{"id":2915,"date":"2020-11-21T11:26:33","date_gmt":"2020-11-21T10:26:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/?page_id=2915"},"modified":"2022-11-19T15:00:38","modified_gmt":"2022-11-19T14:00:38","slug":"quasi-uniform-spaces-ii-stably-compact-spaces","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/?page_id=2915","title":{"rendered":"Quasi-uniform spaces II: Stably compact spaces"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Let us continue our exploration of <a href=\"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/?page_id=2869\" data-type=\"page\" data-id=\"2869\">quasi-uniform spaces<\/a>.  I was recently reading a paper by Jimmie Lawson [2] about stably compact spaces, and which, I must confess, I did not know about until a few months ago. It contains a wealth of information on stably compact spaces, giving a lucid and comprehensive view of the area.  If I could rewrite Chapter 9 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/gb\/knowledge\/isbn\/item7069109\/Non-Hausdorff%20Topology%20and%20Domain%20Theory\/?site_locale=en_GB\">book<\/a>, I would definitely take example on this paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And, in Section 3.5 of [2], surprise!  Jimmie mentions a neat result about the quasi-uniformities that induce the topology of a stably compact space, which he attributes to K\u00fcnzi and Br\u00fcmmer [3].  I immediately decided to talk about it here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Let me say what this is about.  In the setting of uniform spaces, it has been well-known for a long time that the topology of a compact Hausdorff space is induced by a unique uniformity [1, \u00a74, 1, th\u00e9or\u00e8me 1].   Jimmie says that this result extends to stably compact spaces, and I tried to understand [3] in order to explain why in a hopefully simpler way.  Unfortunately, the expected result, which would be that there is a unique quasi-uniformity that induces any given stably compact topology, is wrong, as I will demonstrate below.  We will see what goes wrong, and progressively make our way towards a theorem that indeed generalizes the situation on compact Hausdorff spaces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Is the topology of stably compact space induced by a unique quasi-uniformity?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That is the natural conjecture we might have that would generalize the aforementioned theorem on compact Hausdorff spaces.  A quick reading of [2] or [3] might convince you that this what K\u00fcnzi and Br\u00fcmmer somehow proved, but that would be wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Here is a simple counter-example\u2014in fact almost the same counter-example as <a href=\"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/?page_id=2869\" data-type=\"page\" data-id=\"2869\">last time<\/a>.  Consider the interval [0, 1] with the Scott topology of \u2264, whose open intervals are the empty set, the whole interval, and the half-open intervals ]<em>a<\/em>,1], with 0&lt;<em>a<\/em>&lt;1.  This is a stably compact space.  But there are at least two quasi-uniformities that induce the Scott topology:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the Pervin quasi-uniformity, generated by the entourages <em>R<\/em><sub><em>U<\/em><\/sub> \u225d {(<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) \u2208 [0,1] \u00d7 [0,1] | <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>U<\/em> implies <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>U<\/em>}, where <em>U<\/em> ranges over the Scott-open subsets of [0, 1], and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>the <em>quasi-metric quasi-uniformity<\/em>, namely the quasi-uniformity generated by the entourages [&lt;<em>r<\/em>] \u225d {(<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) \u2208 [0,1] \u00d7 [0,1] | <em>x<\/em>&lt;<em>y<\/em>+<em>r<\/em>}, where <em>r<\/em> is a (non-zero) positive real number, in other words the quasi-uniformity induced by the quasi-metric d<sub><strong>R<\/strong><\/sub> on [0,1].<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Now consider <em>R<\/em><sub><em>U<\/em><\/sub>, where <em>U<\/em> \u225d ]1\/2, 1].  That cannot contain any finite intersection [&lt;<em>r<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [&lt;<em>r<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>] of entourages of the second quasi-uniformity.  We argue as follows.  First, if <em>R<\/em><sub><em>U<\/em><\/sub> contained such an intersection, then it would included the smaller entourage [&lt;<em>r<\/em>], where <em>r<\/em> \u225d min (<em>r<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>, &#8230;, <em>r<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>, 3\/2).  Note that <em>r<\/em> is non zero.  Second, the pair (1\/2+<em>r<\/em>\/3, 1\/2\u2013<em>r<\/em>\/3) is in [&lt;<em>r<\/em>], but not in <em>R<\/em><sub><em>U<\/em><\/sub>.  (The reason of the &#8220;3\/2&#8221; term in the definition of <em>r<\/em> is to make sure that the two components of this pair are in the interval [0,1].)  Hence <em>R<\/em><sub><em>U<\/em><\/sub> is not in the quasi-metric quasi-uniformity on [0, 1].  This shows that the Pervin quasi-uniformity differs from the quasi-metric quasi-uniformity.  (It in fact contains it strictly.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The specialization preordering<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Given any quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> on <em>X<\/em>, there is a binary relation \u2229<strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, which is simply the intersection of all the entourages in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>: (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in \u2229<strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> if and only if, for every entourage <em>R<\/em> in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in <em>R<\/em>.  It turns out that this is a preordering, and a familiar one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Lemma A.<\/strong>  For every quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> on <em>X<\/em>, \u2229<strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> is the specialization preordering of the topology induced by <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Proof.  Let \u2264 be the specialization preordering of the topology induced by <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.  If <em>x<\/em> \u2264 <em>y<\/em>, then by definition every neighborhood of <em>x<\/em> contains <em>y<\/em>.  