Handbook of The History of General Topology

HANDBOOK OF THE HISTORY OF GENERAL TOPOLOGY,
VOLUME3
History of Topology
Volume 3
The titZes published in this series are listed at the end 0/ this voZume.
Handbook of the History
of General Topology
Volume 3
Edited by
C. E. Aull
Department 0/ Mathematics,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.SA
and
R. Lowen
Department 0/ Mathematics and Computer Science,
University 0/ Antwerp, RUCA,
Antwerp, Belgium
SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-90-481-5704-4 ISBN 978-94-017-0470-0 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-0470-0
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved

2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2001
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover 1st edition 2001
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
inc1uding photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
Contents
Introduetion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Combinatorial Topology Versus Point-set Topology ................. 809
I.M. farnes
Elements of the History of Loeale Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 835
Peter lohnstone
Nonsymmetrie Distanees and their Associated Topologies: About the
Origins of Basic Ideas in the Area of Asymmetrie Topology . . . . . . . . .. 853
Hans-Peter A. Knzi
Supereategories of Top and the Inevitable Emergenee of
Topologieal Construets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 969
E. Lowen-Colebunders and R. Lowen
Topological Features of Topological Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1027
Michael G. Tkachenko
History of Shape Theory and its Applieation to General Topology ..... 1145
Sibe Marddic and lack Segal
A History of the Normal Moore Spaee Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1179
Peter l. Nyikos
Index ......................................................... 1213
Introduction
This account of the History of General Topology has grown out of the
special session on this topic at the American Mathematical Soeiety meeting in
San Antonio, Texas, 1993. It was there that the idea grew to publish a book
on the historical development of General Topology. Moreover it was feit that
it was important to undertake this project while topologists who knew some of
the early researchers were still active.
Since the first paper by Frechet, "Generalisation d'un theoreme de Weier-
strass", C.R.Acad. Sei. 139, 1904, 848-849, and Hausdorff's c1assic book,
"Grundzge der Mengenlehre", Leipzig, 1914, there have been numerous de-
velopments in a multitude of directions and there have been many interactions
with a great number of other mathematical fields. We have tried to cover as many
of these as possible. Most contributions concern either individual topologists,
speeific schools, speeific periods, speeific topics or a combination of these.
The first and second volumes, which were published in 1997 and 1998,
contain the following artic1es:
Felix Hausdorff(1868-1942) (G. Preu)
Frederic Riesz' Contributions to the Foundations ofGeneral Topology (WJ. Thron)
The Contributions of L. Vietoris and H. Tietze to the Foundations of General
Topology (H. Reitberger)
Some Aspects ofthe Work and 1nfiuence of R.L. Moore (B. Fitzpatrick Jr.)
The Works of Bronislaw Knaster (1893-1980) in Continuum Theory (J.J. Chara-
tonik)
Witold Hurewicz - Life and Work (K. Borsuk, transl. by K. Kuperberg, A. Kuper-
berg)
The Early Work of F.B. Jones (M.E. Rudin)
The Beginning ofTopology in the United States and the Moore School (F.B. Jones)
Some Topologists ofthe 1940s (A.H. Stone)
Miroslav Katetov (1918-1995) (Petr Simon)
Origins of Dimension Theory (M. Katetov, P. Simon)
General Topology, in Particular Dimension Theory, in The Netherlands: the De-
cisive 1nfiuence of Brouwer's 1ntuitionism (T. Koetsier, J. van Mill)
The Flowering ofGeneral Topology in Japan (1. Nagata)
V111
Rings o/Continuous Functions in the 1950s (M. Henriksen)

Categorical Topology - its Origins, as exemplified by the Un/olding 0/ the The-
ory 0/ Topological Reftections and Coreftections be/ore 1971 (H. Herrlich, G.E.
Strecker)
History 0/ Sequential Convergence Spaces (R Fric)
1nteraction between General Topology and Functional Analysis (E. Kreyszig)
Waclaw Sierpinski (1882-1969) - His Life and Work in Topology (R Engelking)
The Worb 0/ Ste/an Mazurkiewisz in Topology (R Pol)
Kazimierz Kuratowski (1896-1980) - His Life and Work in Topology (R Engelk-
ing)
R.H. Bing's Human and Mathematical Vitality (M. Starbird)
From Developments to Developable Spaces (S.D. Shore)
A History 0/ Generalized Metrizable Spaces (RE. Hodel)
The Historical Development 0/ Uniform, Proximal and Neamess Concepts in
Topology (H.L. Bentley, H. Herrlich, M. Husek)
Hausdorff Compactifications: A Retrospective (RE. Chandler, G.D. Faulkner)
Minimal Hausdorff Spaces - Then and Now (J.R. Porter, R.M. Stephenson, Jr.)
A History 0/ Results on Orderability and Suborderability (S. Purisch)
History 0/ Continuum Theory (1.J. Charatonik)
Why I study the History 0/ Mathematics (D.E. Cameron)
The Alexandroff-Sorgenfrey Line (D.E. Cameron)
The present third volume contains an article on:
Combinatorial versus point-set topology (I.M. James)
Furthermore there are articles covering aspects of the his tory of:
Locale theory (P.T. Johnstone)
Nonsymmetrie Distances (H.-P. Kunzi)
Topological Constructs (E. Lowen and R. Lowen)
Topological groups (M. Tkachenko)
Shape Theory (S. Mardesic and 1. Segal)
The normal Moore space problem (P. Nyikos)
We decided to publish this work in volumes of 300-400 pages each, as
papers became available. Waiting for an contributions to be completed before
proceeding with the publication would indeed have involved an unacceptable
delay for many authors. At the point of writing of this introduction, material
for one more, probably final, volume has either been written or is in prepara-
tion. Nevertheless, at this moment, there are still some significant topologists,
INTRODUCTION IX
schools, periods and subareas of the field that we are seeking authors to write
about.
Most of the authors for this work either were contacted personally by one
of the editors or were recommended by experts in the field. The first drafts of
papers were sent to readers and their suggestions were forwarded to the authors.
We expect that there will be some dis agreement among some authors, but we
also consider this to be healthy. We hope that this work will encourage, not only
further study in the his tory of the subject, but also further mathematical research
in the field.
We would like to thank all colleagues who willingly contributed to what we
hope will become a standard reference work on the History of General Topology.
In view of the fact that most contributors would consider themselves primarily
mathematicians rather than historians of mathematics, we are especially grateful
for their efforts.
Finally, we would like to thank Kluwer Academic Publishers for their
professional support in the publication of this book.
C.E. Aull, R. Lowen

The editors
COMBINATORIAL TOPOLOGY VERSUS POINT-SET TOPOLOGyt
I.M. JAMES
Mathematical Institute
24-29 St Giles, Oxford OXI 3LB
Oxford
Introduction
Point-set topology seems to have become separated from the rest of topology
around the middle of the twentieth century. For most of the period we shall be
considering in this article the term combinatorial topology meant l "practically
everything which could not better be described as point-set topology". Most of
the pioneers were equally at horne in both disciplines, but more recently that
has become rather unusual. One of the purposes of this article is to try and
throw some light on this situation. It is easier to describe what happened than
to explain why, but some insight may be gained if we try to understand what it
must have been like to be a topologist in the first half of the century, especially
in the second quarter. At the end of this article I will attempt an explanation.
Mathematical terminology tends to change in the course of time. The Latin
term 'Analysis Situs' is due to Leibniz and the German term 'Topologie' to
Listing, a member of Gauss's circle. In the English language 'topology' was
used in its mathematical sense as early as 1883 and occasionally later in the
nineteenth century but its widespread adoption was delayed because it had other
scientific meanings, for example in botany where it is recorded in 1659. However
it gradually superseded the older term, partly because it was easy to form deriva-
tives such as 'topologist' and 'topological'. Poincare chose 'Analysis Situs' as
the title for his famous series ofmemoirs, published from 1895 onwards, as did
Veblen for his infiuential Colloquium volume [52] of 1922. Alexander was using
'topological' in the titles of his research papers in the twenties but, as we shall
see, preferred 'analysis situs' when he addressed the International Congress of
t The research on which this article is based was carried out while I held a Leverhulme
Emeritus Fellowship.
1 I am grateful to Dr Shaun Wylie for this information, and for sharing with me his interesting
reminiscences of Princeton in the mid-thirties, referred to below.
809
C. E. Aull and R. Lowen (eds.), Handbook ofthe History ofGeneral Topology, Volurne 3, 809-834.
2001 Kluwer Acadernic Publishers.
810 I.M.JAMES
Mathematicians in 1932. When Lefschetz wrote his Colloquium volume [31]

of 1930 he chose 'Topology' as the title. In the following I shall generally use
the later term, although it may seem a little anachronistic when the first quarter
of the twentieth century is under consideration.
Similarly I shall use the term combinatorial topology in the broad sense, as
above, although initially it was used in the sense of simplicial topology and this
use persisted throughout our period. Nowadays the term is obsolete; it is often
said that it has been replaced by algebraic topology, but that is something rather
different, and so I shall be using both terms. Again although the terms point-
set (theoretic) topology and set-theoretic topology2 are synonymous, the term
general topology is something broader and for present purposes less appropriate.
I do not use the terms analytic topology, differential topology or geometric
topology.
The foundations of combinatorial topology were laid in the decade beginning
1895 by Poincare. However the abstract form of the theory, known later as
simplicial topology, was invented by Dehn and Heegard. Apparently they had the
idea when they were returning from the 1904 International Congress of Math-
ematicians, which was held in Heidelberg, and published an account of their
theory in their Enzyklopdie artic1e [12] of 1907. Although this artic1e contains
important new ideas, its timing was unfortunate. It was perhaps written too early
for the full impact of Poincare's work to have been feIt. The abstract notion of
topological space was only just beginning to emerge. The rather peculiar titles
of the chapters - Complexus, Nexus, Connexus - remind us that we are still at
an early stage in the development of the subject. In fact combinatorial topology
has aprehistory stretching back to von Dyck and earlier. However it always
referred to polyhedra contained in physical space. Even Dehn and Heegard feIt
that their abstract theory needed to be justified in such a way.
Authorities differ as to what exactly Leibniz meant by the term analysis situs,
but we may agree with Alexander that in spirit it must have been more like com-
binatorial topology than point-set topology. Speaking at the 1932 International
Congress of Mathematicians which was held in Zurich he explained:
'Broadly speaking, we may say that analysis situs, or topology, deals with
the properties of geometrical figures that remain invariant when the figures are
subject to arbitrary continuous transformations. There are, however, several
different kinds of analysis situs, because there are several distinct ways of
interpreting the physical notion of continuity in mathematical language. For
example there is what we call point-theoretical analysis situs, which is different
in spirit as well as in content from the sort of analysis situs originally proposed
by Leibnitz. This branch of the science is essentially an outgrowth of function
2 These terms seem to have been interchangeable in the period under consideration, although
more recently a distinction has been drawn.
COMBINATORIAL TOPOLOGY VERSUS POINT-SET TOPOLOGY 811
theory, whereas what Leibnitz had in mind was a new and independent type of
mathematics, especially designed to avoid the complications of function theory
and to deal directly with the purely quantitative aspects of geometrical problems.
No doubt combinatorial analysis situs is more nearly a development ofLeibnitz'
original idea' .
Alexander then gave some examples from the theory ofknots, but for present
purposes we might choose instead the weIl-known problem ofthe seven bridges
of Knigsberg. To consider this problem one has no need of a proper map
of the city, only the cmdest of diagrams is sufficient. One does not need to
know precisely where the pedestrian went, only which bridges were crossed
and in what order. That is the essence of the combinatorial approach, in which
topological spaces are viewed as made up of ceIls, usually siraplexes, whose
topology is weIl understood, and the important thing is how these are fitted
together. In what Alexander calls the point-theoretical approach, it is the points
of the space which matter, and different methods are used. He went on to say
why he preferred the former approach:
'The vogue for point-theoretical analysis situs seems to be due, in large part,
to the predominating inftuence of analysis on mathematics in general. Nowadays
we tend, almost automatically, to identify physical space with the space of three
variables and to interpret physical continuity in the classical function theoretical
manner. But the space of three real variables is not the only possible model of
physical space, nor is it a satisfactory model for dealing with certain types of
problems. Whenever we attack a topological problem by analytic methods it
almost invariably happens that to the intrinsic difficulties ofthe problem, which
we can hardly hope to avoid, there are added certain extraneous difficulties in
no way connected with the problem itself, but apparently associated with the
particular type of machinery used in dealing with it' .
Menger, speaking later in the same Congress, put the case for the point-
theoretic approach. One might be inclined to maintain that this also came
into existence early in the present century, specifically with the publication of
Frechet's work on abstract metric spaces in 1906. But again there is a lengthy
prehistory, as described by Manheim [36], which is quite different from the
prehistory of combinatorial topology. During the nineteenth century there was
a perception that more rigour was needed in analysis, especially in dealing with
sets of functions. The first revolution of rigour is particularly associated with
Cauchy, the second with Weierstrass. Cantor and Dedekind, working indepen-
dently, placed the definition of the real number system on a secure foundation.
Later Cantor developed the theory of abstract sets and this led in due course
to the general notion of topological space, as formulated by Hausdorff in his
classic monograph [19] of 1914.
Hausdorff's work opened up a whole new world to the point-set topologists.
For combinatorialists, however, it was quite sufficient to consider triangulable
812 I.M. JAMES
spaces and at first it seemed that combinatorial methods could not be extended to
more general elasses of spaces. However an idea of Alexandroff's, dating from
1928, enabled combinatorial methods to be applied in great generality. As he
put it in [2]: 'The transfer of homological objects to more general geometrical
objects than polyhedra ... based on my ... concept of the nerve of a covering of a
given space makes it possible to transfer to practically all topological spaces the
fundamental concepts of combinatorial topology'. Remarkably it was this idea
which led to Hausdorff developing a late interest in combinatorial topology3. Not
long afterwards singular homology theory was invented and provided another
way of extending homology theory to spaces in general, and several more ways
of doing so were introduced later [15].
Topology in Europe
Within Europe there was a tendency for the combinatorial tradition to be empha-
sized in the west, and the set-theoretic in the east; to some extent this remains
true even today. To suggest that combinatorial topology fiourished in Western
Europe, that set-theoretic topology fiourished in Eastern Europe, and that both
kinds fiourished in Central Europe, while not entirely false, is to oversimplify a
complex situation. In the Netherlands Brouwer revolutionized both sides of the
subject. In France, despite the impetus given by Poincare's work, research tended
to be more concerned with differential geometry than topology, while in Italy
a strong school of algebraic geometry developed but hardly any combinatorial
topology. In Great Britain, apart from some early interest in knots and graphs,
the study of topology began with Newman, who studied in Vienna.
In the quarter century from 1910 to 1935, or thereabouts, Central Europe
was a hotbed of research in topology. The University of Vienna played a leading
role during the first part of this period. The golden age for topology in Vienna
seems to have begun with the appointment of Wirtinger (see [27]), a elose
friend of Klein. Topology, particularly knot theory, was one of Wirtinger's
research interests, although not the main one. Before long, Vienna became the
leading centre for topology in an its aspects, with faculty members of the calibre
of Menger, Reidemeister and Tietze, and some remarkable students, such as
Hurewicz and Vietoris.
In the early years of the twentieth century the number of mathematicians who
were trying to understand Poincare's work and to develop it further was not large.
Tietze was one of the leaders, and as he put it 'In the domain of analysis situs
Poincare has recently brought us an abundance of new results, but at the same
3 I am grateful to Professor Klaus Volkert for this information, and to the Editors of the
Hausdorff Nachlass for sending me copies of the correspondence between Alexandroff and
Hausdorff.
time raised an abundance of new questions which still await settlement'. Most
of these pioneers were equally at horne in both branches of topology. That was
certainly true of Tietze and Vietoris, the authors of the artic1e [48] on topology
which appeared in the 1931 edition ofthe Enzyklopdie. While the subject had
developed considerably in the intervening 25 years this was not just an up-date
of the earlier artic1e by Dehn and Heegard. For example point-set topology had
come of age, during that period, and so Tietze and Vietoris naturally inc1uded it,
although they preferred to call it general topology4. In fact the title of their artic1e
translates as 'Relations between the different branches of topology'. Unlike the
Dehn-Heegard artic1e, which introduced new ideas, it has the character of a
survey. The first chapter, entitled 'Point-sets in n-dimensional number-space',
is concerned with euc1idean spaces and their subspaces. This is intended as an
introduction to the abstract concept of topological space in the second chap-
ter, simply entitled 'General topology', which inc1udes a discussion of metric
spaces. Covering spaces are also considered. The third chapter, entitled 'n-
dimensional topology' is mainly about manifolds, the fourth is 'Combinatorial
topology'. The artic1e conc1udes with a discussion of dimension theory.
Although specialists in point-set topology were not always interested in
combinatorial topology it would be difficult, at this period, to find a combinato-
rialist who was not well-versed in point-set topology. Possibly as a result there
was a tendency, especially in the early days of homotopy theory, to impose
unnecessary restrictions on the nature of the spaces considered. For example
the statement of a theorem might inc1ude a dimensional condition, which would
mean a restriction to separable metric spaces, but it was so on recognised that
this could be avoided if homological dimension was used instead of the ordinary
dimension of point-set topology. The Borsuk school made a special study of
the c1ass of spaces known as absolute neighbourhood retracts, which in some
respects provided an alternative to the c1ass of triangulable spaces. The concept
of fibre bundle, which developed in the thirties, is an interesting hybrid. It
takes various forms (see [46]) but usually the base space is treated combinato-
rially while the fibre is not. For example the base may be a complex of some
description and the fibre an absolute neighbourhood retract.
By the time the Tietze-Vietoris survey appeared combinatorial topology was
becoming increasingly algebraic, so much so that it evolved into what became
known as algebraic topology. A crucial step in the process of algebraization
was the recognition that homology, seen by Poincare and others as a set of
numerical invariants, was far better thought of as a family of abelian groups. In
his autobiography [3] Alexandroff describes when this happened:
'In the middle ofDecember (1925) Emmy Noether came to spend amonth in
Blaricum. This was a brilliant addition to the group of mathematicians around
4 I do not know whether they introduced the term general topology.

