , ) corresponds to in the same way as corresponds to . In other words, are the pointfree reloids corresponding to pointfree funcoids .
After this Math.StackExchange question I have proved that binary relations are essentially the same as pointfree funcoids between powersets.
Full proof is available in my draft book.
The most interesting aspect of this is that is that we can construct filtrator with core being pointfree funcoids from to for every poset of pointfree funcoids between filters on and filters on , by analogy with the filtrator of funcoids whose core is a set of binary relations (the same as a pointfree funcoids, by the above bijective correspondence). This way the theory of filtrators of funcoids generalizes for pointfree funcoids.
By the way, this bijective correspondence is a functor.
Not understood? Read my book.
I wrote a section on ideals, free stars, and mixers in my book.
Now free stars (among with ideals and mixers) are studied as first class objects, being shown isomorphic to filters on posets.
In (not so far) future it should allow to extend our research of pointfree funcoids and staroids/multifuncoids, using now comprehensive theory of free stars (as now we know that they are isomorphic to filters and so their properties are quite clear).
See the development version of my book.
Previously I wrote my research monograph with TeXmacs word processors.
TeXmacs is a very good program. However annoying bugs of TeXmacs (incorrect file “saved” status, failure to work well when multiple windows with the same document are opened, etc.) and also its slowness when working with a long (300 pages) document, forced me to switch to another software.
So I have rewritten my draft book with LyX word processor (based on LaTeX).
There are also small changes which I accomplished due rewriting:
- notatiton change and for the least and the greatest element of a poset
- notatiton change for applying a function to a set ; for existence of a point such that .
- other small changes
Now I am going to start the boring process of checking if I rewrite the book correctly, paragraph by pragraph.