This applies to every neighborhood of the form <em>R<\/em>[<em>x<\/em>] with <em>R<\/em> an entourage in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, so <em>y<\/em> is in <em>R<\/em>[<em>x<\/em>] for every <em>R<\/em> \u2208 <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.  In other words, (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in <em>R<\/em> for every <em>R<\/em> \u2208 <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, namely, (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in \u2229<strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.  Conversely, if (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in \u2229<strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, then for every open neighborhood <em>U<\/em> of <em>x<\/em> in the induced topology, by definition there is an entourage <em>R<\/em> such that <em>R<\/em>[<em>x<\/em>] is included in <em>U<\/em>.  Since (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in \u2229<strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, in particular (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in <em>R<\/em>, so <em>y<\/em> is in <em>R<\/em>[<em>x<\/em>], and therefore in <em>U<\/em>.  It follows that <em>x<\/em>\u2264<em>y<\/em>.  \u2610<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The dual quasi-uniformity<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Given a quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> on a set <em>X<\/em>, there is a <em>dual<\/em> quasi-uniformity <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>, whose entourages are the opposites <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> (also written as <em>R<\/em><sup>op<\/sup>) of entourages <em>R<\/em> in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>\u2014by definition, (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> if and only if (<em>y<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>) is in <em>R<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> induces a topology on <em>X<\/em>, and from now on I will consider <em>X<\/em> as a topological space with that topology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dual quasi-uniformity <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> also induces a topology on <em>X<\/em>, but what can we say about it?  Without any further assumption, we can say at least two things.  The first one has to do with specialization preorderings.  Let me write <em>X<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> for <em>X<\/em> with the topology induced by <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Lemma B.<\/strong> Let <em>X<\/em> be a set with a quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, and let \u2264 be the specialization preordering of <em>X<\/em>.  The specialization preordering of <em>X<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> is <em>\u2264<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> (which I will also write as \u2265).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Proof.<\/em>  By Lemma A, the specialization preordering of <em>X<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> is \u2229(<em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>), the intersection of all the relations <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>, when <em>R<\/em> ranges over the entourages of <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.  This is also equal to (\u2229<em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em>)<sup>\u20131<\/sup>, namely \u2265, by Lemma A again.  \u2610<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The second thing has to do with compact saturated subsets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Lemma C.<\/strong>  Let <em>X<\/em> be a set with a quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.  Every compact saturated subset of <em>X<\/em> is closed in <em>X<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Proof.<\/em>  Let <em>Q<\/em> be a compact saturated subset of <em>X<\/em>, and <em>O<\/em> be its complement.  We wish to show that <em>O<\/em> is open in <em>X<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>, and that means that for every point <em>x<\/em> outside <em>Q<\/em>, we would like to find an entourage <em>R<\/em> \u2208 <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> such that <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] is included in <em>O<\/em>, in other words does not intersect <em>Q<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We fix such a point <em>x<\/em> outside <em>Q<\/em>.  Since <em>Q<\/em> is saturated, it is the intersection of its open neighborhoods.  Hence there is an open neighborhood <em>U<\/em> of <em>Q<\/em> that does not contain <em>x<\/em>.  By definition of the topology of <em>X<\/em>, for every point <em>y<\/em> of <em>Q<\/em> (which is in <em>U<\/em>), there is an entourage <em>S<sub>y<\/sub><\/em> \u2208 <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> such that <em>S<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>[<em>y<\/em>] \u2286 <em>U<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Using the property of quasi-uniformities which we called (relaxed transitivity) last time, for each such <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>Q<\/em>, there is a further entourage <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em> \u2208 <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> such that <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em> o <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em> \u2286 <em>S<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Each set <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>[<em>y<\/em>] is a neighborhood of <em>y<\/em>.  Hence the collection of all interiors of sets <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>[<em>y<\/em>], <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>Q<\/em>, forms an open cover of <em>Q<\/em>.  Since <em>Q<\/em> is compact, we can extract a finite subcover.  In other words, there is a finite subset <em>E<\/em> of <em>Q<\/em> such that <em>Q<\/em> is included in \u222a<sub><em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em><\/sub> <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>[<em>y<\/em>].  Let <em>R<\/em> be the intersection of the entourages <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>, <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>.  Since <em>E<\/em> is finite, this is again an entourage, that is, it is again in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.  