814 I.M. JAMES
Brouwer. I remember a dinner at Brouwer's in her honour during which she

explained the definition of the Betti groups of complexes, which spread around
quickly and completely transformed the whole of topology' .
Blaricum was the village near Amsterdam where Brouwer lived and held
court. His circ1e at various times inc1uded Alexandroff, Hopf, Menger and
Vietoris. Hurewicz and later Freudenthal were his assistants. Although Brouwer
himself was more concerned with foundations by this time his indirect infiuence
on the development of topology remained important. Alexandroff, of course, was
mainly, but not exc1usively, interested in point-set topology while Hopf was pri-
marily a combinatorialist. Hurewicz, who had followed Menger to Amsterdam
with the intention of working on dimension theory with Brouwer, soon became a
combinatorialist. Vietoris, to whom (see [23]) the idea of introducing homology
groups had occurred quite independently, contributed to both sides ofthe subject.
Later Hopf moved to Switzerland, and Hurewicz and Menger to the United
States, while Alexandroff retumed to Russia and Vietoris to Austria. Another of
the key figures in the development of algebraic topology was Eilenberg who, like
Hurewicz, was of Polish origin and began his career as a point-set topologist.
Aigebraic topology proved to be remarkably fruitful. For example algebraic
methods which were originally devised for use in topology tumed out to have
important applications elsewhere, as in the homological algebra of Cartan and
Eilenberg [10].
For many years Poland has been a stronghold of point-set topology. Led by
Sierpinski there seems to have been adefinite policy (see [lI]), from quite early
in the twentieth century, to concentrate on that side of the subject, and the journal
Fundamenta Mathematicae, founded in 1920, refiected this specialization. Later
Kuratowski took over the leadership of the Warsaw school of point-set topology
while Borsuk developed another branch of the subject which has proved to be
a fruitful area of research. For the Borsuk school the 'convenient category'
of spaces consists of absolute neighbourhood retracts rather than complexes.
The methods of point-set topology playapart but the motivation is different.
Although there are links with combinatorial topology it seems fair to say that
algebraic methods only took root in Poland relatively recently.
In Russia, on the other hand, and in the former Soviet Union generally,
interest in combinatorial topology was established much earlier, under the lead-
ership of Alexandroff and Pontrjagin, both of whom wrote books on the subject,
originally published in the Russian language in 1947. That of Alexandroff [1]
actually written in 1941, consists of five parts. The first deals with point-set
topology inc1uding surfaces, the second with complexes, coverings and dimen-
sion, the third with Betti groups. The fourth is entitled 'Homology manifolds.
The duality theorems. Cohomology groups of compacta' and the fifth and last
'Introduction to the theory of continuous mappings of polyhedra'. This provided
Russian mathematicians with an authoritative survey of combinatorial topology
as it stood at the outbreak of the second world war, but by the time an English
translation appeared in 1956 the subject had developed so much further that the
work was feIt to be too out-of-date to serve as a textbook. I shall be discussing
textbooks more generally later.
Topology in America
Outside Europe the situation varied from country to country. From about 1925
America was beginning to riYal Europe for mathematical research. While Amer-
ican mathematicians continued to study in Europe it was becoming quite normal
for European mathematicians to spend some time in America. During the twen-
ties the United States became increasingly important for research in topology.
However a strong polarization developed at an early stage, with Lefschetz at
Princeton leading the combinatorialists while R.L. Moore at Austin led the set-
theoreticians. In their different ways both were remarkable teachers as well as
major researchers. The antipathy between these two formidable personalities,
and their adherents, has been exaggerated, but it is part of the his tory of topology
in the United States. It is interesting to try and trace the origins of the two
schools. To do so we need to retrace our steps somewhat since the story begins
in the nineteenth century.
Around the end of the century E.H. Moore was regarded as the leading
mathematician in America. He was greatly inuenced by a post-doctoral year he
spent in Germany. From 1892 he was in charge of the mathematics department at
the University of Chicago. The following year he brought Klein over to lecture,
and this served to strengthen the German inuence. When Hilbert's Grundlagen
der Geometrie appeared in 1899, it stimulated a great deal of interest in the
axiomatic approach to foundational questions, particularly in geometry. Among
E.H. Moore's graduate students both Oswald Veblen and R.L. Moore wrote their
theses in that area. Veblen was a little senior to R.L. Moore (who we will simply
refer to as Moore from now on) and to some extent acted as his advisor. Veblen
was recruited by Princeton in 1905 as one ofPresident Woodrow Wilson's new
'preceptors', as was Moore shortly afterwards, but Moore moved on to settle
down in his native Texas while Veblen made his career in Princeton.
Veblen
Already Veblen was becoming increasingly interested in topology, especially

Poincare's work, and when he was invited to give the Colloquium Lectures
of the American Mathematical Society in 1916 he chose this as his subject,
under the title 'Analysis Situs'. He also recruited to the Princeton faculty his
former graduate student J.W. Alexander, who became a star of the first mag-
nitude in topology, especially combinatorial topology. I quoted earlier from
816 I.M. JAMES
his address at the 1932 Congress. In 1924 Alexander in turn persuaded the
University to appoint Lefschetz, and together they made Princeton a leading
centre for research in algebraic topology. Veblen's interests had returned more
to geometry.
Veblen's abilities as a negotiator, fund-raiser and organiser were exceptional.
Not the least of his achievements was the design of Fine Hall, for many years
the home of the Princeton Department of Mathematics. This building was con-
structed of red brick and limestone in the "college style" that Veblen had so
admired when he spent a year at Oxford in 1928-9. He worked c10sely with a
high-quality decorating firm from New York on the furnishings and insisted on
extensive sound-testing of the c1assrooms. There was a first-c1ass departmental
library, a common room and other facilities. Faculty members had "studies" ,not
"offices"; some of these were large rooms lavishly appointed with fireplaces,
carved oak panelling, leather sofas, oriental rugs, concealed blackboards, and
leaded widows.
On the foundation of the Institute of Advanced Study in 1930 mathematics
was chosen as the initial mission. Veblen was given the first faculty appointment
and assumed responsibility for selecting the other original members of the
Institute's School ofMathematics. Alexander, von Neumann, Einstein and Weyl
were appointed in 1933, and Marston Morse two years later. The Institute had
many visitors each year, known as fellows, and a few research associates, known
as permanent members, but the six constituted the regular faculty of the school
of mathematics for the first decade.
Thus the University had lost two of its leading mathematicians to the In-
stitute. Fortunately, however, both institutions recognized the advantages of
cooperation. Institute seminars were open to university personnel and vice versa,
and various facilities were shared. Both gained from having a larger community
ofpermanent and visiting mathematicians. At the University, the able leadership
of Eisenhart and Lefschetz carried the department through this period. While
Eisenhart administered the department and its relations with the rest of the
university, Lefschetz built up the research and graduate programs. The graduate
students were welllooked after and the process of selection was rigorous.
At the Institute it was Veblen who was largely responsible for the policy of
concentrating on postdoctoral work, his views on the subject having been formed
by his experience at the University. As well as being an academic member he was
a trustee of the Institute from its early years and played a large part in arranging
the purchase of the land on which its buildings stand. Outside Princeton Veblen
was also active in the affairs of the American Mathematical Society at a critical
time, and in raising money for mathematical research [16]. During the Nazi
period he was instrumental in helping many European mathematicians to settle
in the United States, no easy matter in the years of the Depression when many
Americans were also looking for academic posts. A full account of all the
activities of this 'old-fashioned liberal', as he liked to describe himself, would

be much too long to be ineluded here5 .
Instead I would like to say something about the relations between Alexander,
Lefschetz and Veblen. Alexander was Veblen's protege originally, and they had
much in common; their relationship was always elose. Also Tucker says that
'Lefschetz had a special regard for Alexander. He feIt that it was Alexander
who had become aware of his work and had been the one who had insisted
on Lefschetz being brought to Princeton from the University of Kansas'. The
admiration which Lefschetz feIt for Alexander shines through bis biographical
memoir [34]6. On the other hand Alexander found that some of the ideas he
discussed with Lefschetz had a tendency to be taken over by him, no doubt
unconsciously. Of course Alexander and Lefschetz were in many ways oppo-
sites. For example Alexander, although remarkably reserved, was exceptionally
courteous. He was also an excellent lecturer. No-one could say that these were
attributes of Lefschetz. However Tucker also speaks of the 'hatred' wbich Lef-
schetz feIt for Veblen in later years.That may be an exaggeration but certainly
Lefschetz was inelined to make critical remarks about Veblen. Apparently this
was because Veblen had preferred Alexander to Lefschetz for the Institute ap-
pointment in 1933. By this time, of course, Lefschetz had become indispensable
in Fine Hall. In fact he was critical of the Institute generally, maintaining that
those who went there had usually had all their best ideas earlier, and without
the stimulus of students were inelined to rest on their laureIs.
Lefschetz
Alexander, Moore and Veblen were native-born Americans. Lefschetz had a

very different background. He was born in Moscow but was brought up in
Paris. He studied at the Ecole Centrale for three years, where the professors
ineluded Appell and Picard. He graduated in 1905 with the degree of 'Ingenieur
des arts et manifactures', and promptly emigrated to the United States. After a
short apprenticeship he became an engineer at the Westinghouse Electric and
Manufacturing Company ofPittsburgh from 1907 to 1910, but then a promising
career in industry was abruptly terminated by an accident at work in which he
lost both his hands and forearms. After aperiod in hospital, he faced up to the
fact that his career as an engineer was finished. He decided to change over to
pure mathematics, and to qualify for this he became a graduate student at Clark
University. Although the golden years of Clark [39] were over by this time
5 Fine, after whom the building was named, had studied mathematics at Austin under Halsted,
just as Moore had done; while Dean of Science he had been killed in a car accident.
6 Perhaps I could mention here that I have recently written a biographical memoir of Alexander
which is to appear in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society.
818 I.M. JAMES
Lefschetz appreciated the education he received there. Because of bis sound

French training he was able to take his Ph.D. in just one year with a thesis on
algebraic geometry. He then occupied positions of increasing seniority first at
the University ofNebraska (1911-13) and then at the University ofKansas for
the next decade. It was during those years in the prairies that he came to terms
with his disability, rebuilding his self-confidence and laying the foundations of
a new career. He became an American citizen in 1912.
In 1924 Lefschetz spent a year visiting Princeton, at the end of which he
became a member of the faculty. The move to Princeton was a turning point in
his life. He published bis famous fixed point theorem soon after he arrived but
otherwise the major ideas for which he is remembered all date from his prairie
years. At Princeton he found himself in elose contact with a wide cirele of able
mathematicians, not only the permanent staff but also the many distinguished
visitors. He took a great interest in the graduate students: among those he saw
through to Ph.D.'s were the topologists Hugh Dowker, Paul Smith, Norman
Steenrod, Al Tucker, Henry Wallman and Shaun Wylie, although Tucker, once he
became Lefschetz' assistant, often deputised for him in this respect as in others.
Rota [43] quotes Lefschetz as addressing an entering elass of a dozen
graduate students: "Since you have been carefully chosen among the most
pramising undergraduates in the country, I expect that you will all receive
your Ph.D.s rather sooner than later. Maybe one or two of you will go on to
become mathematicians". Wylie, who was at Princeton in the mid-thirties, found
Lefschetz' lectures "highly instructive. Of course he knew what mattered and
what it was all about, but he was bad at detail. There was a great deal of audience
participation (which he was entirely happy with) and the details were hammered
out democratically. People learnt a lot. Lefschetz also contributed personally to
audience participation at the seminars; he asked frequent questions, sometimes
pretending not to understand and sometimes to illuminate".
According to Tucker 'Lefschetz ... made up his mind very impulsively and
then he gathered various arguments. He was very quick and very imaginative.
But he had great difficulty making a rigorous argument. I've heard it said that any
proof Lefschetz would give would be wrong, but any result he would announce
would be right. He had a tremendously sound intuition, but he was just so
restless and impatient that he wouldn 't take the time to make rigorous arguments.
Another thing about him: even when he knew he was wrang, he would never
admit it, at least not then and there' .
Moore
Let us now leave Princeton for a time and turn our attention to the University
of Texas at Austin, where Moore had come to specialise in point-set theory
(he eschewed the terms analysis situs and topology). Hausdorff's infiuential
Grundzge der Mengenlehre, where point-set topology was developed from a

set ofaxioms, had appeared in 1914. Moore adopted the axiomatic approach and
published a long series of research papers culminating in his book 'Foundations
of Point-set theory', of which the first edition appeared in 1932. After that he
seems to have put more ofhis energy into teaching and the production of doctoral
students. The Moore teaching method was particularly successful in producing
point-set topologists. Most of the leading practitioners in the United States
were former students of Moore. They inc1ude RL. Wilder7 , of the University
of Michigan, G.T. Whyburn, of the University of Virginia, RH. Bing, of the
University of Texas, E.E. Moise, of the City University of New York, Gail
Young, ofTulane University, Mary Ellen Rudin, ofthe University ofWisconsin,
and RD. Anderson, ofLouisiana State University, to name just a few of the best-
known. It is estimated that over five hundred people were seen through the Ph.D.
stage either by Moore himself or by one of his former students or by one of
their students.
Moore was probably one of the most infiuential American mathematicians
of the first half of the twentieth century, more as an educator than a researcher.
'That teacher teaches best who teaches least' was his maxim. Although many
of his former students made careers in academia he made a deep impression on
many who did not: 'the best math teacher ever', as one of them said. However
a student seeking a large body of information or expecting to be a passive
member of a student group was better off avoiding his courses. He was highly
opinionated. As his former student Wilder explained in [55]:
'Moore did not himself venture into algebraic topology at all. Possessed by
dogmatic prejudices, he eschewed algebraic methods, and while a preacher of
the necessity ofaxiomatic foundations, he apparently based his personal ideas
and bellefs about mathematics on some kind of absolute intuition whose decrees,
once revealed, were not to be tampered with. To him, the Axiom of Choice was
a matter of truth, not convenience, and to question it in his presence stirred him
to anger'.
Of course, at this period he was not alone in his beliefs, although he was
unusually doctrinaire. Most 'traditional' mathematicians saw no reason to worry
about the axiom of choice. Moreover the Austin school had much in common
with the Warsaw school, where it was believed that homological arguments
should be avoided wherever possible. Many stories were told about Moore's
idiosyncrasies. He c1aimed he could prove mathematically that the faster he
drove his car the safer it was. And he was very germ conscious; when he used a
public rest-fOom he would turn the water on with his foot rather than his hand.
7 I am grateful to the Center for American History of the University of Texas at Austin for
permission to quote from the Wilder (Raymond Louis) papers and the Princeton Mathematics in
the 1930's collection in the Archives of American Mathematics.
820 I.M. JAMES
Some Personal Impressions
Since this Handbook already contains articles about the Austin school, where so
many American point-set topologists received their training, I should like to try
and balance this by writing more about the Princeton school of combinatorial
topology, which was even more infiuential. Of course other American institu-
tions were important but if we focus our attention on Princeton as it was during
what many see as a golden age, we can begin to understand how, in Whitney's
words, 'topology (was) moving towards America'. Under Alexander, Lefschetz
and others, Princeton became a stronghold of the combinatorialists, who tended
to look down on the other topologists. Even before the Institute for Advanced
Study came into existence visiting mathematicians were particularly attracted to
Princeton. Its high reputation for research in combinatorial topology originated
in the twenties, and was later reinforced by the decline of the universities of the
German-speaking world. Alexandroff, Cech, Hopf, Kuratowski and Whitehead,
amongst others, came to Princeton to work with Alexander, Lefschetz and
Veblen. Of course this was greatly to the benefi.t of the students, especially
young Americans, inc1uding some, such as Fox and Steenrod, who were to join
the Princeton faculty later.
I was fortunate enough to meet some of the leading figures personally, when
I first went to America in 1955/6, and perhaps I might be permitted to say a few
words about this here. I was working initially with Norman Steenrod who I had
got to know when he had visited Oxford and lectured at the topology seminar
on the cohomology operations he had just discovered, soon to be known as the
Steenrod squares. At first I was living in the Graduate College of the University
and working in Fine Hall. However in the New Year Steenrod arranged for his
research student Emery Thomas and myself to accompany him to Berkeley,
where he was spending the rest of the academic year on sabbatical at the
University of Califomia. The following year I retumed to Princeton as a member
of the Institute for Advanced Study, but retained my links with topologists at
the University, especially Fox and Steenrod. In the summer I drove down to
Mexico with the Fox family to attend the important 1956 symposium in algebraic
topology organized by Lefschetz. These and other experiences remain vivid in
my memory.
However this is not the place to describe the Princeton School of Topology
as I found it some years after the second world war. At Oxford Henry Whitehead
had told me much about his experiences at Princeton in the period 1928-31 when
he was studying geometry under Veblen, but growing increasingly interested in
topology. He had told me stories of Alexander, Lefschetz, Veblen and others.
While I was at Princeton I naturally wanted to meet these topologists of an
older generation. Lefschetz was not in Fine Hall much, although I soon had
some experience of his brusque manner. I had tea with the Veblens and dinner
with the Morses. Alexander, I was told, would never appear, so Emery Thomas
and I called on him one day and were received most courteously. No doubt
the Whitehead connection helped to open doors. Gradually I began to form a
picture of what life had been like at Fine Hall before the second world war.
Fortunately, there is a fair amount of relevant material, both published and
unpublished, to show what it was like in those days. For example, interesting
reminiscences of Princeton topologists by Saunders MacLane [35] and Gian-
Carlo Rota [43] can be found in the second of the Centennial volumes of the
American Mathematical Society. The Archives of American Mathematics at
Austin, Texas, contain the transcript of an interview of Tucker by Albert Lewis
and I would like to quote further from this.
Moore Versus Lefschetz
Tucker tells what happened when Lefschetz and Moore c1ashed. In 1931-2
Moore was touring American universities as a Visiting Lecturer on behalf of
the American Mathematical Society:
'I remember the time when Moore came to give his visiting lectures. I
think it just for sheer meanness, Moore scheduled the first one of his lectures
for Saturday evening, and then they went on Monday afternoon and Tuesday
afternoon. Well, Lefschetz and Alexander went round to all the graduate students
and said "This is one time when your attendance is required. You have no option.
You must be there". So the room was full. Lefschetz accorded Moore the same
show of interest he would any other speaker, namely by asking questions. Also
Lefschetz did this partly to sort ofhelp the graduate students. Moore started out
by writing out his axioms on the board. Something like five minutes went by,
and there was no sound except this chalk on the blackboard.
'WeH, Lefschetz was very, very restless, and he finally broke in with a
question. Moore turned around slowly and looked at Lefschetz and said, "If you
would read what I have written on the board, you wouldn't need to ask your
question". You could tell when Lefschetz was getting angry because the back of
his neck would get pink. Lefschetz repeatedly asked questions, which we knew
was just Lefschetz's style, but every one of these Moore regarded somehow
as being a planted barb, so he would come back very hard in some scornful
way. Alexander actually tried to pitch in and help Lefschetz a bit, but on points
Moore won easily.
'At the next talk Lefschetz did not say a word. Again he sat where we could
watch the back of his neck, and it would get red and then the colour would
recede, but he didn't say a word. As far as I couldjudge, everybody went out of
his way to show interest and concern and respect towards Moore. But afterwards
at other places he went, I understand he made very caustic remarks about the
822 I.M.JAMES
way he'd been treated, especially by Professor Lefschetz, at Princeton. But this
heckling was just a standard thing with Lefschetz'.
Steenrod's Letters to Wilder
No picture of the golden age of Princeton would be complete without some

indication of how it appeared to the students. For this we are fortunate to have
the letters written by Steenrod to Wilder after he arrived in Princeton as a
graduate student. Steenrod, I recall, was a native of Ohio who studied at Ann
Arbor under Wilder, and these letters give a vivid picture of life at Princeton as
seen through the eyes of a graduate student. While Tucker, in his reminiscences,
looks back on events that happened forty years earlier, Steenrod is describing
his experiences at the time. We see how Princeton shaped Steenrod's mathe-
matical development, converting him from point-set topology to combinatorial
topology. The following extracts from this material, which have not previously
been published, give a vivid picture of topology at Princeton in the mid-thirties,
not long after the Enzyklopdie artic1e of Tietze and Vietoris was published.
At the end of the last letter, as we shall see, Hurewicz arrives, bringing
modem homotopy theory to Princeton. Not long afterwards Alexander ceased
to be active in research, and a few years later Lefschetz' interests moved away
from topology in the direction of differential equations. Steenrod retumed to
Princeton as a faculty member, after aperiod back in the midwest. Fox, another
former student of Lefschetz, was also recruited to the faculty, and together they
gradually took over the leadership of the topology group at the university. At
the Institute Morse was joined by Whitney from Harvard. However the later
history of topology at Princeton is another story, for which I refer the reader to
Borel [7].
Steenrod's Letter of November 18, 1934
'Though I've been in Princeton only two months it seems like an age. It must
be that I'm enjoying it all, but I've really not had the opportunity to sit down
and come to a conc1usion on the matter - or maybe I don't want to .... This is a
leisurely joint - but I don't imagine I'm telling you anything. It took them two
weeks to get started. It was a month before they put me to work. My job breaks
into two parts. 1) sitting in the library two nights a week, 2) checking over
manuscripts for the Annals (officially as 'assistant editor'). The library work is
no burden. The only things the place lacks are spittoons - a fellow can't have
his chew. The editorial work is a bit different. Just before the proofs are sent out
(i.e. before the printer gets to work) they hand me fifteen or more manuscripts
and I have to go over them with an eye for c1arity - so's the printer Can read
them. Greek underlined in red, German in green, etc ... The main thing 1 don't
like about it is that there isn't enough time allowed for me to read the papers on
topology.
'I was here two weeks before meeting Zippin and Lefschetz. 1 met Tucker
shortly after arrival. 1 outlined for hirn my plans for studying topology. He made
no comment except to recommend seeing Lefschetz, who, he was sure, would
have something to say about it. A few days later Tucker stopped me and said
Zippin had asked ab out me. So 1 set about looking Zippin up. The first step
was to see Miss Blake. 1 trailed her all over the building looking for him. When
this failed she caIled him on the phone, it was about 11.30 in the morning -
so it came about that 1 invited myself to luncheon at Zippin's place. He's a
pretty sweIl sort of person. We talked for over two hours. Among other things,
he strongly recommended my going after the recent efforts of Pontrjagin. He
gave (loaned, 1 mean) me a set of galleys of Pontrjagin's paper in the April
issue of the Annals. This paper, by the way, I've just about finished. It's nice,
easy reading with some red-hot theorems. When the October Annals appeared
1 skimmed through the Pontrjagin paper on the duality theorem to see how he
applied his results. It doesn't seem to me as though there is any other theorem
in mathematics quite as beautiful as the one he's got.
'Lefschetz held a conference with all the new graduate students. He first gave
us a short lecture and then began on us one by one and recommended courses. He
invariably insisted on projective geometry; so when it came to my turn 1 swore up
and down that 1 was weIl versed in the subject. So he finally agreed that perhaps 1
was weIl enough prepared to take his topology course. My other two courses are
Differentiallnvariants - Thomas, and Functional Operators - von Neumann.
About a week later someone, perhaps Tucker, reminded Lefschetz that 1 was
Prof. Wilder' s pet, for he stopped me after one of his lectures and introduced me
to Mr. Wallman and inveigled me into collaborating with Mr.Wallman in writing
up his (Lefschetz's) lecture notes for the topology course. Heaven knows why
this is necessary.
'You mentioned in one of your letters that Lefschetz, in his topology course,
might develop the subject from the point of view of Pontrjagin's work. As yet
it doesn't appear that he is doing this. He did attempt to introduce the notion of
chains with coefficients which are rational numbers modulo 1. But he got stuck
when someone pointed out that they didn't form a ring (i.e. no distributive law).
The next day he insisted that it was all right since all he needed was that they
should form a group. Everyone is still suspicious of the matter.
'Also Lefschetz is having me read some work ofHopf's on the mappings of
complexes. Lefschetz feels that the American topologists have been concern-
ing themselves too much with general problems and have been neglecting the
smaller ones. Hence 1 am to report on these papers at the topology seminar
sometime in January, and thus institute a new order of things.
824 I.M. JAMES
'This place is 'group' crazy. One comes here fresh and innocent. But it isn't
long before you go around babbling about groups. Weyl is giving a continuation
of his course of last year on continuous groups. Eisenhart also on continuous
groups from a slightly different point of view, Lefschetz (although, in his own
words, he is no 'groupologist') can't seem to avoid them, Alexander is lecturing
(in the topology seminar) on Abelian groups - discrete and continuous, and
Zippin abets him occasionally by giving an analysis of the torsion groups.
Besides, as mentioned above, I'm reading Pontrjagin. And in order not to grow
weak on group theory, Nathan, Murray and myself are conducting our own
personal seminar on group theory. Our efforts are centred on trying to discover
(from notes) what Weyl was talking about last year. Nathan and Murray are Nat.
Research fellows; Nathan was at Harvard last year. Both of them are working
under von Neumann trying to solve the problem of unbounded operators in
Hilbert space.
'There is nothing in the way of research I have been able to do .. .I sought
the aid of Lefschetz in order to discover what linked what and how in higher
dimensions. It seems that nothing is known about the latter problem, so at least
I have something to work on. When I questioned Lefschetz about the linking
business he expressed curiosity as to how I came to worry about it. So I told him
about Alexandroff's problem and Antoine's example. Well, Lefschetz launched
into a lecture. He discussed the matter of young mathematicians acquiring the
habit of publishing numerous papers on trivial problems. It appears that the
true Princetonian method is to work only on general problems and to publish
only when some step in theory has been accomplished. What had the whole
Polish school accomplished? There wasn't one thing that he could remember
off-hand. And the only person to come out of the R.L. Moore school that was
worth a damn was Wilder, and probably in spite of it al1. And unless I happened
to be a 'Wilder', I couldn't possibly hope to become a great mathematician by
publishing a lot of papers on trivial problems.
'It was a good lecture, and I agreed that his main thesis was true. I didn't
begin to worry about the matter though until the following day when Zippin
comered me. He said that he had heard that Lefschetz had given me a curtain
talk. He advised me not to worry about it. He said that Lefschetz had ahabit of
getting under people's skin; but he did it entirely without malice. I expressed
surprise that anyone should be upset by Lefschetz, - for surely everyone liked
him. Zippin agreed that everyone liked Lefschetz, but insisted that Lefschetz
had the faculty of getting a person riled.
'It is c1ear that Zippin is an extremely sensitive person, and, thinking that
I was such, had endeavoured to sooth my wounded spirits. However he did
make c1ear that one must not entirely disregard Lefschetz's advice. I notice that
Princeton takes good care of its graduate students. So it seems proper that I
should make an effort to conciliate Lefschetz and work only on such problems
as he recommends and publish only in the Annals. Unfortunately I'm not quite
up to it. I can only work on such problems as I can get my fingers into. If they
don't happen to be important, as is sure to happen, 1'11 be out of luck. So just
now, I'm entirely without inspiration in the matter of research. I feel somewhat
Bat'.
Steenrod's Letter of February 9, 1935
'I'm having a pretty swe11 time here lately. Really getting soused in topology. It
is a whale of ajob writing up the notes for Lefschetz's course. As I mentioned in
my last letter Wallman and I are co11aborating in the matter. The results I think
will be very peculiar. Lefschetz, as you know, is a very sketchy lecturer; so we
have to organize the material, and fi11 in the details. At the beginning Wallman
and I tried working together. But we couldn't get anything done because we
spent the whole time arguing. So we agreed that Wallman would be responsible
for the first half of the first semester, and I would take the latter half. As a result
there will be a certain lack of coherence.
'My duties began at the point in the course where Lefschetz tried to introduce
coefficient groups other than the integers for defining chains. He considered
integers modulo m, rational numbers, and rational numbers modulo I (the last in
deference to Pontrjagin's methods). Remembering that you thought there might
be something screwy about bis methods, I listened very carefu11y. I won't say
he did anything wrong, but he didn't do it right either. I was quite disgusted and
in a fog. So I sat down and wrote a thirty page treatise on the matter. I was very
proud of the result: considered an arbitrary Abelian coefficient group; defined
the homology group to correspond; and showed how, for a complex, to compute
this group in terms of the properties of the coefficient group and then the ordinary
homology group related to the integers; and in case the coefficient group was
topological, I topologized the homology group; using the real numbers modulo
1 (the circ1e); it came out that the homology group was the direct sum of a toral
group (whose dimension was the Betti number) and a finite group (isomorphie
to the ordinary torsion group of one lower dimension). Since this overlapped
somewhat with what Wallman was supposed to do, I gave him the artic1e and
suggested that he write up his part to correspond. We11, he did. He chopped it
up (Le. the artic1e) and inserted parts here and there, substituting his own proofs
when he feIt like it. This disgusted me; it took all the kick out of it - imagine!
Butchering up my brainchild. However I was very pleased to note that one ofhis
substituted proofs was all wet - he made an error of a group-theoretieal nature.
I can't make out whieh of the two is more stubborn, Wallman or myself. As a
case in point we were arguing about the notion of an oriented simplex. lasserted
that it was the product of a feeble inte11ect, or perhaps a strong mind at a weak
moment, that it had caused more topological headaches than anything else, that
826 I.M. JAMES
the word orientation ought to be thrown into discard, and that the notion of chain
was fundamental. Wallman insisted that it had geometrical significance. He said
that he could visualize a line segment with an arrowhead attached, a triangle
containing a circle with an arrow, and a tetrahedron containing a corkscrew. As
a compromise we agreed that each would write the section pertaining to the
definition of chain and its boundary - he, using the notion of chain as basic -
I, avoiding it. We did, and compared results. I proved to him that I used exact1y
two less logical steps than he did. But he stuck to his conviction. As he was
responsible for that part, it will appear with his interpretation of orientation.
'It was the week preceding Xmas that the notes covering the first two weeks
of the course appeared. Lefschetz had spent that time in a somewhat general
discussion of the nature of topology and its applications to other branches of
math. Wallman did a swell job of writing it up. He put in everything Lefschetz
said and a lot more. He had a very beautiful and lengthy discussion on Abelian
integrals on 2-dimensional manifolds. When Lefschetz read it over, he had a fit.
He went tearing around Fine Hall shouting for Steenrod and Wallman. Wallman
had left on his vacation. So Lefschetz collared me, and gave me a lecture.
This was his course in topology. He wanted the notes written accordingly. In
particular he wasn't giving a course in Abelian integrals.
'As a result Wallman and I are trying to be a bit more circumspect. We
decided to throw out the part I had written about topologizing the homology
group in case the coefficient group was topological, and the results for the
modulo 1 case. This breaks my heart. And it seems stupid since it is clear,
from Pontrjagin's results, that a topological homology group is the thing to play
around with.
'I don't think Pontrjagin's results have soaked into Lefschetz's head yet. He
insists on sticking to the rational numbers and the rational numbers modulo 1.
He likes to divide by integers; and rational numbers seem to be all he needs for
this. The modulo 1 is so that he can have a torsion group. I don't see why he
doesn 't use the rest of the continuum in both cases. There is no operation that you
perform on the homology groups of aspace that are not essentially continuous.
If you use only the rationals, the continuity involved does not appear on the
surface ....
'I've been getting a lot ofhelp from Zippin. Perhaps you notice his influence.
I think I mentioned that he made me read Pontrjagin's paper of last April. Once
in a while I ron into a difficulty concerning groups. After a long struggle I figure
out a fact and a proof. Then I take it to Zippin and state the fact. He always says
'Oh sure'. Then he explains how it can be seen very easily by using theorems
on character groups ....
'This semester Lefschetz is tackling the homology groups of an abstract
space. He's using Cech's methods - following the Fundamenta paper closely.
He says he's only read the first part of this paper. I bet he follows Ceeh, and
uses rational ehains.
'I've leamed how to get help from Lefsehetz. Tbe thing to do is to refuse
to pretend to understand him when he isn't c1ear. He eertainly has a buneh of
good ideas. Still, though, he does misfire oeeasionally.
'Tbis Wallman is a nice ehap. He has energy and ideas. I get a kick out of
working with him' .
I started this letter two months ago - I'm just a punk letter writer. In the first
edition of this I started to tell you what Ceeh is like. But you will be seeing
him shortly so it isn't neeessary. However my impression is that he is a pretty
swell guy. He enjoys having people disagree with him, and doesn't have to be
handled with gloves.
'Life has been very enjoyable for me this year. Last Oetober I passed the
exams that admit me to eandidaey for the doetor's degree. Sinee then I've been
struggling with the thesis. Lefsehetz wouldn't look at the thing until it was
typewritten. I gave it to him two weeks ago. Tbe ehanges he is making are large
and numerous. I feel slightly put upon. Tbe typing was a terrifie job - the thing
is a hundred pages long (a good bit ofit is putting things together). Tbe ehanges
shouldn't take me more than a month so relief is on the horizon. I notieed when
writing up the thesis that I have a very sensitive eonscienee. This I ean traee to
the training you gave me. I remember distinetly the time you refused to aeeept as
a proof a very niee intuitive argument I had. Tbe same sort of thing eame up in a
very extensive way in my thesis. In terms of bases of a buneh of groups I made
a eonstruetion. I was certain that the result of the construction was dependent
only on the invariants of the groups. But it took me a long time to find out what
I meant by this, and to work out the details of the proof.
'During the past semester Alexander leetured on eombinatorial topology.
He's the best leeturer around here. He eoneentrated on the infinite eomplex
(very infinite-non-eountable and loeally finite). He had all sorts of eyc1es-finite,
infinite, infinite in the large but finite in the small, ordinary and dual eyc1es for
all these types. He was trying to develop an interseetion theory so that he would
have a homology ring, but he ran into diffieulties. So he stopped leeturing and
said he would begin again onee the trouble had been ironed out. Sinee then both
Ceeh and Whitney have proposed definitions of interseetions. It is believed that
they are equivalent. Anyhow they agree that only dual eyc1es and a dual eyc1e
with an ordinary eyc1e ean be multiplied. Ceeh has generalized the definition to
eyc1es of an arbitrary spaee. When the definition has been decided 1'11 have to
eonsider the problem of universal eoefficient domains for the homology ring.
828 I.M. JAMES
'Lefschetz began lecturing on abstract spaces in January. He williecture