We claim that <em>R<\/em> is the desired entourage, namely that <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] does not intersect <em>Q<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In order to prove this, we will show that <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] does not intersect the larger set \u222a<sub><em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em><\/sub> <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>[<em>y<\/em>].  If it did, then <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] would intersect <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>[<em>y<\/em>] for some <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>, say at <em>z<\/em>.  Since <em>z<\/em> \u2208 <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>[<em>y<\/em>], we would have (<em>y<\/em>,<em>z<\/em>) \u2208 <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>.  Since <em>z<\/em> \u2208 <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>], we would have (<em>z<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>) \u2208 <em>R<\/em>, hence (<em>z<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>) \u2208 <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>.  Therefore (<em>y<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>) would be in <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em> o <em>R<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>, hence in <em>S<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>.  In turn, this would mean that <em>x<\/em> would be in <em>S<sub>y<\/sub><\/em>[<em>y<\/em>], and therefore in <em>U<\/em>.  But <em>U<\/em> does not contain <em>x<\/em> by definition.  We have reached a contradiction, and that terminates the proof.  \u2610<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This is promising!  If <em>X<\/em> is stably compact, then we would expect its de Groot dual <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> to coincide with <em>X<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>, and the results above are natural steps in that direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I do no think that we can say much more without requiring some further properties from <em>X<\/em>.  We now look at the case where <em>X<\/em> is core-compact, then we will specialize to the locally compact case, and then to the stably compact case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Core-compact induced topologies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/?page_id=2869\">Last time<\/a>, we had noticed that the Pervin quasi-uniformity was in general neither the smallest nor the largest quasi-uniformity inducing a given topology. If that topology is core-compact, the situation changes, as we see now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Let therefore <em>X<\/em> be a core-compact space, and let us write \u22d0 for the way-below relation on <strong>O<\/strong><em>X<\/em>. For every pair of open subsets <em>U<\/em>, <em>V<\/em> such that <em>U<\/em> \u22d0 <em>V<\/em>, let us write [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>] for the binary relation consisting of all the pairs of points (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) such that <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>U<\/em> implies <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>V<\/em> (namely, such that <em>x<\/em> is not in <em>U<\/em>, or <em>y<\/em> is in <em>V<\/em>). We have:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Proposition D.<\/strong> Let <em>X<\/em> be a core-compact space. The finite intersections of relations [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>], where <em>U<\/em>, <em>V<\/em> range over the pairs of open subsets such that <em>U<\/em> \u22d0 <em>V<\/em>, form a base for a quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>. The quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is the smallest compatible quasi-uniformity, namely the smallest uniformity that induces the given topology on <em>X<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(Note added on December 12th, 2020: Proposition D is essentially Lemma 5 of [3].)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Proof.<\/em> In order to verify that <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is a quasi-uniformity, or rather that the given finite intersections form a base of a quasi-uniformity, let me recall that we need to verify the following, where <strong><em><strong><em><strong><em>B<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><sub>0<\/sub> <\/strong>is the collection of intersections [<em>U<\/em><sub>1<\/sub> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [<em>U<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>], <em>n<\/em> \u2208 <strong>N<\/strong>, where for each <em>i<\/em>, <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> and <em>V<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> are open and <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> \u22d0 <em>V<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>(reflexivity) for every relation <em>R<\/em> in <strong><em><strong><em><strong><em>B<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><sub>0<\/sub><\/strong>, for every <em>x<\/em> in <em>X<\/em>, (<em>x<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>) is in <em>R<\/em>;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(filter 3) for all <em>R<\/em>, <em>S<\/em> in <strong><em><strong><em><strong><em>B<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><sub>0<\/sub><\/strong>, there is a relation <em>T<\/em> in <strong><em><strong><em><strong><em>B<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><sub>0<\/sub><\/strong> such that <em>T<\/em> \u2286 <em>R<\/em> \u2229 <em>S<\/em>;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(relaxed transitivity) for every <em>S<\/em> in <strong><em><strong><em><strong><em>B<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><sub>0<\/sub><\/strong>, there is a relation <em>R<\/em> in <strong><em><strong><em><strong><em>B<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><sub>0<\/sub><\/strong> such that <em>R<\/em> o <em>R<\/em> \u2286 <em>S<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Only the latter requires an argument. Given any <em>S<\/em> \u225d [<em>U<\/em><sub>1<\/sub> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [<em>U<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>] in <strong><em><strong><em><strong><em>B<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><sub>0<\/sub><\/strong>, we use interpolation (remember that <em>X<\/em> core-compact means that <strong>O<\/strong><em>X<\/em> is a continuous dcpo) and we find open subsets <em>W<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> such that <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> \u22d0 <em>W<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> \u22d0 <em>V<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> for each <em>i<\/em>. Let <em>R<\/em> be the intersection of the 2<em>n<\/em> relations [<em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>W<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>] and [<em>W<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>], 1\u2264<em>i<\/em>\u2264<em>n<\/em>. Every pair of points (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) in <em>R<\/em> o <em>R<\/em> is such that there is a point <em>z<\/em> with (<em>x<\/em>,<em>z<\/em>) and (<em>z<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) in <em>R<\/em>. In particular, if <em>x<\/em> is in <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> then <em>z<\/em> is in <em>W<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>; then <em>y<\/em> is in <em>V<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>. As this holds for every <em>i<\/em>, (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in <em>S<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In order to show that <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is the smallest compatible quasi-uniformity, let <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> be an arbitrary compatible quasi-uniformity. For every pair of open subsets <em>U<\/em> and <em>V<\/em> of <em>X<\/em> such that <em>U<\/em> \u22d0 <em>V<\/em>, we claim that [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>] is in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>. Since <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> is closed under finite intersections, this will show that <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is included in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For every point <em>x<\/em> of <em>V<\/em>, there is an entourage <em>R<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> such that <em>R<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>[<em>x<\/em>] is included in <em>V<\/em>, since the topology of <em>X<\/em> is induced by <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>. Using (relaxed reflexivity), we find an entourage <em>S<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> such that <em>S<sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub><\/em> o <em>S<sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub><\/em> \u2286 <em>R<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The interiors of the sets <em>S<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>[<em>x<\/em>], when <em>x<\/em> varies in <em>V<\/em>, form an open cover of <em>V<\/em>. Since <em>U<\/em> \u22d0 <em>V<\/em>, we can extract a finite subcover of <em>U<\/em>. In other words, there is a finite subset <em>E<\/em> of <em>V<\/em> such that <em>U<\/em> is included in the union of the interiors of the sets <em>S<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>[<em>x<\/em>], <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>. Let <em>R<\/em> be the intersection of the finitely many entourages <em>S<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>, <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>. This is again in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>. Now every pair of points (<em>y<\/em>,<em>z<\/em>) in <em>R<\/em> is in [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>]: if <em>y<\/em> is in <em>U<\/em>, then <em>y<\/em> is in <em>S<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>[<em>x<\/em>] for some <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>; since (<em>y<\/em>,<em>z<\/em>) in <em>R<\/em>, it is also in <em>S<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>, so <em>z<\/em> is in <em>S<sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub><\/em>[<em>S<sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub><\/em>[<em>x<\/em>]], hence in <em>R<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>[<em>x<\/em>] (since <em>S<sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub><\/em> o <em>S<sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub><\/em> \u2286 <em>R<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>), and therefore in <em>V<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We have shown that <em>R<\/em> is included in [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>].  Since <em>R<\/em> is in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, so is [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>].  This shows that every subbasic entourage [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>] of <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, hence that <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is included in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.  \u2610<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Locally compact induced topologies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We can prove a similar result on locally compact spaces, using a slightly different subbase of entourages in order to define <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>.  For every compact saturated subset <em>Q<\/em> of <em>X<\/em> and every open neighborhood <em>V<\/em> of <em>Q<\/em>, let us write [<em>Q<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>] for the binary relation consisting of all the pairs of points (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) such that <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>Q<\/em> implies <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>V<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If <em>X<\/em> is locally compact, then we claim that those entourages form a subbase for the same quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>.  In one direction, given any pair of open sets <em>U<\/em> \u22d0 <em>V<\/em>, there must be a compact saturated subset <em>Q<\/em> such that <em>U<\/em> \u2286 <em>Q<\/em> \u2286 <em>V<\/em> (Theorem 5.2.9 in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/gb\/knowledge\/isbn\/item7069109\/Non-Hausdorff%20Topology%20and%20Domain%20Theory\/?site_locale=en_GB\">book<\/a>).  Then [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>] contains [<em>Q<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>].  