until Kuratowski arrives sometime this spring who will then take over.
'Where 1'11 be next year is still up in the air. Lefschetz thinks that Russia
would be an excellent place for me, so I'm applying for a National Research
Fellowship in the hope that they will allow it to be International. If the trip to
Russia is out, I would lik:e to stay at Princeton as apart-time instructor. Teaching
experience is what I need' .
'Beginning in January last, I've been running a seminar in topology; and doing
it in the spirit of the R.L. Moore school. So far I've been following the notes
to the course you gave in Michigan ... The thing I've noticed about Princeton
is that the students who come here without having done research work have
considerable difficulty in knowing how to do it. So I talked up the virtues of the
Moore system to Lefschetz. He finally agreed that it was worth trying. However
he complained bitterly about the material I proposed using. So far he has been
satisfied. He attended several of the meetings and was very pleased with the
way things were going. He was so pleased in fact that he is starting a seminar in
algebraic geometry to be conducted in as nearly the same fashion as possible.
'Hurewicz gave us aseries of lectures on his work. It is beautiful stuff and
plenty of it' .
Recognition of Topology
Due recognition of the place of topology in mathematics was not won easily.
Analysis became increasingly rigorous, in the course of the nineteenth century,
and once some early misconceptions had been cleared up point-set topology
achieved a high standard of rigour as well. Combinatorial topology, however,
was considered to be less rigorous, not without justification. The intuitive ar-
guments often used in combinatorial topology were not always reliable, even
in the hands of a master like Poincare. The history of the Poincare conjecture,
which is still undecided, contains many examples of unsuccessful proofs. The
attempts to prove Dehn's lemma provide other examples. It is hardly surprising
that it took some time before the status of combinatorial topology was generally
accepted.
In the early International Mathematical Congresses topology hardly appears
on the programme at all, although often mentioned in the major addresses.
For example, in the very first Congress Hurwitz drew attention to the need for
the classification of three-dimensional manifolds, something still not achieved
over a century later. But it was not until the Zurich Congress of 1932, already
mentioned, that the subject first seems to have won appropriate recognition.
One recaHs that Hadamard, in a famous lecture given in New York in 1911,
described it as 'the revenge of geometry on analysis'; presumably when he said
this it was combinatorial topology which he meant, since point-set topology was
was then in its infancy and in any case was more in the nature of an outgrowth
of analysis.
In 1935 the first specialist conference on topology was held in Moscow.
This brought together most of the active researchers at that time, about forty
in number. Whitney has given his personal impressions of what took place in
[54]. Another such meeting took place in Geneva shortly afterwards. Plans for
a major topology conference to be held in Warsaw in 1939 were abandoned due
to the gravity of the international situation. After the second world war was over
international conferences on topology began to be held quite frequently, but they
were normallyon either combinatorial topology or on point-set topology, not
on both together as was the practice before the war.
Textbooks on Topology
There seem to have been two major attempts to combine combinatorial and
point-set topology in one treatise. One was by von Kerekjmo, whose first vol-
ume [29], covering set-theoretic topology and the topology of surfaces, appeared
in 1923. The second volume, which would have dealt with higher-dimensional
spaces, was drafted by Kneser8 , after von Kerekjmo himself abandoned the
project, but was never completed. The other project was by Alexandroff and
Hopf, whose first volume [4] appeared in 1935. The titles ofthe four parts ofthis
volume are: 'Grundbegriffe der mengentheoretischen Topologie', 'Topologie
der Komplexe', 'Topologische invarianz satze und ansschliessende Begriffsbil-
dungen ' and 'Verschlingungen im Euklidischen Raum. Stetige Abbildungen von
Polyedern' .
At the end there is an appendix on abelian groups and another on convex
subspaces of euclidean space, also an annotated list of 25 relevant books on
topology. Apparently the projected second volume was to have been on point-
set topology, which is not taken very far in the first volume, and the third on
the topology of manifolds. However although the first volume at once became
a standard work and remained so until weH into the fifties, nothing further ever
appeared, unless the work [1] on combinatorial topology written by Alexandroff
alone and described above may bear some relation to the original project.
At a more introductory level there were a number ofbooks which dealt with
both point-set and combinatorial topology, such as those ofHocking and Young
8 I arn grateful to members of the Kneser family for a copy of this draft, and to Dr Moritz
Epple for his comments thereon.
830 I.M.JAMES
[24] and Schubert [44], which appeared in 1961 and 1964, respectively. These
books combined basic point-set topology with aselection of combinatorial
topics, such as simplicial homology. However since the combinatorial topology
made little use of the point-set topology, there did not seem much point in
putting them together, and this kind of textbook is no longer published.
Of course there were plenty of books to choose from which dealt with either
point-set topology or combinatorial topology but did not try to combine them.
The first publication which could be regarded as a textbook of combinatorial
topology was Veblen's Analysis Situs [52] of 1922, based on his colloquium
lectures of 1916. This appeared too early to have treated homology from the
group-theoretical viewpoint, and Lefschetz' Topology [31] of 1930 was an at-
tempt to bring it up-to-date. Reidemeister published several textbooks, of which
his Kntentheorie [40] of 1932 was particularly useful. The 1934 Lehrbuch
der Topologie [45] of Seifert and Threlfall, which inc1uded a particularly good
introduction to the topology of manifolds, remained a standard work for many
years. In the case of point-set topology, Hausdorff's c1assic Grundzge der
Mengenlehre [19], which appeared in 1914, laid the foundations. His later Men-
genlehre [20] of 1927 is a much shorter book, largely because topology is given
less space. By that time several accounts of elementary point-set topology had
appeared, and gradually the standard exposition we know today was perfected,
as for example in Bourbaki [8]. Most ofthe later textbooks are written with the
needs of analysts in mind; sometimes the fundamental group is discussed but
otherwise there are no links with other kinds of topology.
Historical Literature
The history of algebraic topology up to (hut not inc1uding) the time of Poincare
is the subject ofthe thesis ofBollinger [6]. The monograph [40] of J.-C. Pont, is
largely based on this thesis. The only similar history of general topology seems
to be that of Manheim [36], although a number of artic1es have been published
on particular topics. The little-known survey [22] by Hirsch provides a well-
informed overview of the development of topology generally. Dieudonne wrote
several relevant studies, of which [14] is perhaps the most relevant. A number of
artic1es ofhistorical interest are listed in the bibliography. These inc1ude surveys
such as [21], [49] and [53], also the biographies and autobiographies of certain
individuals.
A useful list of early publications may be found at the end of the van der
Waerden artic1e [51] on combinatorial topology, and an annotated list of early
textbooks at the end of Alexandroff and Hopf [4]. It must be aCknowledged,
however, that the history of topology, especially twentieth-century topology,
has not yet received the attention it deserves from the professional historians.
Much valuable unpublished material has not yet been studied. All too few of the
pioneers remain to give us the benefit of their first-hand knowledge. However,

many of the gaps are fi1led in the recent one-volume History of Topology [28],
and others in the three-volume Handbook of the History of General Topology,
in the third volume of which the present artic1e appears.
Conclusion
With all this background let us now return to the original question: why did the
separation between the two disciplines occur? Perhaps the subject had simply
become too large to hold together. Perhaps cultural factors, such as the compara-
tive lack of contact between topologists in Western Europe and those in Eastern
Europe, were also important. Perhaps the appearance of abstract topological
spaces in full generality distracted the attention ofpoint-set topologists from the
more geometrically-motivated questions which interested the combinatorialists.
Or perhaps it was feIt that, once the basic canon of point-set topology had been
established, the motivation for further research came rather from analysis than
from elsewhere in topology, as Whitney suggested when introducing the 1950
Conference on Topology held at Cambridge (Mass.):
'The subject of algebraic topology and applications was chosen ... because
of its great growth in recent years, and the increasingly large contact with other
fields of mathematics, in geometry, algebra and analysis. The subject of general
topology has moved considerably into the domain of analysis. It was with great
regret that the field of point set topology had to be omitted altogether' .
Until then it had been usual for both branches of the subject to be represented
at conferences. But while Whitney was surely right to say that point-set topology
was moving away from combinatorial topology it would also be true to say
that combinatorial topology was moving away from point-set topology. The
introduction of algebraic methods may have had some effect but the advent of
homotopy theory seems to have been more important. Although I have already
touched on aspects of the history of homotopy theory incidentally, a brief sketch
of its development may help to explain the reasons for making this assertion.
Of course the notion of continuous deformation, especially of paths, has a
long history. The term homotopy was introduced by Dehn and Heegard in their
Enzyklopdie artic1e of 1907, although the meaning they gave to it was not the
one which is now standard. It was more like simplicial homotopy, but not the
same. Although Veblen adopted their definition in his 1922 colloquium volume
the much simpler standard definition soon replaced it. While Hopf is genera11y
regarded as the founder of algebraic topology it was Hurewicz who was the
founder, or at least co-founder, of homotopy theory. Many of the fundamental
ideas of homotopy theory were introduced by Hurewicz in 1935/6 and as we
have seen he was lecturing on them in America soon afterwards.
832 I.M. JAMES
The most significant of these ideas, perhaps, was the concept of homotopy
type, the c1assification of spaces by homotopy equivalence. This circumvented
many of the difficulties of the older c1assification, by homeomorphism. Homol-
ogy, of course, is a homotopy invariant but many other topological invariants,
such as compactness, are not. In fact the methods of point-set topology are
largely irrelevant to homotopy theory, where algebraic methods played an ever-
increasing role. Later of course it turned out that homotopy theory could also be
used to help solve many of the old problems of c1assical topology. Nothing was
happening in point-set topology which could rival such spectacular successes.
However, although fifty years aga point-set topology seemed to have exhausted
itself, before long it took on a new lease of life, as described elsewhere in this
collection of artic1es.
References
[1] Alexandroff, P.S., Kombinartornaya Topologiya (English translation: Combina-

torial Topology) 3 vols., Graylock, Rochester, NY, 1956/57.
[2] _ _ , Poincare and topology, Russian Math. Surveys (1), 27 (1972), 157-168.
[3] _ _ , Pages from an Autobiography, Russian Math. Surveys (6), 34 (1979),
267-302; (3) 35 (1980), 315-358.
[4] Alexandroff, P.S. and Hopf, H., Topologie, Julius Springer, Berlin, 1935.
[5] Aspray, W., The emergence of Princeton as a world center, History and Philoso-
phy of Modern Mathematics, W. Aspray and P. Kitcher (eds.), Univ. ofMinnesota
Press, Minneapolis, 1988, 346-366.
[6] Bollinger, M., Geschichtliche Entwicklung des Homologiebegriffs, Arch. Hist.
Exact Sei., 9 (1972), 84-170.
[7] Borei, A., The school of mathematics at the institute for advanced study, A
Century of Mathematics in America, Duren (ed.), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
RI, part III, 1989, 119-147.
[8] Bourbaki, N., Topologie Generale, Hermann, Paris, 1940-9.
[9] Browder, W., Topology, A Century of Mathematics in America, Duren (ed.),
Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, part 11, 1989,347-351.
[10] Cartan, H. and Eilenberg, S., Homological Algebra, Princeton Univ. Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1956.
[11] Ciesielski, K. and Pogoda, Z., The beginning of Polish topology, Mathematical
Intelligencer (3), 18 (1996), 32-39.
[12] Dehn, M. and Heegard, P., Analysis situs, Enzyklopdie der mathematischen
Wissenschaften lll, AB3, Teubner, Leipzig, 1907, 153-220.
[13] Dieudonne, J.A., A History of Algebraic and Differential Topology 1900-1960,
Birkhauser, Basel, 1989.
[14] _ _ , Une Breve Histoire de la Topologie. Development of Mathematics 1900-
1950, Pier (ed.), Birkhauser, Basel, 1994,35-195.
[15] Eilenberg, S. and Steenrod, N.E., Foundations of Algebraic Topology, Princeton
Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1952.
[16] Feffer, L.B., Oswald Veblen and the capitalization of American Mathematics:
raising money for research 1923-1928, Isis 89 (1998), 474-497.
[17] Feigl, G., Geschichtliche Entwicklung der Topologie, lahresber. Deutsche Math.
Vereinig., 37 (1928), 273-280.
[18] Freudenthai, H., Topologie in den N ederlanden: das erste Halbjahrhundert, Nieuw
Arch. Wiskunde III Ser., 26 (1978), 22-40.
[19] Hausdorff, E, Grundzge der Mengenlehre, Von Leit, Leipzig, 1914.
[20] _ _ , Mengenlehre, De Gruyter, Berlin, 1927.
[21] Henn, H.-W. and Puppe, D., Algebraische Topologie, Ein Jahrhundert Mathe-
matik 1890-1900, Deutsche Math. Vereinig., 1992,673-716.
[22] Hirsch, G., Topologie, Abrege d'histoire des mathematiques 1700-1900,
Dieudonne (ed.), Hermann, Paris, 1976, 211-266.
[23] Hirzebruch, EH., Emmy Noether and topology, Proc. Israel Math. ConJ., 12
(1999), 57-65.
[24] Hocking, I.G. and Young, G.S., Topology, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.,
1961.
[25] Hodge, W.V.D., Solomon Lefschetz 1884-1972, Biogr. Mem. Roy. Soc., 19
(1973),433-453.
[26] Hopf, H., Ein Abschnitt aus der Entwicklung der Topologie, lahresber. Deutsche
Math. Vereinig., 34 (1925), 1-14.
[27] Hornich, H., Wilhelm Wirtinger, Monatshefte fr Mathematik (1), 52 (1948),
1-12.
[28] James, I.M. (ed.), History o/Topology, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1999.
[29] von Kerekjarto, B., Vorlesungen ber Topologie, Julius Springer, Berlin, 1923.
[30] Kneser, H., Die Topologie der Mannigfaltigkeiten, lahresber. Deutsche Math.
Vereinig., 34 (1925), 1-14.
[31] Lefschetz, S., Topology, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1930.
[32] _ _ , A page of mathematical biography, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 74 (1968),
854-879.
[33] _ _ , Reminiscences of a mathematical migrant in the U.S., Amer. Math.
Monthly, 77 (1970), 344-350.
[34] _ _ , James WaddelI Alexander (1888-1971), Biog. Mem. Amer. Phil. Soc.
(1973), Philadelphia, 1974, 110-114.
[35] MacLane, S., Topology and logic at Princeton, ABrief History, A Century 0/
Mathematics in America, Duren (ed.), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, part II,
1988, 127-154.
[36] Manheim, J.H., The Genesis 0/ Point Set Topology, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
1964.
[37] Marcus, L., Solomon Lefschetz: an appreciation in memoriam, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc., 79 (1973), 663-680.
[38] Montgomery, D., Oswald Veblen, Bull Amer. Math. Soc., 69 (1963), 26-36.
[39] Parshall, K.H. and Rowe, D.E., American Mathematics comes of age: 1875-
1900, A Century 0/ Mathematics in America, Duren (ed.), Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, part III, 1989,3-28.
[40] Pont, J.-c., La Topologie Algebrique des Origines cl Poincare, Presses Univ. de
France, Paris, 1974.
834 I.M. JAMES
[41] Reidemeister, K., Kntentheorie, Julius Springer, Berlin, 1932.

[42] _ _ , Einfuhrung in die kombinatorische Topologie, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn,
Braunschweig, 1932.
[43] Rota, G.-c., Fine Hall in its Golden Age: Remembrances of Princeton in the
Early Fifties. A Century of Mathematics in America, Duren (ed.), Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, RI, part II, 1988,223-236.
[44] Schubert, H., Topologie, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1964.
[45] Seifert, H. and Threlfall, w., Lehrbuch der Topologie, Teubner, Leipzig, 1934.
[46] Steemod, N.E., The Topology of Fibre Bundles, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton,
NJ,1951.
[47] Tietze, H., Uber die topologischen Invarianten mehrdimensionaler Manni-
faltigkeiten, Monatsh. fr Math. u. Phys., 19 (1908), 1-118.
[48] Tietze, H. and Vietoris, L., Beziehungen zwischen den verschieden Zweigen
der Topologie, Enzyklopdie der mathematischen Wissenschaften IIl, AB 13,
Teubner, Leipzig, 1914-1931, 141-237.
[49] Toda, H., Fifty years ofhomotopy theory, Iwanami-Sugaku, 34 (1982), 520--582.
[50] Vanden Eynde, R., Historical evolution of the concept of homotopic paths, Arch.
Hist. Exact Sci., 45 (1992), 127-188.
[51] Van der Waerden, B.L., Kombinatorische Topologie, lahresber. Deutsche Math.
Vereinig., 39 (1929), 121-139.
[52] Veblen, 0., Analysis situs, Colt. Publ. 5. Amer. Math. Soc., New York, 1922.
[53] Whitehead, G.w., Fifty years of homotopy theory, Bult. Amer. Math. Soc., 8
(1983), 1-29.
[54] Whitney, H., Moscow 1935: Topology Moving Toward America, A Century of
Mathematics in America, Duren (ed.), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, part I,
1988,97-117.
[55] Wilder, R.L., The mathematical work of R.L. Moore: its background, nature and
infiuence, Arch. History Exact Sci., 26 (1982), 73-97.
ELEMENTS OF THE HISTORY OF LOCALE THEORY
PETER JOHNSTONE
Department of Pure Mathematics
University of Cambridge, England
Contents
1 Prehistory: 1914-54 ............................................... 837

2 The Birth ofLocale Theory: 1957-71 ................................ 838
3 Locale Theory Reaches Maturity: 1972-1983 ......................... 841
4 Growth and Diversity: 1984-99 ..................................... 844
835
C. E. Aull and R. Lowen (eds.), Handbook ofthe History ofGeneral Topology, Volume 3,835-851.
2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
ELEMENTS OF THE HIS TORY OF LOCALE THEORY 837
1. Prehistory: 1914-54
In the early his tory of topology, Felix Hausdorff [27] is generally (and rightly)
credited with being the first person to emphasize the importance of the notion
of open set in formulating the definitions of topological concepts. (Some credit
for popularizing the idea should perhaps also be given to the Polish school of
topologists led by Sierpmski and Kuratowski, in the years after the First World
War.) The idea has therefore been around for almost as long as topology itself
that a topological space is something which possesses (indeed, is defined by) a
lattice of open subsets, as well as a set of points.
However, the idea that a topological space is a lattice of open sets, and that
the points themselves are a secondary construct, took a much longer time to
emerge. In part, this was because such an idea was dependent on the devel-
opment of lattice theory as an autonomous branch of abstract algebra, which
did not take place until the late 1930s with the work of Birkhoff and Stone,
culminating in the first edition of Birkhoff's well-known textbook [14]. Thus,
although Vietoris's astonishing paper [95] of 1922 contains what is in effect
an entirely lattice-theoretic description of how to construct the hyperspace (the
space of all nonempty c10sed subsets) of a compact Hausdorff space, it could
not be recognized in those terms because the concepts in abstract lattice theory,
which were needed to formulate it as such, did not then exist. It was not until
sixty years later [38], [41] that a purely lattice-theoretic translation ofVietoris's
construction could be published.
Whilst Birkhoff's work was enormously influential, in that it defined and
standardized the language that mathematicians needed in order to talk about the
concepts of abstract lattice theory, it was really the work ofMarshall Stone [88],
[89] on the topological representation of Boolean algebras that laid the true
foundation-stone (forgive the pun!) ofthe lattice-theoretic approach to topology
- just as it was the starting-point for so many other important developments of
mathematics in the middle third of the twentieth century. I have analysed some
of these in the Introduction to my book Stone Spaces [38], and any reader who
is familiar with that Introduction will have to forgive me for inducing here what
will undoubtedly be a sensation of deja vu: it is in my view almost impossible
to overstate the influence of Stone's representation theorem on the subsequent
development of mathematics.
The key idea that made Stone's work a genuinely new starting-point was the
fact that topological spaces could be defined from purely algebraic data such as
a Boolean algebra. Prior to this, although topologists had gained considerable
expertise in the construction of 'exotic' or 'pathological' spaces in order to
demonstrate the independence of different topological properties, the motivation
for studying topological spaces at all had come entirely from geometrical roots
- the spaces one wished to study were those constructed by geometrical means
838 PETER JOHNSTONE
from subsets of Euc1idean space (or from infinite-dimensional generalizations

thereot), even if one might wish to impose unusual topologies upon them in
order to study nonstandard notions of eontinuity. The diseovery that purely
algebraie data eould give rise to topologically interesting spaees was literally
revolutionary: it foreed topologists to take the algebraie aspeets of the strueture
of a topological spaee seriously, and in so doing provided a powerful impetus
towards freeing topologists from the preeoneeption that (c1assieal Euc1idean)
spaee eould and should be deseribed in terms of the totality of its points.
Thus Stone was, if not the immediate begetter, at least the great-grandfather
of 'pointless topology'.
The infiuenee of Stone's work on topology was immediate. The very next
year, Henry Wallman [96] gave a purely lattice-theoretie eonstruetion of the
eompaetifieation that bears his name; and a few years after that, John MeKinsey
and Alfred Tarski produeed work on 'c1osure algebras' [55], [56] which ean be
seen as the first attempt to do topology without mentioning points. (MeKinsey
and Tarski worked with lattices of c10sed sets rather than of open sets, but the
differenee is immaterial.) By the early post-war years, the idea that topologi-
eal properties eould be deseribed in purely lattice-theoretic terms had beeome
eommonplaee, though few authors took the idea as far as Gustav Nbeling [64],
who wrote an entire textbook on topology seen from this viewpoint. Nbeling's
book was a remarkable tour de force for its time, showing how the study of a
great many topologieal properties eould be divoreed from assumptions about
the existenee ofpoints. His 'topologisehe Vereine' and 'topologisehe Verbnde'
were posets and distributive lattiees equipped with a c10sure operation; again,
it is thus the c10sed sets that formally playamore important rle than the open
ones, but he very quiekly specialized to the ease when the enveloping lattice of
'Somen' (subsets or parts of the spaee) was Boolean, allowing him to define
open parts as the eomplements of c10sed ones.
Nevertheless, it is the eontention of the present author that this work belongs
to the prehistory of loeales; the idea of loeale theory as a subjeet in its own right
did not arrive until the year 1957. Nbeling's book was the end of a ehapter that
had begun with Stone's work, not the beginning of a new one.
2. The Birth of Locale Theory: 1957-71
Strietly speaking, loeale theory was not born in 1957: the word 'loeale' did
not aequire a mathematical meaning until Isbell's paper [29] fifteen years later.
Nevertheless, it is fair to regard 1957 as the true origin of the subjeet which we
now eall by the name 'Ioeale theory'. (In this survey, I am anaehronistieally using
the word 'loeale' whenever I wish to refer to the geometrie objeet popularly
known as a 'spaee without points', and 'frame' when I refer to the algebraie
objeet which represents it set-theoretieally. The different writers in the field
ELEMENTS OF THE HISTORY OF LOCALE THEORY 839
have used so many different terminological conventions that, if I attempted to