In the other direction, given any compact saturated subset <em>Q<\/em> of <em>X<\/em> and every open neighborhood <em>V<\/em> of <em>Q<\/em>, then by interpolation (Proposition 4.8.14), there is a compact saturated set <em>Q&#8217;<\/em> included in <em>V<\/em> and whose interior <em>U<\/em> contains <em>Q<\/em>.  We see that [<em>Q<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>] contains [<em>U<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>].  Notice that we also have <em>U<\/em> \u22d0 <em>V<\/em>.  We can rephrase all this as follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Proposition D&#8217;.<\/strong> Let <em>X<\/em> be a locally compact space. The finite intersections of relations [<em>Q<\/em> \u21d2 <em>V<\/em>], where <em>Q<\/em> ranges over the compact saturated subsets of <em>X<\/em> and <em>V<\/em> ranges over the open neighborhoods of <em>Q<\/em>, form a base for the smallest compatible quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To sum up, and still assuming <em>X<\/em> locally compact, a base of entourages of <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is given by the finite intersections [<em>Q<\/em><sub>1<\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>], <em>n<\/em> \u2208 <strong>N<\/strong>, where each <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> is compact saturated, each <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> is open, and <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> \u2286 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>.  Those basic entourages can be rewritten in another form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We rely on a bit of Boolean gymnastics.  A pair (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in [<em>Q<\/em><sub>1<\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>] if and only if the conjunction (over all <em>i<\/em>, 1\u2264<em>i<\/em>\u2264<em>n<\/em>) of the formulae &#8216;<em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> or <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>&#8216; holds.  Distributing ors over ands, that is equivalent to the disjunction, over all subsets <em>I<\/em> of {1, &#8230;, <em>n<\/em>}, of &#8216;<em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> and <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub>&#8216;, where <em>U<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> is the intersection of the sets <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>, <em>i<\/em> \u2208 <em>I<\/em>, and <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> is the <em>union<\/em> of the sets <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>, <em>i<\/em> \u2208 <em>I<\/em>.  (If <em>I<\/em> is empty, <em>U<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> is equal to the whole of <em>X<\/em>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Hence we have shown that if <em>X<\/em> is locally compact, any basic entourage [<em>Q<\/em><sub>1<\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>] of <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is equal to a finite union of products (<em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub>) \u00d7 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub>, where each <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub>  is compact saturated and each <em>U<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> is open.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Moreover, that union contains (\u2264) \u225d {(<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) \u2208 <em>X<\/em> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em> | <em>x<\/em>\u2264<em>y<\/em>}, the graph of the specialization preordering \u2264.  Indeed, for any pair of points <em>x<\/em> and <em>y<\/em> such that <em>x<\/em>\u2264<em>y<\/em>, by Lemma A, (<em>x<\/em>,<em>y<\/em>) is in every entourage of <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>, in particular in [<em>Q<\/em><sub>1<\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>] = \u222a<sub><em>I<\/em> \u2286 {1, &#8230;, <em>n<\/em>}<\/sub> (<em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub>) \u00d7 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In other words, if <em>X<\/em> is locally compact, then any basic entourage [<em>Q<\/em><sub>1<\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>] of <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is an open neighborhood of (\u2264) in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em>.  It follows that <em>every<\/em> entourage of <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>, which contains such a basic entourage by definition, is also a neighborhood of (\u2264) in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Oh yes, I am using the notation <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> for the de Groot dual of <em>X<\/em>, even when <em>X<\/em> is not stably compact.  Its topology, the <em>cocompact topology<\/em>, is the topology <em>generated<\/em> by the complements of the compact saturated subsets of <em>X<\/em>.  The closed subsets of <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> are the intersections of compact saturated subsets of <em>X<\/em>, and with compactness and coherence, those are also the filtered intersections of compact saturated subsets of <em>X<\/em>.  When <em>X<\/em> is well-filtered, those filtered intersections are themselves compact saturated, and we retrieve the definition of the de Groot dual of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/gb\/knowledge\/isbn\/item7069109\/Non-Hausdorff%20Topology%20and%20Domain%20Theory\/?site_locale=en_GB\">book<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Stably compact spaces<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Proposition E.<\/strong>  If <em>X<\/em> is stably compact, then <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is exactly the collection of neighborhoods of (\u2264) in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Proof.<\/em>  Given what we have just argued, it is enough to show that every neighborhood <em>R<\/em> of (\u2264) in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em> is in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>.  We will use the fact that (<em>X<\/em><sup>patch<\/sup>,\u2264) is a compact pospace.  (See Section 9.1 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/gb\/knowledge\/isbn\/item7069109\/Non-Hausdorff%20Topology%20and%20Domain%20Theory\/?site_locale=en_GB\">book<\/a> for the relation between compact pospaces and stably compact spaces.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For every <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>X<\/em>, (<em>x<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>) is in (\u2264), so there is an open neighborhood <em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> of <em>x<\/em> in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> (namely, <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> is compact saturated in <em>X<\/em> and <em>x<\/em> is not in <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>) and an open neighborhood <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> of <em>x<\/em> in <em>X<\/em> such that (<em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>) \u00d7 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> \u2286 <em>R<\/em>.  The set (<em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>) \u2229 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> = <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> \u2013 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> is open in the patch topology of <em>X<\/em>, which is by definition the coarsest topology containing both the open subsets of <em>X<\/em> and the complements of compact saturated subsets of <em>X<\/em>.  Therefore the sets <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> \u2013 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>, <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>, forms an open cover of <em>X<\/em><sup>patch<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Since <em>X<\/em><sup>patch<\/sup> is compact, there is a finite subset <em>E<\/em> of <em>X<\/em> such that the sets <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> \u2013 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>, <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>, already forms an open cover of <em>X<\/em><sup>patch<\/sup>.  Let us consider <em>S<\/em> \u225d \u222a<sub><em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em><\/sub> (<em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<sub>x<\/sub><\/em>) \u00d7 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>.  We observe that <em>S<\/em> is included in <em>R<\/em>: this is because (<em>X<\/em>\u2013<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>) \u00d7 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> \u2286 <em>R<\/em> for every <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>X<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For each subset <em>I<\/em> of <em>E<\/em>, let <em>Q<sub>I<\/sub><\/em> be the intersection of the sets <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> with <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>I<\/em>, and let <em>U<sub>I<\/sub><\/em> be the union of the sets <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> with <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>I<\/em>.  The pairs (<em>y<\/em>,<em>z<\/em>) that are in <em>S<\/em> are exactly those that satisfy the disjunction (over all <em>x<\/em> in <em>E<\/em>) of the formulae &#8216;<em>y<\/em> \u2209 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> and <em>z<\/em> \u2208 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>&#8216;.  By distributing ands over ors, they are those that satisfy the conjunction, over all subsets <em>I<\/em> of <em>E<\/em>, of the formulae &#8216; for some <em>x<\/em> in <em>I<\/em>, <em>y<\/em> is not in <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>, or for some <em>x<\/em> in <em>E<\/em>\u2013<em>I<\/em>, <em>z<\/em> is in <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>&#8216;, equivalently, &#8216;<em>y<\/em> \u2209 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> or <em>z<\/em> \u2208 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>E<\/em>\u2013<em>I<\/em><\/sub>&#8216;.  In other words, <em>S<\/em> is equal to \u2229<sub><em>I<\/em> \u2286<\/sub> <sub><em>E<\/em><\/sub> [<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>E<\/em>\u2013<em>I<\/em><\/sub>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This (almost) proves that <em>S<\/em> is in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>, and therefore that the larger relation <em>R<\/em> is in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>.  We still need to check that <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> is included in <em>U<\/em><sub><em>E<\/em>\u2013<em>I<\/em><\/sub> for every subset <em>I<\/em> of <em>E<\/em>!  And that holds because the union of the sets <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> \u2013 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>, <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>, is the whole of <em>X<\/em>.  Indeed, the latter implies that the union of the larger sets <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> (instead of <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> \u2013 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>) with <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>\u2013<em>I<\/em>, and of the larger sets <em>X<\/em> \u2013 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> (instead of <em>U<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub> \u2013 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>x<\/em><\/sub>) with <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>E<\/em>\u2013<em>I<\/em>, is also the whole of <em>X<\/em>.  But that new union is <em>U<\/em><sub><em>E<\/em>\u2013<em>I<\/em><\/sub> \u222a (<em>X<\/em> \u2013 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub>), and the fact that it is equal to <em>X<\/em> is exactly equivalent to the inclusion <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> \u2286 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>E<\/em>\u2013<em>I<\/em><\/sub>.  \u2610<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We can also rewrite this as follows.  The diagonal is the set of pairs (<em>x<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>).  This is the graph (=) of the equality relation =.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Proposition E&#8217;.<\/strong>  If <em>X<\/em> is stably compact, then <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is exactly the collection of neighborhoods of the diagonal (=) in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Indeed, any neighborhood <em>R<\/em> of (=) in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em> must contain \u2229<strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>=(\u2264), by Lemma A.