describe each author's work in the terms that he himself used, the result would
be seriously confusing.) Its birth cannot be attributed to a single paper, or even to
a single group of researchers: as so often in mathematics, it was simply an idea
whose time had come, and which was bound to emerge from several different
sources. The sources from which it did in fact emerge were the work of Charles
Ehresmann and his student Jean Benabou in Paris, the Ph.D. theses ofDona and
Seymour Papert (both students ofFrank Smithies) in Cambridge, and the work
of Hugh Dowker in London.
The chief feature which distinguished the work of these authors from that
of McKinsey and Tarski, Nbe1ing and others who had gone before was that
the frame of open sets was no longer required to be represented explicitly as a
subframe of a (complete) Boolean algebra of 'all subsets ' . Although in one sense
this was no generalization at all (since Funayama [26] showed that every frame is
representable as a subframe of a complete Boolean algebra), the important thing
about the change was the shedding of unnecessary baggage from the definition:
the non-uniqueness ofthe enveloping Boolean algebra (for a given frame) made
it impossible to define what a 'continuous map of pointless spaces' should be,
since such a map need not behave weIl with respect to 'arbitrary sub sets , , but
once the latter were abandoned it was at once obvious that the right notion of
'.continuous map' was nothing more than that of a frame homomorphism; that
is, a mapping preserving finite meets and arbitrary joins. Thus pointless spaces
no longer had to be considered singly, in isolation: it became possible to see
them as objects of a category.
It was thus no accident that Charles Ehresmann, who became one of the
pioneers of category theory in France, was at the forefront of this new de-
velopment. Ehresmann's contribution to mathematics has been analysed by
Mac Lane [57], but that account oddly underplays his rle as one of the true
founders of pointless topology. His motivation came from studying the interplay
between local and global structures on differentiable manifolds; feeling that the
established notion of sheaf was inadequate to capture this process entirely, he
introduced a generalized concept of sheaf (narrowly missing, in the process,
the opportunity to anticipate Grothendieck' s introduction of the notion of topos
by some five years!), which did not in itself become generally accepted, but a
byproduct of the work was the realization that what really matters about spaces
are their open-set lattices rather than their points.
The first appearance of frames in Ehresmann's work (under the name 'local
lattices') was in a paper [23] published in German; but it was the founding of
his own seminar in Paris in 1957, and the publication of its proceedings in what
eventually grew into the journal Cahiers de Topologie et Geometrie Differen-
tielle Categoriques (the last word was added to the title after Ehresmann's death,
but the spirit of category theory infused the seminar from its very outset), that
840 PETER JOIINSTONE
gave the subject its real impetus. The very first expose of the new seminar [67]
was one in which the two Paperts reported on the work they were doing in
Cambridge; it was followed by one in which Benabou [13] determined the free
objects in the category of frames, and observed that they are a11 spatial (in fact
they are the topologies ofpowers ofthe Sierpinski space). From this simple (and
essentially categorical) observation follow two important facts: first, that every
frame is a quotient of a spatial one (equivalently, every locale is a sublocale of a
space - hence the title of Isbell's paper 'Atomless parts of spaces' [29], which
(as we shall see in the next section) brilliantly exploited the idea that locales are
not just a generalization but an improvement of the category of spaces, which is
necessary in order to make the concept of subspace behave better), and secondly,
that the algebraic theory of frames is exactly the infinitary algebraic theory (in
the sense of Unton [54]) of the contravariant 'forgetful functor' from spaces to
sets which sends aspace to its open-set lattice. (The latter point has been further
developed in recent years by Barr and Pedicchio [11], [12].)
The Ph.D. theses of the two Paperts [66], [68] have already been mentioned.
Whilst Seymour Papert subsequently left the subject of locales for the greener
pastures of automata theory, Dona Papert (latterly as Dona Strauss) came back
to it from 1966 onwards in a long sequence of joint papers [17], [18], [19],
[20], [21] with Hugh Dowker, culminating in [22] which was published after
Dowker's death. Whilst this sequence stretches weH into the periods covered by
later sections of this artic1e, it has its origins firmly in the period of initial growth;
and Dowker himself, though he published nothing on locales before 1966, had
certainly been thinking about pointless topology as a useful generalization of
c1assical topology from the late 1950s, as is made c1ear in [90]. It is interesting
to note that Dowker's motivation for this development, like that of Ehresmann,
came from sheaf theory (on which he had written a well-known set of lecture
notes in 1956), and the way in which sheaves mediate the passage between local
and global structures on spaces; consideration of this led him, like Ehresmann,
to observe that the requirement that spaces should 'consist of points' actually
gets in the way when one works in this area, and one can give a smoother
development of the theory in the pointless context. (The same observation, in the
context of the sheaves used in algebraic geometry, led Alexander Grothendieck
to the still more general notion of topos; I shall have more to say about this
development in the next section.) Dowker's other undisputed contribution to
the subject was the introduction of the word 'frame' to describe the type of
lattice which was needed to carry the structure of a 'pointless space'; although
this usage did not immediately carry all before it, it has come to be universally
accepted as the ideal choice of terminology, being short, memorable and not
readily confused with any other usage in lattice theory or elsewhere.
Progress in the study of frames continued through the 1960s on several
other fronts. In particular, Bernhard Banaschewski, who had been interested in
ELEMENTS OF THE HISTORY OF LOCALE THEORY 841
the lattice-theoretic aspects of topology from an early stage [2], published his
first paper to contain an explicit mention of frames in 1969 [3]. Banaschewski
was to become one of the most prolific authors on pointless topology, and in
particular on its constructive and choice-free aspects, in the next three decades.
However, a further (and more literal) revolution was needed before pointless
topology was able to occupy its true place in the spectrum of tools available to
the modem topologist.
3. Locale Theory Reaches Maturity: 1972-1983
Up to about 1970, if anyone had asked what was the reason for studying topology
on a lattice-theoretic foundation, the only answer that any of its practitioners
could have given was the mountaineer's 'Because it's there' . But at the beginning
of the 1970s there came two new developments, one very specific and the other
much broader and more diffuse, which radically changed the way in which
'pointless topologists' looked at their subject. The specific development was
the publication of John Isbell's celebrated paper [29], and the more diffuse one
was the development of elementary topos theory and the discovery of its links
with constructive topology.
On a purely technicallevel, Isbell did two things which decisively changed
the way in which (most) locale-theorists viewed their subject. One was the
introduction of the word 'locale' itself (an inspired choice, which conveyed all
the right overtones about the spatial nature of these objects without causing
their algebraic underpinnings to obtrude, and which at the same time was
easily capable of all the necessary inflections), and the other - linked to it
- was the decision that the notion of locale morphism must be seen as going in
the 'geometric' direction, opposite to that of the frame homomorphism which
represents it algebraically. The latter change, though not without its opponents
- even today there are distinguished locale-theorists who still write their papers
in terms of frames rather than locales, and who insist that it is not necessary to
dualize the category in order to 'see' it in topological terms - is surprisingly
important psychologically (cf. [45]): ifyou have to turn the arrows round every
time you pass from (traditional) spaces to frames, you cannot help thinking
of the latter as a representation (and generalization) of the former, whereas
making the functor covariant allows you to see locales as 'just another category
in which one can do topology', on the same footing as c1assical topological
spaces, Choquet pseudotopological spaces, neamess spaces, or whatever else
may take your fancy. (Of course, it's not quite on the same footing: for example
it is not a topological category in the technical sense of that term. But it has
just as much right to be viewed as a valid description of the domains on which
'continuously varying quantities' are defined.)
But both these things are mere teehniealities beside the more substantial
ehanges that Isbell brought about in how we view loeales. The key one was
the observation that, in eertain respeets at least, the eategory of loeales is
aetually an improvement on the eategory of topologie al spaees: it eonforms
more c10sely to our intuition about how the objeets whieh are the domains of
eontinuously varying quantities ought to behave. The partieular instanees of this
good behaviour addueed by Isbell were eoneerned with the preservation of topo-
logieal properties under produets - a notoriously diffieult area of traditional
topology, many ofwhose diffieulties ean now be seen as arlsing direetly from the
(unreasonable) requirement that produet spaees ought to 'live on their points'.
But one eould equally well point to the good behaviour of dense subloeales:
the fact that any interseetion of dense subloeales is dense, again eontrasting
with what happens if we impose the requirement that, in order to be dense,
the interseetion must contain points. (The two are of course inter-related; both
are instanees of the good behaviour of (eategorieal) limits in the eategory of
loeales.) Thus it beeame possible to see the absence of points as a 'liberating'
feature ofpointless topology, rather than a (literally) pointless generalization, in
mueh the same way that Hausdorff's advoeaey of open sets as the right language
in whieh to define topologieal spaees had a liberating effeet on topology sixty
years earlier.
Seeondly, Isbell's paper lays great stress on the lattiee of subloeales of a
loeale, and on the way in whieh it (and not the 'enve1oping Boolean algebras'
favoured by Nbeling and earlier writers) provides the eorreet substitute for the
lattiee of all subspaces of aspace. Of course, it is not a Boolean algebra, in
general; but it is at least a eoframe (that is, it is isomorphie to the lattiee of
c10sed subloeales of another loeale) and is generated as such by eomplemented
elements. (In passing, I believe that [29] contains the first published proof of this
fact, although I suspeet that it may have been known to one or two others slightly
earlier than 1972. However, the eorresponding result for toposes was not known
to the Grothendieek sehool, sinee they posed as an open problem in [1] the
question whether the lattiee of subtoposes of a topos is always distributive.) As
Isbell wrote, 'Lattices of subloeales eannot be said to be a teehnieal improvement
on Boolean algebras of subspaees, but they are very good lattiees (and contain
more information)'. In that spirit, he made extensive use of these lattiees in his
investigation of loeales, opening the way for further studies later in the deeade
by Harold Simmons [85], [86], [87], and more reeently for the development
of 'deseriptive loeale theory' by Isbell himself and his student Till Plewe [31],
[32], [33], [70], [72].
Turning to the seeond infiuenee that revolutionized the study of locales
in the early 1970s, namely the rise of elementary topos theory, one is faeed
immediately with a question: why was not the eonnection between loeales and
toposes made explicit by the Grothendieek sehool [1] in the early 1960s? They
ELEMENTS OF THE mSTORY OF LOCALE THEORY 843
were perfeetly weIl aware that the geometrie notion of topos whieh they were
developing was a generalization of the notion of topologieal spaee (indeed,
the name 'topos' was ehosen preeisely for that reason), although they were
perhaps over-optimistie as to just how general the new notion was - for an
analysis of this point, see [40]. They were also aware that their generalization
inc1uded the ease of a 'spaee without points', sinee the example of an atomless
eomplete Boolean algebra appears in [1]. But they seem to have totally ignored
the eonneetion between their notion and the work of Ehresmann and Benabou:
this appears to have been another instanee of Ehresmann's legendary isolation
within the Freneh mathematieal eommunity.
Whatever the reason for this omission, the developers of elementary topos
theory were weIl aware that, in its geometrie aspeets, a topos is more eorrectly
seen as a generalized loeale than as a generalized spaee. This is already apparent
in [51], and made mueh more explieit in Lawvere's later artic1e [52]. The
input from eonstruetive logic which elementary topos theory brought, and made
available to help the understanding of problems on the geometrie side of the
subjeet, was most expertly applied by Andre Joyal in his early work (most of it
unpublished, but see [24], [25] for some of its fruits). The key to understanding
the link between eonstruetive logic and loeale theory is the observation that
'singling out' a point of a spaee is an essentially c1assieal operation, in that
it separates the spaee into the point under eonsideration and whatever is not
the point; in a eonstruetive eontext, sueh deeompositions do not exist exeept
in fortunate special eases, so we are obliged to eonsider spaee as eonsisting
essentially of its open parts. (The same observation also arises naturally in
theoretieal eomputer scienee; see [93].)
Related to this observation is the faet that loeale theory is (for the most
part - but see [83] for an exeeption) inherently choice-free: many theorems
and definitions, whieh require the axiom of ehoice if we eonsider spaee as
eonsisting of points, are valid in loeale theory without assuming ehoice. Perhaps
the first explieit instanee of this faet was the present author's observation [37]
that Tyehonoff's theorem for loeales has a ehoice-free proof; however, es-
sentially the same observation was made independently by Banasehewski and
Mulvey [7], [8], and my original proof (which, although ehoiee-free, was not
eonstruetive) has been suecessively simplified and further eonstruetivized by
several authors [50], [5], [47], [91], [15], [62]. Related to this development
was a good deal of further work on produet loeales and related eonstruets sueh
as funetion-Ioeales [28] and hyperloeales [41], all of whieh tended to eonfirm
Isbell's insight that produets are better-behaved in the eategory of loeales than
they are in spaees.
The eonstructivization of topology is not in itself of any direet benefit to
c1assical topology. However, the impetus to construetivize had adefinite pur-
pose; it was motivated by the observation that any topos (in particular, the topos
844 PETER JOHNSTONE
of sheaves on aspace) eonstitutes a eonstruetive 'set-theoretic universe' , and

theorems of eonstruetive topology interpreted in the topos of sheaves on aspace
X beeome theorems of 'fibrewise topology', that is theorems about spaees and
eontinuous maps over X. In this eontext, the isolation of the loeale-theoretic (or
topos-theoretie) notion of open map [36] and the proof of the descent theorem
for open maps [48] was an important breakthrough. (Onee again, this theorem
has been extended and simplified sinee the original proof was given by Joyal
and Tierney; and it has been joined by adeseent theorem for proper maps [92],
and for the still more general notion of triquotient maps [71].)
Somewhat immodestly, I have taken the publieation date of [38] as the
closing date for this period of the development of loeale theory. Of course, the
publieation of the first textbook in a field often has the effeet of closing a ehapter:
it standardizes the notation and terminology, and provides readily available
referenees for the main theorems, in a way which ean have an unfortunate
'rigidifying' effeet on the further development of the field. I am happy to say
that [38] did not have that effeet on loeale theory: the subjeet has gone on
growing and diversifying throughout the sixteen years that have followed its
publieation. Whether I ean take any eredit for this growth and development is
not for me to say; but if my book (together with the expository articles [39]
and [45]) has had some influenee in establishing loeale theory as a 'respeetable'
braneh of topology, worthy of a ehapter in this Handbook, then it has aehieved
at least one of its intended aims.
4. Growth and Diversity: 1984-99
This final seetion is of neeessity mueh more sketehy than its three predeeessors.
To summarize all the lines of development in loeale theory sinee 1984, and to
relate them to one another, would require a whole book rather than part of a
ehapter. All I ean do within the eompass of the present article is to indieate a
few of the direetions that the development has taken, and to provide referenees
for those who wish to follow them in greater detail.
Some of these direetions were foreshadowed in my survey article [39],
written shortly after the eompletion of [38]. For example, I foresaw the need for a
theory of uniform loeales, and this has been developed by a number of authors,
most notably by Ales Pultr [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. (However, somewhat
against my expeetations, there seems to be a genuine divergenee between the
eonstruetive and classical theories at the uniform level, which is not present at
the 'eontinuous' level.) Related to this is the theory of loealic groups, which
had begun slightly earlier with Wraith's observation [97] that many familiar
examples oftopological groups (such as Galois groups of infinite extensions) are
more naturally viewed as loealie groups. In unpublished work in 1981, Franees
Kirwan had shown that, beeause of the differenee between loeale produets and
ELEMENTS OF THE HIS TORY OF LOCALE THEORY 845
spatial produets, the spaee of rationals did not admit a loealie group strueture; a
few years later, this gave rise to the surprising observation [34], [42], [43], [98]
that every loealie subgroup of a loealie group is c10sed as a subloeale. Onee
again, this ean be seen as an instanee where working in the eategory of loeales
simply eliminates 'pathologies' which oeeur in the eategory of spaees.
John Isbell [30] took up my ehallenge in [39] to develop a dimension
theory for loeales, although less has followed from this than I had expeeted.
As mentioned earlier, Isbell and his student Till Plewe have sinee developed the
loealie analogue of deseriptive set theory [31], [32], [33], [70], [72], whieh now
seems to be a flourishing growth area.
Many of the themes mentioned in the previous seetion have eontinued to
develop. On the subjeet of good behaviour of loeale produets, a genuine surprise
was the observation by Madden and Vermeer [59] that realeompaetness (whieh
had earlier been defined for loeales by Reynolds [78]) was equivalent to the
Lindelf property for regular loeales. (See also [69] and [83] for further develop-
ments in this area.) Less of a surprise was the proofby Moerdijk and Wraith [60]
that loeal and global eonneetedness together imply path-eonneetedness for 10-
eales - yet again, the eategory of loeales exc1udes pathologies to whieh one
is aeeustomed in the eategory of spaees. Jim Madden [58] has also done im-
portant work on the generalization of the notion of frame where one assumes
the existenee of joins only for subsets of restrieted eardinality - as also has
Bemhard Banasehewski [6]. The connections between loeale theory and fibre-
wise topology were given a new impetus by the present author's diseovery [43]
that the c1assieal notion of c10sure bifureates eonstruetively into 'fibrewise' and
'absolute' versions; see also [35], [44], [49], [91] for applieations of this idea.
And further investigations of openness have been earried out by Banasehewski
and Pultr [9], [10]; the extension of the Joyal-Tiemey des cent theorem to new
eontexts by Vermeulen [92] and Plewe [71] has already been mentioned.
In fact loeale theory itself seems to have bifureated into c1assical and eon-
struetive versions: inereasingly, the problems which ean be taekled using c1as-
sicallogic have moved away from the areas in which eonstruetive teehniques
ean be applied. In the former camp, an interesting development has been the
emergenee of a flourishing Chinese sehool of loeale-theorists, largely fostered by
Professors Wang Guo-Jun in Xi'an and Liu Ying-Ming in Chengdu: important
developments which ean be eredited to this sehool inc1ude the diseovery by Sun
Shu-Hao [46] of a notion of 'weak produet' for loeales, which sheds interesting
light on the differenee between loeale produets and spaee produets, and Li Yong-
Ming's [53] introduction of a usable notion of 'quotient map of loeales', whieh
has sinee been developed further by Till Plewe.
On the eonstruetive side of things, mention should be made of Giovanni
Sambin's introduetion [80], [81] of the notion of 'formal spaee' (see also [16],
[62], [65] for some applieations of this notion). Striet1y speaking, this is not
a development of locale theory, since its motivations are different: its aim
is to develop the notions of topology within the predicative environment of
Martin-Lf type theory, rather than the (constructive, but impredicative) logic
encountered within a topos. (Much of the motivation for working in such a
context comes from the demands of theoretical computer science.) The require-
ment of predicativity imposes the need for great care in formulating the basic
definitions, but once this is done the resulting development has striking paralleis
with locale theory - it seems likely that the two subjects will reinforce and
enrich each other as time goes on.
Theoretical computer science has also had a more direct input into the
development of locale theory (and even into topos theory) , again as a result
of the inherent constructivity of its logic. The idea that datatypes are not simply
sets but 'domains' which carry intrinsic order-theoretic and topological structure
has been around since the work of Dana Scott [84] in the early 1970s, but
increasingly the need to view them constructively has led computer scientists to
represent them as locales rather than spaces. In particular, the need to consider
spaces of subsets (known to computer scientists as powerdomains rather than
hyperspaces) has led several people (for example, Schalk [82] and Vickers [94])
to revisit and extend the ideas of [41].
Finally, mention must be made of the spectacular growth (not foreseen
in [39]) of 'non-commutative locale theory': the theory of quantales, which
owes its origin to Chris Mulvey's enigmatically-titled paper [61], and which
has had notable success in providing a c1ear and unified language in which to
describe the representation theory of non-commutative rings and C* -algebras.
Already, the theory of quantales has developed into a subject which would
require another artic1e as long as this one to do justice to its history; all I shall
do is to refer the interested reader to the book [79] by Rosenthal.
References
[1] Artin, M., Grothendieck, A. and Verdier, J.L., Theorie des Topos et Cohomologie
Etale des Schemas, Seminaire de Geometrie Algebrique du Bois-Marie, annee
1963-64; second edition published as Lect. Notes Math. vols. 269, 270 and 305
(Springer-Verlag, 1972).
[2] Banaschewski, B., Untersuchen ber Filterrume, Doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sitt Hamburg (1953).
[3] _ _ , Frames and compactifications, in Extension Theory 0/ Topological
Structures and its Applications (Deutscher Verlag Wissen., 1969),29-33.
[4] _ _ , Coherent frames, in Continuous Lattices, Lect. Notes Math. vol. 871
(Springer-Verlag, 1981),1-11.
[5] _ _ , Another look at the localic Tychonoff theorem, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolin. 29 (1988), 647-656.
[6] _ _ , The frame envelope of a a-frame, Quaest. Math. 16 (1993), 51-60.
ELEMENTS OF THE IllSTORY OF LOCALE THEORY 847
[7] Banasehewski, B. and Mulvey, c.I., Stone-Ceeh eompaetifieation of locales, I,