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Duality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I have already said that, given a set <em>X<\/em> with a quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>, seen with the induced topology, every compact saturated subset of <em>X<\/em> is closed in <em>X<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>.  This means that the cocompact topology on <em>X<\/em> is coarser than the topology of <em>X<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>.  When <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> is <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>, the minimal compatible quasi-uniformity (see Proposition D), those two topologies <em>coincide<\/em>, as we now argue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Proposition F.<\/strong>  Let <em>X<\/em> be a locally compact topological space, and <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> be the minimal compatible quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>.  The topology induced by the dual quasi-uniformity <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> on <em>X<\/em> coincides with the cocompact topology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Proof.<\/em>  Let <em>O<\/em> be an open subset of <em>X<\/em> in the topology induced by <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>.  By definition, for every <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>O<\/em>, there is a basic entourage <em>R<\/em>\u225d[<em>Q<\/em><sub>1<\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub>1<\/sub>] \u2229 &#8230; \u2229 [<em>Q<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub> \u21d2 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>n<\/em><\/sub>] (where each <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> is compact saturated, each <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> is open, and <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> \u2286 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>) such that <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] \u2286 <em>O<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We expand the definition of <em>R<\/em>: <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] is the set of points <em>y<\/em> such that for every <em>i<\/em>, if <em>y<\/em> \u2208 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> then <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>; equivalently, such that for every <em>i<\/em>, if <em>x<\/em> \u2209 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub> then <em>x<\/em> \u2209 <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>; in other words, it is the complement of <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub>, where <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> is the union of the sets <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>, <em>i<\/em> \u2208 <em>I<\/em>, and <em>I<\/em> is the collection of indices <em>i<\/em> such that <em>x<\/em> \u2209 <em>U<\/em><sub><em>i<\/em><\/sub>.  <em>Q<\/em><sub><em>I<\/em><\/sub> is compact saturated, so its complement <em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] is open in the cocompact topology.  This complement contains <em>x<\/em> (<em>R<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] always contains <em>x<\/em>), and is included in <em>O<\/em>.  This shows that <em>O<\/em> is an open neighborhood, in the cocompact topology, of each of its points, so that <em>O<\/em> is open in the cocompact topology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Conversely, let <em>O<\/em> be any open subset of <em>X<\/em> in the cocompact topology.  Its complement <em>Q<\/em> is compact saturated in <em>X<\/em>.  By Lemma C, <em>O<\/em> is open in the topology induced by <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>.  \u2610<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We finally reach the result promised at the beginning of this post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Theorem.<\/strong>  Let <em>X<\/em> be a stably compact topological space.  There is a unique quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> that induces the topology of <em>X<\/em> and such that the dual quasi-uniformity <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> induces the cocompact topology, and this is the minimal compatible quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Proof.<\/em>  Existence is by Proposition F.  In order to show uniqueness, we fix a quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> that induces the topology of <em>X<\/em> and such that the dual quasi-uniformity <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> induces the cocompact topology.  By Proposition D&#8217;, <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> contains <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>, so we concentrate on showing the reverse inclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Let <em>R<\/em> be any entourage of <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>.  There is an entourage <em>S<\/em> in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> such that <em>S<\/em> o <em>S<\/em> \u2286 <em>R<\/em>.  For every <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>X<\/em>, it follows that <em>S<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] \u00d7 <em>S<\/em>[<em>x<\/em>] is included in <em>R<\/em>: every pair (<em>y<\/em>,<em>z<\/em>) in <em>S<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] \u00d7 <em>S<\/em>[<em>x<\/em>] is such that (<em>y<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>) \u2208 <em>S<\/em> and (<em>x<\/em>,<em>z<\/em>) \u2208 <em>S<\/em>, so (<em>y<\/em>,<em>z<\/em>) \u2208 <em>R<\/em>.  <em>S<\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>[<em>x<\/em>] is an open neighborhood of <em>x<\/em> in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> since <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> induces the cocompact topology on <em>X<\/em>, and <em>S<\/em>[<em>x<\/em>] is an open neighborhood of <em>x<\/em> in <em>X<\/em> since <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> induces the original topology on <em>X<\/em>.  Therefore <em>R<\/em> is an open neighborhood of (<em>x<\/em>,<em>x<\/em>) in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em>, for every <em>x<\/em> \u2208 <em>X<\/em>.  In other words, <em>R<\/em> is an open neighborhood of (=) in <em><em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em><\/em>.  By Proposition E&#8217;, <em>R<\/em> in <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>, and this finishes the proof.  \u2610<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">An extremely short glimpse at the bitopological view<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The proper way of stating the latter theorem is by appealing to the notion of a <em>bitopology<\/em>.  (Yet another concept I have never talked about, at least until now!)  A bitopology on a set <em>X<\/em> is simply a pair of topologies on <em>X<\/em>, and a bitopological space is simply a set with a bitopology.  Most concepts in the theory of bitopological space rely on the interaction of the two topologies, and I really should say more about this some time.  (<a href=\"https:\/\/tomas.jakl.one\">Tom\u00e1\u0161 Jakl<\/a>, notably, drew my attention to this subject again pretty recently.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Every stably compact space has a canonical bitopology, which consists of its original topology, and its cocompact topology.  If, as above, we define the cocompact topology as being <em>generated<\/em> by the complements of compact saturated sets, this even makes sense for arbitrary spaces.  I do not know of any standard name for this bitopology; let me call it the <em>cocompact-open<\/em> bitopology on <em>X<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Every quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> on a space <em>X<\/em> induces a bitopology on <em>X<\/em>, too, namely the one formed by the topology induced by <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> and the topology induced by <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>.  Lemma C states that this bitopology is pairwise finer than the cocompact-open bitopology (with the obvious meaning of &#8220;pairwise finer&#8221;).  Proposition F states that the bitopology induced by the minimal quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> on a locally compact space <em>coincides<\/em> with the cocompact-open bitopology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Using this bit of vocabulary, we can rephrase our findings as follows, when <em>X<\/em> is stably compact:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>there is no unique quasi-uniformity that induces the topology of <em>X<\/em>,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>but there is a minimal one <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is also the unique quasi-uniformity that induces the cocompact-open bitopology on <em>X<\/em>,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>and is simply the set of open neighborhoods of (\u2264), or equivalently of the diagonal (=), in <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> \u00d7 <em>X<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Let me conclude by saying how this generalizes the result mentioned at the very beginning of this post: that the topology of a compact Hausdorff space is induced by a unique uniformity [1, \u00a74, 1, th\u00e9or\u00e8me 1].  We argue as follows.  If <em>X<\/em> is compact Hausdorff, then its cocompact and its open topologies coincide.  By what we have seen, there is a unique quasi-uniformity <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong> on <em>X<\/em> such that both <em style=\"font-weight: bold;\">U<\/em> and <em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup> induce the topology of <em>X<\/em>.  That is, of course, <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub>.  Since <em>X<\/em><sup>d<\/sup> = <em>X<\/em> when <em>X<\/em> is compact Hausdorff, <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong><sub>0<\/sub> is simply the set of open neighborhoods of (=), and that is a <em>symmetric<\/em> quasi-uniformity (i.e., <strong><em>U<\/em><\/strong>=<em><strong>U<\/strong><\/em><sup>\u20131<\/sup>), in other words it is a uniformity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Nicolas Bourbaki.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.springer.com\/gp\/book\/9783540339366\">Topologie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/a> (\u00e9l\u00e9ments de math\u00e9matique), chapitre 2.  Springer, 2007.  (Many other, previous editions, too.)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Jimmie Lawson.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/journals\/mathematical-structures-in-computer-science\/article\/stably-compact-spaces\/F6B101C7BF9313AC7225B77690215855\">Stably compact spaces<\/a>.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/journals\/mathematical-structures-in-computer-science\">Mathematical Structures in Computer Science<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/journals\/mathematical-structures-in-computer-science\/volume\/6A56E2E3002FB0275D0CE69EF78F3162\">21<\/a>(<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/journals\/mathematical-structures-in-computer-science\/issue\/6202D77F5E35A6E62AF73A2E43A6C449\">1<\/a>):125-169, Feb. 2011.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hans-Peter Albert K\u00fcnzi and Guillaume C. L. Br\u00fcmmer.  Sobrification and bicompletion of totally bounded quasi-uniform spaces, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 101(2):237\u2013247, 1987.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"alignright is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/jgl-2011.png\" alt=\"jgl-2011\" class=\"wp-image-993\" width=\"60\" height=\"83\"\/><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2014 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/~goubault\/?l=en\">Jean Goubault-Larrecq<\/a> (November 21st, 2020)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Let us continue our exploration of quasi-uniform spaces. I was recently reading a paper by Jimmie Lawson [2] about stably compact spaces, and which, I must confess, I did not know about until a few months ago. It contains a &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/?page_id=2915\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2915","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2915","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2915"}],"version-history":[{"count":71,"href":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2915\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5894,"href":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2915\/revisions\/5894"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/projects.lsv.ens-paris-saclay.fr\/topology\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}