Houston J. Math. 6 (1980), 301-312.
[8] _ _ , Stone-Ceeh eompaetifieation oflocales, TI, J. Pure Appl. Alg. 33 (1984),
107-122.
[9] Banasehewski, B. and Pultr, A., Variants of openness, Appl. Categ. Struet. 2
(1994),331-350.
[10] _ _ , Booleanization, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff. Cat. 37 (1996), 41-60.
[11] Barr, M. and Pedicehio, M.C., Topop is a quasi-variety, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff.
Cat. 36 (1995), 3-10.
[12] _ _ , Topologieal spaees and quasi-varieties, Appl. Cat. Struet. 4 (1996), 81-85.
[13] Benabou, J., Treillis loeaux et paratopologies, Seminaire Ehresmann (Topologie
et Geometrie Differentielle), premiere annee (1957-58), expose 2.
[14] Birkhoff, G., Lattiee Theory, A.M.S. Colloq. Publ. vol. 25 (Ameriean Math. Soc.,
1940).
[15] Coquand, T., An intuitionistie proof of Tyehonoff's theorem, J. Symb. Logie 57
(1992),28-32.
[16] _ _ , Minimal invariant spaees in formal topology, J. Symb. Logie 62 (1997),
689-698.
[17] Dowker, C.H. and Papert, D., Quotient frames and subspaees, Proe. Lond. Math.
Soe. 16 (1966), 275-296.
[18] Dowker, C.H. and Strauss, D., Separation axioms for frames, Colloq. Math. Soe.
Janos Bolyai 8 (1972), 223-240.
[19] _ _ , Paraeompaet frames and elosed maps, Sympos. Math. 16 (1975), 93-116.
[20] _ _ , Produets and sums in the eategory of frames, in Categorieal Topology,
Leet. Notes Math. vol. 540 (Springer-Verlag, 1976),208-219.
[21] _ _ , Sums in the eategory of frames, Houston J. Math. 3 (1977), 7-15.
[22] _ _ , Tl- and T2-axioms for frames, in Aspeets 0/ Topology in Memory 0/
Hugh Dowker, L.M.S. Leet. Notes Sero vol. 93 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985),
325-335.
[23] Ehresmann, C., Gattungen von lokalen Strukturen, Jber. Deutsch. Math.-Verein.
60 (1957), 59-77.
[24] Fourman, M.P. and Grayson, R.I., Formal spaees, in The L.EJ. Brouwer
Centenary Symposium, Studies in Logie and Foundations of Math. vol. 110
(North-Holland, 1982), 107-122.
[25] Fourman, M.P. and Hyland, I.M.E., Sheaf models for analysis, in Applieations
0/ Sheaves, Leet. Notes Math. vol. 753 (Springer-Verlag, 1979),280-301.
[26] Funayama, N., On imbedding infinitely distributive lattices eompletely isomor-
phieally into Boolean algebras, Nagoya Math. J. 15 (1959), 71-81.
[27] Hausdorff, F., Grundzge der Mengenlehre, (Veit & Co., Leipzig, 1914).
[28] Hyland, I.M.E., Funetion spaees in the eategory of locales, in Continuous
Lattiees, Leet. Notes Math. vol. 871 (Springer-Verlag, 1981),264-281.
[29] Isbell, J.R., Atomless parts of spaees, Math. Scand. 31 (1972), 5-32.
[30] _ _ , Graduation and dimension in locales, in Aspeets 0/ Topology in Memory
0/ Hugh Dowker, L.M.S. Leet. Notes Sero vol. 93 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985),
195-210.
848 PETERJOHNSTONE
[31] _ _ , First steps in descriptive theory of locales, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 327
(1991), 353-371; corrigenda ibid. 341 (1994),467-468.
[32] _ _ , Some problems in descriptive locale theory, in Category Theory 1991,
C.M.S. Conf. Proc. no. 13 (Amer. Math. Soc., 1992), 243-265.
[33] _ _ , Some structure of Borel locales, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 126 (1998),
2477-2479.
[34] Isbell, J.R., KTIz, 1., Pultr, A. and Rosicky, J., Remarks on localic groups, in
Categorical Algebra and its Applications, Lect. Notes Math. vol. 1348 (Springer-
Verlag, 1988), 154-172.
[35] Jibladze, M. and Johnstone, P.T., The frame of fibrewise closed nuclei, Cahiers
Top. Geom. DijJ. Cat. 32 (1991), 99-112.
[36] Johnstone, P.T., Open maps of toposes, Manuscripta Math. 31 (1980),217-247.
[37] _ _ , Tychonoff's theorem without the axiom of choice, Fund. Math. 113
(1981),21-35.
[38] _ _ , Stone Spaces, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Math. no. 3 (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1982).
[39] _ _ , The point of pointless topology, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 8 (1983),
41-53.
[40] _ _ , How general is a generalized space?, in Aspects ojTopology in Memory
oj Hugh Dowker, L.M.S. Lect. Notes Sero vol. 93 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985),
77-111.
[41] _ _ , Vietoris locales and localic semilattices, in Continuous Lattices and their
Applications, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math. vol. 101 (Marcel Dekker, 1985),
155-180.
[42] _ _ , A simple proof that localic subgroups are closed, Cahiers Top. Geom.
DijJ. Cat. 29 (1988), 157-161.
[43] _ _ , A constructive "c1osed subgroup theorem" for localic groups and
groupoids, Cahiers Top. Geom. DijJ. Cat. 30 (1989),3-23.
[44] _ _ , Fibrewise separation axioms for locales, Math. Proc. Camb. Phi/os. Soc.
108 (1990), 247-256.
[45] _ _ , The art ofpointless thinking: a student's guide to the category oflocales,
in Category Theory at Work, Research Expos. Math. vol. 18 (Heldermann Verlag,
1991), 85-107.
[46] Johnstone, P.T. and Sun, S.H., Weak products and Hausdorff locales, in Categor-
ical Algebra and its Applications, Lect. Notes Math. vol. 1348 (Springer-Verlag,
1988),173-193.
[47] Johnstone, P.T. and Vickers, S.J., Preframe presentations present, in Category
Theory, Lect. Notes Math. vol. 1488 (Springer-Verlag, 1991), 193-212.
[48] Joyal, A. and Tiemey, M., An Extension of the Galois Theory of Grothendieck,
Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. no. 309 (1984).
[49] Kock, A., A Godement theorem for locales, Math. Proc. Camb. Phi/os. Soc. 105
(1989),463-471.
[50] KTIZ,I., A constructive proof ofTychonoff's theorem for locales, Comment. Math.
Univ. Carolin. 26 (1985), 619-630.
[51] Lawvere, F.W., Quantifiers and sheaves, in Actes du Congres International des
Mathematiciens, Nice 1970, Tome I (Gauthier-Villars, 1971),329-334.
[52] _ _ , Continuously variable sets: algebraic geometry = geometrie logic, in

Logic Colloquium '73, Studies in Logic and Foundations ofMath. vol. 80 (North-
Holland, 1975), 135-156.
[53] Li, Y.M., Weak locale quotient morphisms and locally connected frarnes, 1. Pure
Appl. Alg. 110 (1996), 101-107.
[54] Linton, F.E.J., Some aspects of equational categories, in Proceedings of the
Conference on Categorical Algebra, La !oUa 1965 (Springer-Verlag, 1966),
84-94.
[55] McKinsey, I.C.C. and Tarski, A., The algebra of topology, Ann. Math. (2) 45
(1944), 141-191.
[56] _ _ , On closed elements in closure algebras, Ann. Math. (2) 47 (1946), 122-
162.
[57] Mac Lane, S., The genesis ofmathematical structures, as exemplified in the work
of Charles Ehresmann, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff. 21 (1980), 353-365.
[58] Madden, I.J., K-frarnes, 1. Pure Appl. Alg. 70 (1991), 107-127.
[59] Madden, 1.1. and Vermeer, I., Lindelf locales and realcompactness, Math. Proc.
Camb. Philos. Soc. 99 (1986),473-480.
[60] Moerdijk, I. and Wraith, G.C., Connected locally connected toposes are path-
connected, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 295 (1986), 849-859.
[61] Mulvey, C.J., &, Rend. Cire. Mat. Palermo Suppl. (II) 12 (1986), 99-104.
[62] Negri, S. and Valentini, S., Tychonoff's theorem in the framework of formal
topologies,1. Symb. Logic 62 (1997), 1315-1332.
[63] Nbeling, G., Topologie der Vereine und Verbnde, Arch. Math. (Basel) 1 (1948),
154-159.
[64] _ _ , Grundlagen der Analytischen Topologie, Grundl. Math. Wissen. vol. 72
(Springer-Verlag, 1954).
[65] Palmgren, E., Constructive sheaf semantics, Math. Logic Quart. 43 (1997), 321-
327.
[66] Papert, D., Lattices offunctions, measures and point-sets, Ph.D. thesis, University
of Carnbridge (1958).
[67] Papert, D. and Papert, S., Sur les treillis des ouverts et les paratopologies,
Seminaire Ehresmann (Topologie et Geometrie Differentielle), premiere annee
(1957-58), expose 1.
[68] Papert, S., The lattices of logic and topology, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Cambridge (1959).
[69] Paseka, J., Lindelf locales and N-compactness, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.
109 (1991), 187-191.
[70] Plewe, T., Localic products of spaces, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 73 (1996),
642-678.
[71] _ _ , Localic triquotient maps are effective descent maps, Math. Proc. Camb.
Phi/os. Soc. 122 (1997), 17-43.
[72] _ _ , Higher order dissolutions and Boolean coreflections of locales, 1. Pure
Appl. Alg. 154 (2000) 273-293.
[73] Pultr, A., Pointless uniformities I: complete regularity, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolin. 25 (1984), 91-104.
850 PETERIOHNSTONE
[74] _ _ , Pointless uniformities II: (Dia)metrization, Comment. Math. Univ.

Carolin. 25 (1984), 105-120.
[75] _ _ , Remarks on metrizable locales, Renti. Cire. Mat. Palermo (1/) Suppl. 6
(1984), 247-258.
[76] _ _ , Diameters in locales: how bad they can be, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolin. 29 (1988), 731-742.
[77] _ _ , Categories of diametric frames, Math. Proe. Camb. Philos. Soe. 105
(1989), 285-297.
[78] Reynolds, G.D., Alexandroff algebras and complete regularity, Proe. Amer. Math.
Soe. 76 (1979), 322-326.
[79] Rosenthal, K.I., Quantales anti their Applieations, Pitman Research Notes Math.
no. 234 (Longman, 1990).
[80] Sambin, G., Intuitionistic formal spaces - a first communication, in Mathemat-
ieal Logie anti its Applieations (Plenum Press, 1987), 187-204.
[81] _ _ , Intuitionistic formal spaces and theirneighbourhood, in Logie Colloquium
'88, Studies in Logic and Foundations of Math. vol. 124 (North-Holland, 1989),
261-285.
[82] Schalk, A., Domains arising as algebras for powerspace constructions, 1. Pure
Appl. Aig. 89 (1993), 305-328.
[83] Schlitt, G., The Lindelf Tychonoff theorem and choice principles, Math. Proe.
Camb. Philos. Soe. 110 (1991), 57-65.
[84] Scott, D.S., Continuous lattices, in Toposes, Aigebraie Geometry anti Logie, Lect.
Notes Math. vol. 274 (Springer-Verlag, 1972),97-136.
[85] Sirnmons, H., A framework for topology, in Logie Colloquium 77, Studies in
Logic and Foundations of Math. vol. 96 (North-Holland, 1978), 239-251.
[86] _ _ , Spaces with Boolean assemblies, Colloq. Math. 43 (1980), 23-29.
[87] _ _ , An algebraic version of Cantor-Bendixson analysis, in Categorieal As-
peets of Topology anti Analysis, Lect. Notes Math. vol. 915 (Springer-Verlag,
1982), 310-323.
[88] Stone, M.H., The theory of representations for Boolean algebras, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soe. 40 (1936),37-111.
[89] _ _ , Applications of the theory of Boolean rings to general topology, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soe. 41 (1937), 375-481.
[90] Strauss, D., Dowker, C.H. (obituary), Bull. Lond. Math. Soe. 16 (1984), 535-541;
reprinted in Aspeets ojTopology in Memory oj Hugh Dowker, L.M.S. Lect. Notes
Sero vol. 93 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985), xi-xvii.
[91] Vermeulen, I.I.C., Weak compactness in constructive spaces, Math. Proe. Camb.
Philos. Soe. 111 (1992), 63-74.
[92] _ _ , Proper maps of locales, 1. Pure Appl. Alg. 92 (1994), 79-107.
[93] Vickers, S.I., Topology via Logie, Cambridge Tracts Theor. Comp. Sci. no. 5
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989).
[94] _ _ , Constructive points ofpowerlocales, Math. Proe. Camb. Philos. Soe. 122
(1997), 207-222.
[95] Vietoris, L., Bereiche zweiter Ordnung, Monatsh. Math. Physik 32 (1922), 258-
280.
[96] Wallman, H., Lattices and topological spaces, Ann. Math. (2) 39 (1938), 112-126.
[97] Wraith, G.C., Localic groups, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff. 22 (1981), 61-66.
[98] _ _ , Unsurprising results on localic groups, 1. Pure Appl. Alg. 67 (1990),
95-100.
NONSYMMETRIC DISTANCES AND TBEIR ASSOCIATED
TOPOLOGIES: ABOUT TBE ORIGINS OF BASIC
IDEAS IN TBE AREA OF ASYMMETRIC TOPOLOGY
HANS-PETER A. KNZI (kunzi@maths.uct.ac.za)

Department 0/ Mathematics and
Applied Mathematics
University 0/ Cape Town
Rondebosch 7701
South Africa
Dedicated to Professor Dr. Horst Herrlich on the occasion of his sixtieth

birthday
Contents
1 Introduction (monographs, survey articles, Pervin-Sieber completeness) ... 855

2 Short Summary of the History with Main References (quasi-uniformity,
quasi-pseudometric, quasi-proximity, bitopological space, pairwise com-
pletely regular, Pervin quasi-uniformity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 858
3 Basic Constructions (totally bounded quasi-uniformity, (hereditary) pre-
compactness, (hereditary) preLindelfness, semicontinuous quasi-
uniformity, unique quasi-uniformity, unique quasi-proximity, number of
compatible quasi-uniformities (quasi-proximities), nontransitive quasi-
uniformities, coarsest quasi-uniformity, quotient quasi-uniformities, initial
quasi-uniformities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 862
4 Functorial Quasi-uniformities (coarsest functorial quasi-uniformity, open
spectrum, the Fleteher construction, transitive quasi-uniformity, orthocom-
pactness, Brmmer's spanning construction, (strongly) zero-dimensional
bispaces, well-monotone quasi-uniformity, bicompletion-true, closure op-
erators, prime open filter monad) .................................... 869
5 The Fine Quasi-uniformity (transitivity, various kinds of completeness) ... 875
6 Completions and Extensions (bicompleteness, Doitchinov completeness
(= D-completeness), quiet quasi-uniformities, stable quasi-uniformities,
balanced quasi-metrics, various kinds of extensions, compactifications) 878
853
C. E. Aull and R. Lowen (eds.), Handbook olthe History 01 General Topology, Volume 3, 853-968.
854 HANS-PETER A. KNZI
7 Some Special Classes of Quasi-uniformities (point-symmetry, local sym-

metry, various other symmetry conditions, Lebesgue property, equinormaI-
ity, monotonicity, Cauchy conditions, uniform regularity, left K -
completeness, right K -completeness, Smyth completeness, cofinal com-
pleteness). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 886
8 Uniform Ordered Spaces (completely regular ordered, order compactifica-
tions, probabilistic quasi-metric spaces) .............................. 895
9 Hyperspaces and Function Spaces (homeomorphism groups, Vietoris and
Fell topology, Hausdorff (= Bourbaki) quasi-uniformity, Ascoli's theorem,
multifunctions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 899
10 Quasi-metrizable Spaces (quasi-metrizable, non-archimedeanly quasi-
metrizable, y-space, open resp. closed mappings, fixed point theorems,
various completeness properties, applications of quasi-metrics) .......... 905
11 Applications to Theoretical Computer Science (continuity spaces, topolog-
ical quasi-uniform spaces, Smyth completion, strongly sober compactifi-
cations, Fell compactification, continuous lattices, weighted quasi-metrics,
partial metrics, complexity spaces, formal balls, Yoneda-completion) ..... 920
12 Applications to Topological Algebra (paratopological (= quasi-topological)
groups, topological semigroup with neutral element, half-norms, nonsym-
metrie norms, approximation theory, convex quasi-uniform structures) .... 929
13 Quasi-uniform Frames and Fuzzy Quasi-uniformities (covering quasi-
uniformities, entourage quasi-uniformities, fuzzy quasi-uniformities, fuzzy
quasi-proximities) ................................................ 932
14 Approach Spaces and Approach Quasi-uniformities (approach spaces, ap-
proach quasi-uniformities, completions and compactifications, quantifica-
tion of topological and uniform properties) ........................... 935
NONSYMMETRIC DlSTANCES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED TOPOLOGIES 855
1. Introduction
We begin with some remarlcs explaining the strueture of this article. After
some introduetory statements in the following paragraphs, we summarize the
historie development of what is now often ealled "Nonsymmetrie or Asymmetrie
Topology" in Seetion 2. In the following, more speeme seetions we diseuss the
historie development of some of the main ideas of the area in greater detail. The
list of seetions and keywords given above should help the specialist to find his
way through the various seetions.
For further information about the area we refer the reader to the two mono-
graphs written by Murdeshwar and Naimpally [415] (Quasi-Uniform Topolog-
ical Spaees) and Fleteher and Lindgren [197] (Quasi-Uniform Spaces), respee-
tively. The first book was published in 1966; the seeond one appeared in 1982.
A short look at the lists of eontents of the two books reveals that there was mueh
progress in the area of quasi-uniform spaees between 1966 and 1982:
The book of Murdeshwar and Naimpally diseusses the basie properties of
quasi-uniformities and quasi-pseudometries and their indueed topologies. In par-
tieular, the authors study how quasi-uniformities generate topologies satisfying
eertain separation axioms; for instanee it is shown that a quasi-uniform spaee
induees an Ro-topology if and only if the interseetion taken over its family of
entourages is symmetrie [414]. They also deseribe how quasi-uniform struetures
induee bitopological spaees in the sense of Kelly [277]. A erucial idea of the
book is to use Pervin-Sieber completeness to extend the classical eoneept of
eompleteness known from the theory of uniform spaees:
In order that eonvergent filters be Cauehy, Pervin and Sieber [448] had
ealled a filter ~ on a quasi-uniform spaee (X, OlL) a Cauchy filter provided that
for eaeh entourage U E OlL there exists x E X sueh that U (x) E ~. Sinee in
general sueh filters do not eonverge to their cluster points, Murdeshwar and
Naimpally defined a quasi-uniform spaee (X, OlL) to be complete provided that
eaeh Cauehy filter has a cluster point in (X, OlL). (As usual now, in the following
we shall use the term "eonvergenee eompleteness" for the stronger property
that eaeh sueh filter eonverges. It is known that the two properties eoincide in
quasi-uniform spaees that are loeally symmetrie [197, Corollary 3.9].)
Note that in uniform spaees the given definition yields the usual eoneepts
of Cauehy filter and eonvergenee. One dis advantage of this definition is that
eomplete subspaees of (Hausdorft) quasi-uniform spaees need not be closed
(see e.g. [81] or [197, Example 3.10]).
The book ended with some elementary, but important applieations of quasi-
uniformities to the theory of funetion spaces.
A bitopological variant of Pervin-Sieber completeness was later discussed
in a paper ofRichardson [485]. Recently Romaguera and Schellekens [511] also
studied the condition that in a quasi-uniform space (X, OlL) each Pervin-Sieber
Cauchy filter clusters with respect to the topology 'l' (CU v CU -I); their investiga-
tions were motivated by the observation that the quasi-metric complexity space
introduced by Schellekens possesses the latter property, which implies Smyth
completeness and (in TI-spaces) small-set symmetry.
The monograph of Fletcher and Lindgren included many additional ideas:
The basic connections between quasi-proximities and quasi-uniformities are
discussed. The theory of the bicompletion of a quasi-uniform space is dealt
with. Nachbin's theory ofuniform ordered spaces is explained and the theory of
the bicompletion is applied to the concept of ordered completions and compact-
ifications. Deep connections between notions from the theory of quasi-uniform
spaces and topological concepts like neighbomets and open coverings are care-
fully discussed. The authors also pay special attention to quasi-uniformities
possessing a base consisting of transitive entourages or having weak symmetry
properties. Basic results on quasi-metric spaces and quasi-metrizability of topo-
logical spaces are treated. In a final section the authors collect some notes that
comment on the historical development of their subject.
Since the book ofFletcher and Lindgren was published, eighteen years have
passed. Much work was done in the meantime for which that book has provided
a basis so that our understanding of quasi-uniform structures has improved
considerably durlng the last eighteen years. Let us mention some of the central
new ideas a future book on quasi-uniform structures will certainly have to deal
with:
Numerous researchers developed the theory of extensions further. Com-
pietion theories for balanced quasi-metrics and quiet (resp. stable) quasi-
uniformities were established.
Quasi-uniform structures were applied to problems in theoretical computer
science by numerous mathematicians and computer scientists: To this end the
concepts of strongly sober compactification, weighted quasi-metric, continuity
space, topological quasi-uniform space and Yoneda-completion were introduced
and investigated.
Methods and tools from category theory, nonstandard analysis and de-
scriptive set-theory were applied successfully to the study of quasi-uniform
structures.
Quasi-uniformities in function spaces as well as hyperspaces attracted the
attention of various mathematicians. Although our knowledge is still insufficient
in these areas, parts of a structured theory begin to emerge.
Besides the classical theory of quasi-uniform spaces the theories of fuzzy
quasi-uniformities, probabilistic quasi-metrics, quasi-uniform frames and ap-
proach quasi-uniformities were developed. The study of quasi-uniform struc-
tures in topological algebra was intensified. Further applications of methods
from the theory of quasi-uniform spaces to problems in approximation the-
NONSYMMETRIC DISTANCES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED TOPOLOGIES 857
ory and functional analysis were discovered. Many classical problems about
quasi-uniformities were at least partially solved.
Since no book on these topics is available at present, the reader may wish to
consult some of the survey articles that were written after 1982 and that contain
much information about several of these topics:
In [124] Deak: discussed extensions of quasi-uniformities and quasi-pseudo-
metrics from subspaces to larger spaces, in particular completions. A survey on
extensions of quasi-uniformities is also due to Csaszar [108].
In [320] Knzi dealt with recent results on quasi-uniform spaces that are
related to problems and facts discussed in the afore-mentioned book ofFletcher
and Lindgren. In [322] he collected many results about monotonic, stable and
quiet quasi-uniformities. Furthermore he reviewed the theories of weighted
quasi-metrics and topological quasi-uniform spaces. Finally, in [324] he dis-
cussed quasi-uniformities on function spaces, mainly homeomorphism groups.
Kopperman's survey article [297] is devoted to the study of asymmetry and
duality with respect to topological spaces. Classical examples of mathematical
structures that come in symmetric and asymmetric versions include commuta-
tive and noncommutative algebraic structures as well as symmetric preorders
(equivalence relations) and asymmetric preorders (partial orders). His basic idea
is that in such cases there is always a duality available whose use simplifies their
study.
Finally, in [61] Brmmer surveyed several categorical aspects ofthe bicom-
pietion of functorial quasi-uniformities.
Let us also observe that there exists a still very useful, although now slightly
obsolete survey article about quasi-metrizable spaces, which was published by
Kofner [285] in 1980. More information about quasi-metrizable spaces can be
found in Gruenhage's survey artic1e on generalized metric spaces [226] in the
Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology. The history of these spaces is also treated
in Hodel's article [250].
A bibliography on papers dealing with quasi-metric spaces was compiled
by Reilly [474] in 1992. Though the list of references given at the end of
the present paper (for simplicity in strict1y alphabetic order!) has been made
sufficiently large so that it should be useful to many readers having different
goals, we did not attempt to obtain a complete list of articles published in the
area of asymmetric topology.
We shall concentrate in this survey on the c1assical concepts of quasi-
uniformities and quasi-metrics. Thus with the exception of Lowen's approach
spaces [378],[382], which as an especially important concept of asymmetric
distance structure will be discussed in the last section of this article, related struc-
tures like Csaszar's syntopogenous structures [98], [99], Brown's confluence
para-quasi-uniformities [51], Szaz's relator spaces [565], Hodel's neighborhood
assignments [249], pointwise quasi-uniformities on completely distributive lat-
tices (e.g. [539], [540], [588]), or the c1assicallj.t(-quasi)-metrizable spaces

(discussed e.g. in the artic1e of Reichel [468]) are not our major concem here.
Finally we would like to refer the reader to the excellent artic1e The histor-
ical development of uniform, proximal, and neamess concepts in topology by
Bentley, Herrlich and Husek [38] in which the historical development of many
related (mainly symmetric) concepts are discussed and which should be read
together with the present paper. A modem treatment of the theory of uniform
spaces can be found in the book by Howes [254].
We are also grateful to all our colleagues that have sent us their comments
on drafts of this artic1e. Many of their suggestions could still be taken into
consideration in its final version.
To avoid misunderstandings, definitions and results from older papers are
usually formulated in modem terminology. When reading this artic1e, the reader
may be confronted with various concepts with which he or she is not familiar
and not all of which are explained in the present paper. In many cases it will
be necessary to go to the original sources; in some cases however it may be
sufficient to consult Section 7 where a few of the more important c1asses of
quasi-uniform spaces are discussed.
2. Short Summary of the History with Main References
If we omit the symmetry condition in the usual definition of an entourage

uniformity we obtain the concept of a (filter) quasi-uniformity.
Similarly, if we omit the symmetry condition in the definition of a (pseudo-)
metric, we reach the notion of a quasi-(pseudo )metric. Many c1assical coun-
terexamples in topology like the Sorgenfrey plane, the Niemytzki plane, the
Michaelline or the Pix1ey-Roy space over the reals are (obviously) quasi-
metrizable (see e.g. [197]).
Asymmetric distance functions had already been considered by Hausdorff
in the beginning of the century when in his c1assical book on set-theory [234]
he discussed the Hausdorff metric of a metric space. Later they were dealt with
by Niemytzki [432] when he explored the interplay ofthe various assumptions
in the usual axiomatization of a metric space. Wilson [580] introduced the term
quasi-metric and noted that convergences in quasi-metric spaces arise in three
natural ways.
The study of quasi-uniformities began in 1948 with Nachbin's investigations
on uniform preordered spaces (see [417], [418], [419], [420]). He called the
studied nonsymmetric structures semi-uniform. The term quasi-uniformity was
later suggested by Csaszar [98].
Krishnan [299] showed that every topological space admits a quasi-
uniformity; subsequent proofs of this result were obtained by Csaszar [98] in
terms of syntopogenous structures and by Pervin [446]. The usual proof given
today is due to Pervin and yields the finest totally bounded quasi-uniformity of a
topological space (e.g. [355]), which is now called the Pervin quasi-uniformity.
Adescription of the same quasi-uniformity was given by Nielsen and Sloyer
[431] with the help of bounded semicontinuous functions, as was noted for
instance by Hunsaker and Lindgren [258]. The set of filter quasi-uniformities
on a (nonempty) set is readily seen to be a complete lattice under set-theoretic
inc1usion (see e.g. [415]).
Alternative characterizations of quasi-uniform spaces in terms of families
of quasi-pseudometrics (resp. in terms of families of pair-covers) were given by
Csaszar, Ganter, Steinlage, Reilly and Salbany [98], [216], [469], [470], [516].
The term quasi-proximity first appeared in the articles of Pervin and Steiner
[447], [553]. Pervin's definition was not quite correct and Steiner had to fill a
gap in Pervin's original definition. At about the same time quasi-proximities
and related concepts were studied in terms of strong inc1usions by various other
mathematicians, e.g. by Dowker [144] and in a more general form by Csaszar
[98].
According to a statement made in the book ofFletcher and Lindgren [197],
after the publication of the monograph by Murdeshwar and N aimpally the theory
of quasi-uniform spaces developed in the following five main directions:
(1) The work of Brmmer [54], Salbany [518], Carlson and Hicks [80],
Csaszar [100], [101], Hunsaker and Lindgren [258] and Stoltenberg [554], [555]
investigated relationships between quasi-uniformities and quasi-proximities;
these authors established the existence of completions and compactifications
and constructed a theory of quasi-uniformities which is similar to the established
theory of uniformities. Some of these researchers made use of categorical tools
to formulate and obtain their results. In their investigations the bitopological
aspect of the theory was not neglected. The filter of inverse relations of a
quasi-uniformity is also a quasi-uniformity. Similarly, each quasi-pseudometric
has an obvious conjugate by interchanging the order of points. Hence quasi-
uniformities and quasi-metrics naturally generate bitopological spaces; i.e. sets
equipped with two topologies. In 1963 Kelly ([277], see [157] for a correction)
had initiated the study of such spaces. He defined pairwise regular and pairwise
normal bitopological spaces and obtained interesting bitopological analogues
of c1assical topological theorems. He noted that if one studies the bitopological
space induced by a quasi-pseudometric, then one regains some of the symmetry
of the c1assical metric situation and in consequence one can obtain systematic
generalizations of many standard results. Lane continued the study ofbitopolog-
ical spaces. In [358] he defined pairwise completely regular spaces and proved
that these are precisely the quasi-uniformizable bitopological spaces. This was
also done, independently, by Fleteher [169]. (A bitopological space (X, r;},~)
is called pairwise completely regular if for each x E X and disjoint r;}-c1osed
set A there is a r;}-lower semicontinuous and Q-upper semicontinuous function
f from X into [0, 1] such that f(x) = 1 and f(A) = 0; and for each 22.-
c10sed set B not containing x, there is a \!JI-Iower semicontinuous and 22.-upper
semicontinuous function g from X into [0, 1] such that g(x) = 0 and g(B) = 1.
A subbase characterization ofthis property related to quasi-proximities was later
given by Aarts and Mrsevic [1].)
The notion of the bicompletion of a quasi-uniform space, first investi-
gated by Csaszar [98] in a more general context, was further analysed by
Salbany [518]. He established that there is a one-to-one correspondence be-
tween (bi)compactifications of pairwise Tychonoff spaces and compatible quasi-
proximities. In particular, he studied the bitopological Cech-Stone compactifica-
tion. The latter is characterized by the unique extension property ofbicontinuous
maps into the bitopological unit interval equipped with the quasi-pseudometric
u(x, y) = (y - x) V o. Pairwise Tychonoff (sup)compact bitopological spaces
were shown to admit a unique compatible quasi-uniformity. Bach bicontin-
uous map from such aspace into a quasi-uniform space is quasi-uniformly
continuous.
In [194] Fletcher and Lindgren described the now c1assical construction of
the bicompletion as the paircompletion.
(2) Another c1assical part of the theory consisted of the work mainly due
to Junnila [266] and Scott [534] on covering properties associated with quasi-
uniformities. The best known of these properties are undoubtedly "orthocom-
pactness" and its generalizations like preorthocompactness.
(3) The study of Fox [206], Junnila [265] and Kofner [284], [288] about
neighbornets of topological spaces showed among other things that the c1asses
of y-spaces, quasi-metrizable spaces and non-archimedeanly quasi-metrizable
spaces are all distinct and that the fine quasi-uniformity of metrizable and
suborderable (= generalized ordered) spaces has a base consisting of transitive
entourages.
(4) Important investigations due to Fox and Kofner (published later in [209]),
Heath [235], [236], Junnila [266], Nedev [430], and Stoltenberg [556] dealt
with quasi-metrizable spaces and their relations to developable spaces and other
generalized metric spaces.
(5) The work ofBlatter and Seever [45], LaI and Singal [354] and Redfield
[466] tried to exploit the use of quasi-uniformities in the study of Nachbin's
completely regular ordered spaces.
In the foHowing paragraphs we similarly intend to c1assify roughly the main
directions of research after the monograph "Quasi-Uniform Spaces" had been
published by Fletcher and Lindgren.
Csaszar [108], Deak [124], Doitchinov [136], [137], [139] and Render [479]
continued the work on extensions and completions of quasi-uniform spaces.
Related to their investigations Fletcher and Hunsaker [178], [180], [181] as weH
as Romaguera [496] studied different kinds of symmetry conditions and filters in
quasi-uniform and quasi-metric spaces; for instance sma1l-set symmetric quasi-

uniform spaces [179] and left K -Cauchy filters were introduced in this way.
Many c1assical problems about quasi-uniformities that originated in the book
by Fletcher and Lindgren were solved by Knzi and his co-authors [320]. As a
specific example for this research let us mention that problems on bicomplete-
ness of quasi-metric spaces led to the work of Junnila, Knzi and Wajch [269],
[348], [349] which uses ideas from descriptive set-theory.
The results of Kimmie [283] as weIl as Brmmer, Dikranjan and Knzi
[132], [315] deepened our understanding of the category of quasi-uniform spaces
and its subcategories further. Such investigations owe much to Brmmer's earlier
investigations [55], [59] (see also Carlson [77]).
The work of Bonsangue, Rutten and van Breugel [47], Edalat and Heckmann
[146], [238], Flagg and Kopperman [159], [164], Lawson [359], Matthews
[407], O'Neill [434], Schellekens [527], [531], Smyth [549], [550] and Sn-
derhauf [558] on quasi-uniformities, quasi-pseudometrics, continuity spaces,
their completions and so-ca1led dual constructions was mainly motivated by
applications of quasi-uniformities to problems in theoretical computer science.
The goal of many of these authors was to develop with the help of quasi-
pseudometrics a common generalization of the two well-established theories
of metric spaces and partial orders that would contain the c1assical results as
special cases. Methods and ideas from category theory were applied successfully
in most of these investigations.
Frith [212], Fletcher, Hunsaker and Lindgren [183], [184], [185], as well as
Picado [449], [450] developed the basics of a theory of frame quasi-uniformities.
WindeIs [581] studied approach quasi-uniformities.
Cao, Knzi, Reilly, Romaguera and Ryser [75], [328], [340], [345], Chou
and Penot [90], Khanh [281], Papadopoulos [436], Render [481] and Sn-
derhauf [560] con~ucted new studies about quasi-uniformities in hyper and
(multi)function spaces, continuing earlier work of Berthiaume [40], Francav-
iglia, Lechicki and Levi [210], and members ofFletcher's research group [199],
[536].
Knzi, Marin, Romaguera and Sipacheva [344], [405] contributed to the
study of the canonical quasi-uniformities on paratopological groups, extending
earlier work of several researchers (see for instance the paper by Fletcher and
Lindgren [192] as weIl as the one by Raghavan and Reilly [462]). More gener-
ally, quasi-uniform structures were investigated in various kinds of topological
algebraic structures, for instance in real vector spaces by Alegre, Ferrer and
Gregori [4], [6], convexity structures by Keimel and Roth [276] and topological
semigroups (with neutral element) by Knzi, Marin and Romaguera [332].
Recently, the investigations of Losonczi [369] on the number of quasi-
uniformities (resp. quasi-proximities) that various kinds of topological spaces
admit led to several interesting new insights (see e.g. [219], [329], [330], [366]).
In the light of all the interesting developments that have taken place since
publication of the monograph "Quasi-Uniform Spaces" by Fletcher and Lind-
gren, we can certainly be confident that also in the years to come progress in the
area of asymmetric topology will not slow down and many new and surprising
results will still be detected and published.
3. Basic Constructions
For the following discussion recall that a quasi-uniformity Oll, is called totally
bounded if the coarsest uniformity Oll,* finer than it (the so-called associated
supremum uniformity Oll, v Oll, -1) is precompact, and it is said to be precompact
if each (quasi-)uniform cover has a finite subcover. It is well known that the
concepts of total boundedness and precompactness are equivalent for uniform
spaces. It was observed very early (see e.g. in [415] and the paper by Lambrinos
[357]) that in the setting of quasi-uniformities precompactness is strictly weaker
than total boundedness and need not be preserved under finite suprema.
In [415], [448] it was proved that a quasi-uniform space is precompact
(resp. totally bounded) if and only if each ultrafilter is Cauchy (resp. Cauchy
with respect to the supremum uniformity). In partieular a quasi-uniform space
is compact if and only if it is precompact and Pervin-Sieber complete. Pervin
and Sieber [448] showed that a topologie al space is compact if and only if each
compatible quasi-uniformity is convergence complete.
The connection between quasi-uniformities and quasi-proximities is analo-
gous to the symmetric case. Each quasi-uniformity naturally induces a quasi-
proximity and there is a one-to-one correspondence between quasi-proximities
and totally bounded quasi-uniformities; in fact by defining the appropriate maps,
namely quasi-proximally continuous maps (resp. quasi-uniformly continuous
maps), this correspondence yields two isomorphie categories.
These results were essentially established by Hunsaker and Lindgren [258]
who - improving on results of Fletcher [170] - showed that given a quasi-
proximity space (X, 8) the collection of all sets of the form T(A, B) = [(X \
A) x X] U [X x (X \ B)], where A8B, is a subbase for a totally bounded quasi-
uniformity Oll,8, whieh induces 8, Le. A8B if and only if there is an entourage
V satisfying V (A) n B = 0. Moreover, Oll,8 is the coarsest quasi-uniformity
that induces the quasi-proximity 8. Furthermore it is the unique totally bounded
quasi-uniformity inducing 8.
By definition, the quasi-proximity dass of a quasi-uniformity Oll, consists of
those quasi-uniformities that induce the quasi-proximity induced by Oll,. Recently
Losonczi [372] observed that for an arbitrary quasi-uniformity Oll, the coarsest
(and totally bounded) member Oll, w belonging to the quasi-proximity dass of Oll,
is equal to the infimum of Oll, and the Pervin quasi-uniformity corresponding to
the topology induced by Oll,.
In [259] Hunsaker and Lindgren gave adescription of totally bounded quasi-

uniformities with the help of bounded semicontinuous (real-valued) functions.
More precisely, for every totally bounded quasi-uniformity there is a collection
'!Ji ofbounded lower semicontinuous functions such that {Ufi ,! : E > 0, f E '!Ji}
is a subbase, where Ufi,J = {(x, y) : fex) - f(y) < E}.
They also showed that the collection of all quasi-uniformities compatible
with a given quasi-proximity need not contain a finest member, even if it contains
a metrizable uniformity.
Fletcher and Lindgren [197, Lemma 6.3] observed that OU.5 has a transitive
base (i.e. a base consisting of transitive entourages) whenever ~ pos ses ses at
least one compatible quasi-uniformity having this property. On the other hand
Knzi [317] noted that ~ may possess a compatible quasi-uniformity without
transitive base even if OU.5 has such a base.
In more recent investigations it turned out that from a combinatorial point
of view a property strictly between precompactness and total boundedness,
namely hereditary precompactness, seems to deserve special attention. In the
unilateral theory of quasi-uniform spaces that property often yields an interesting
substitute for the classical (symmetric) concept oftotal boundedness.
As Knzi noted in [315], it immediately follows from Ramsey's theorem that
a quasi-uniformity OU is totally bounded if and only if both OU and its conjugate
OU -1 are hereditarily precompact. In the following we shall say that a quasi-
uniformity satisfies property double P provided that it and its conjugate both
satisfy property P. This terminology was suggested by Dek [126]. Hence by
Knzi's observation totally bounded quasi-uniformities are exactly the doubly
hereditarily precompact ones.
More generally, hereditary precompactness is preserved by arbitrary prod-
ucts [333]. In [340] Knzi and Romaguera discussed connections that hold
between the concept of a well-quasi-ordering (as used for instance in Kruskal's
Theorem in graph theory) and hereditary precompactness (see also [263]). In
fact, a transitive quasi-uniformity is hereditarily precompact if and only if it is
generated by well-quasi-orders (Le. preorders having neither infinite antichains
nor infinite strictly descending chains).
The authors of [333] noted that each regular hereditarily precompact quasi-
pseudometric space is second-countable. Fletcher and Lindgren [197, Proposi-
tion 7.2] had observed earlier that each totally bounded quasi-metric space is
second-countable.
In [334] some results on the (self-explanatory) concept of hereditary pre-
Lindelfness were obtained. The investigations on hereditarily preLindelf
quasi-uniform spaces seem to originate with Fletcher and Lindgren who showed
that the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity is always hereditarily preLindelf
[189]. (Let ;;e be the so-called upper quasi-uniformity on the set R of real
numbers generated by the base {Qfi : E > O} where Qfi = {(x, y) E R x R :
x - y < } whenever > O. By definition the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity

of a topological space X is the coarsest quasi-uniformity on X for which each
continuous function f : X ~ (R,;;t) is quasi-uniformly continuous; compare
Section 4.)
Among other things, in [334] it was observed that a quasi-pseudometric
space is hereditarily preLindelf if and only if it is hereditarily Lindelf, and
also that the product of a hereditarily precompact and a hereditarily preLindelf
quasi-uniform space is hereditarily preLindelf. Furthermore it was verified that
the nonempty product of a family of hereditarily preLindelf quasi-uniform
spaces is hereditarily preLindelf if and only if each subproduct of finitely
many factor spaces is hereditarily preLindelf. No useful characterization of
those topological spaces that admit only preLindelf quasi-uniformities seems
to be known.
For some time it was an open problem to characterize those topological
spaces that admit a unique quasi-uniformity or unique quasi-proximity. These
problems attracted a lot of attention and many partial solutions were obtained;
see for instance the artides by Barnhill andFletcher [34], Brown [50], Brmmer
and Knzi [63], Lindgren [363], [364] and Votaw [574]. In particular Lindgren
showed that each space that admits a unique quasi-uniformity is hereditarily
compact and that each space that is hereditarily compact admits a unique quasi-
proximity. He also noted that the cofinite topology on an uncountable set admits
a unique quasi-uniformity, while this is not true for the cofinite topology on a
countably infinite set. Hicks and Huffman [244] proved that a topological space
admits exactly one compatible local quasi-uniformity if and only if its topology
is finite. Brmmer and Knzi then observed that each hereditarily compact
quasi-sober space admits a unique quasi-uniformity. The latter dass of spaces
contains for instance all topological spaces having a finite topology.
Satisfactory solutions to the mentioned problems were finally given by
Knzi [303], [307].
He proved in [307] that a topological space X admits a unique quasi-
uniformity if and only if (1) it does not have any strictly increasing sequence
of open sets (i.e. it is hereditarily compact) and (2) there does not exist any
strictly decreasing sequence (Gn)new of open sets such that nnewGn is open.
(Equivalently, such aspace is characterized by the property that each of its
interior-preserving open collections is finite.) Furthermore he showed that the
property under consideration is finitely productive [311].
In order to obtain his characterization, by a result of Brown [50], Knzi had
to verify that the fine quasi-uniformity of aspace satisfying the stated conditions
has a base consisting of transitive relations.
Recently FeITer, Gregori and Reilly [158] continued Knzi's investigations
and characterized the topological spaces that admit a unique quasi-uniform
structure by means of semicontinuous functions.
Based on an idea due to Votaw [574], in [303] Knzi characterized those

topological spaces that admit a unique quasi-proximity. He proved that a topo-
logical space X admits a unique quasi-proximity if and only if its topology
CZJ is the unique base of open sets for CZJ that is c10sed under finite unions
and finite intersections. (Here the convention that n0 = X is used.) He ob-
served that there are non-hereditarily compact spaces satisfying this criterion,
for instance the space with carrier set wo + 2 and topology {[O, n] : n E
w}U{(wo+2) \ {wo+ I}, wo+2, (wo +2) \ {wo}, wo, 0}. His characterization led
to the question whether a Tl-space satisfying it need be hereditarily compact.
Brmmer and Knzi [63] had shown that a topological space is hereditarily
compact if and only if it admits a unique totally bounded quasi-uniformity and
each of its ultrafilters has an irreducible (nonempty) convergence set. Knzi
himself verified that the answer to the afore-mentioned question is positive if
the topological space has countable pseudo-character (i.e. each of its points is a
G-set) [311]. Ferrer [151] proved that it is also positive for locally hereditarily
Lindelf spaces (see also [329]); but in general the answer is negative as a
(huge) counterexample published recently by Knzi and Watson [351] shows.
Their space has the property that each open set is the intersection of two compact
open sets, although it contains infinitely many isolated points.
In [370] Losonczi observed that for any topological space there is a one-to-
one correspondence between the compatible transitive totally bounded quasi-
uniformities and the bases for the topology that are c10sed under finite unions
and finite intersections.
Starting his investigations on the number of quasi-unijormities that a topo-
logical space admits, he [369] showed that a topological space with more than
one compatible quasi-uniformity possesses at least 22~O compatible transitive
quasi-uniformities. Subsequently he proved [371] more generally that a quasi-
proximity c1ass with two (distinct) transitive members contains at least 22~O tran-
sitive quasi-uniformities. In the following Losonczi's results were strengthened
in various directions.
Modifying a technique due to Losonczi, Knzi [326] observed that each
topological space (X, CZJ) with the property that for any entourage W belonging
to its fine quasi-uniformity, the cover {(W n W-1)(x) : x EX} has a subcover
of cardinality K, admits at most 21?J1" quasi-uniformities. For instance, the latter
inequality applied to the two arrows space yields the upper bound of 22~O for
the number of its compatible quasi-uniformities (see [330]) and implies that a
topological space X of network weight nw(X) admits at most 22nW (X) quasi-
uniformities.
Similarly Knzi [326] also showed that a topological space X of network
weight nw(X) pos ses ses at most 2nw (X) transitive neighbomets; it also follows
from his investigations that an arbitrary compatible quasi-uniformity on such a

space X has a base of cardinality :::: 2nw (X).
Some refinements of Losonczi's original theorems deal with nontransitive
quasi-uniformities, i.e. quasi-uniformities that do not have a base consisting
of transitive entourages: Knzi and Losonczi [330] proved that a topological
space possessing more than one compatible quasi-uniformity admits at least 22~O
nontransitive quasi-uniformities. In particular, a topological space admits only
transitive quasi-uniformities if and only if it admits a unique quasi-uniformity
[326].
They also established that the quasi-proximity dass of a transitive quasi-
uniformity contains at least 22~O transitive quasi-uniformities provided that
it contains some member that is not tota1ly bounded. It is unknown however
whether a quasi-proximity dass containing more than one member necessarily
contains a nontransitive quasi-uniformity.
In [330] they showed that if (X, 'W) is a quasi-uniform space possessing an
entourage W and a subspace A such that either {W(x) : x E A} or {W- 1 (x) :
x E A} does not have a subcollection of cardinality smaller than K covering A
(here K denotes an infinite cardinal), then there are at least 22K quasi-uniformities
belonging to the quasi-proximity dass of'W. Note that this result implies that if
a quasi-proximity dass of a quasi-uniformity possesses more than one member,
then it contains at least 22~O quasi-uniformities [327].
While it is now known (see [329]) that for each nonzero cardinal K there
exists a topological space possessing exactly K compatible totally bounded
quasi-uniformities (all of which are transitive), it is an open problem to char-
acterize those cardinals K for which there exists a topological space admitting
exactly K quasi-uniformities (compare e.g. [330]).
Investigations were also conducted on the number of totally bounded quasi-
uniformities that a topological space admits. In [335] Knzi and Perez-Pefialver
showed that each T2-space having a discrete subspace of infinite cardinality K
admits at least 22K transitive totally bounded quasi-uniformities. They observed
that a topological space (X,?J) admits at most 2 1;r1 totally bounded quasi-
uniformities and that this upper bound is attained by each infinite metrizable
space. They also established that a topological space that admits a nontran-
sitive totally bounded quasi-uniformity "V admits at least 22~O nontransitive
totally bounded quasi-uniformities finer than "V. Subsequently, it was shown
that such a topological space also admits at least 2!{o transitive totally bounded
quasi-uniformities [329].
Some results on the semilattice of totally bounded quasi-uniformities that
a topological space admits were obtained in [329]. For instance it was noted
that this semilattice is not a lattice in general. It was also proved that every
(nonempty) finite distributive lattice can occur as the lattice of the compatible
tota11y bounded quasi-uniformities of some topological space and that for a topo-
logical space admitting a coarsest quasi-uniformity the lattice of its compatible
tota11y bounded quasi-uniformities need not be modular.
A sufficient condition for the existence of a nontransitive tota11y bounded
compatible quasi-uniformity on a topological space was obtained in [219].
The condition was used to prove that each infinite completely regular T2-
space admits a nontransitive totally bounded quasi-uniformity. It is still un-
known whether each infinite T2-space admits a nontransitive totally bounded
quasi-uniformity.
Fletcher and Lindgren had proved in their book that the coarsest compatible
quasi-uniformity of a locally compact T2-space is a uniformity if and only
if the space is compact [197, Proposition 1.47]. In [308] Knzi character-
ized those topological spaces that admit a coarsest quasi-unijormity, equiv-
alently a coarsest quasi-proximity. This c1ass of spaces generalizes the c1ass
of core-compact spaces. In particular each locally compact space (i.e. each
point has a neighborhood base consisting of compact sets) admits a coarsest
quasi-uniformity.
To this end he introduced the following auxiliary concept: Let (X, ~) be a
topological space and let GI, G2 E ~. Write GI< G2 if for each ultrafilter '9
on X containing GI there exists a finite collection .M. of open sets of X such that
each element of.M. contains a limit point of '9, and n.M. ~ G2. (As above, the
convention is used that, n0 = X.) If GI < G2, then GI is said to be handy in G2
(with respect to X). Knzi showed that a topological space X admits a coarsest
quasi-uniformity if and only if its handy-relation is approximating (i.e. for each
open set G of X we have G = U{G ' : G' < G and G' is open in X}). He also
established that a topological space which admits a coarsest quasi-uniformity
and in which each convergent ultrafilter has an irreducible convergence set is
core-compact and that a topological space admits a unique quasi-proximity if
and only if each of its open sets is handy in itself.
Furthermore, he observed that some well-known results on locally compact
spaces generalize to the c1ass of topological spaces admitting a coarsest quasi-
uniformity; for instance a nonempty product of topological spaces admits a
coarsest quasi-uniformity if and only if each factor space admits a coarsest
quasi-uniformity and all but finitely many factor spaces are compact. Finally
he constructed a sober TI-space that is not core-compact, but has an open base
consisting of sets that are handy in themselves (and thus admits a coarsest
quasi-uniformity); he also noted that if a quasi-uniformity is minimal among
the compatible quasi-uniformities on a topological space X, then it is neces-
sarily the coarsest compatible quasi-uniformity on X. It is also known that if
a topological space admits a coarsest transitive quasi-uniformity then it is the
coarsest compatible quasi-uniformity (compare [370]).
The coarsest quasi-uniformity OU on a locally compact space X is generated

by the subbase {[(X \ K) x X] U [X x G] : K S; G, K is compact and G is open
in X}. Moreover the topology r (OU -1) is generated by the sets X \ K where K
is compact and saturated in X. (A set in a topological space is called saturated
provided that it is equal to the intersection of its open neighborhoods.) The latter
topology is now often called the de Groot dual of the given topology on X (see
e.g. [297]).
In [148] Erne made some use of Knzi's results when constructing certain
completions and compactifications for core-generated spaces, Le. To-spaces
having a subbasis of open cores (where the core of a point is the intersection of its
neighborhoods). In [366] Losonczi showed that for a locally compact T2-space
X the quasi-proximity c1ass ;rr(80) of the coarsest compatible quasi-proximity
8 contains a unique element if and only if X is compact or non-Lindelf.
Furthermore he proved that for locally compact T2-spaces ;rr(80) is c10sed under
the supremum operation. He also noted that the coarsest quasi-uniformity of a
locally compact noncompact T2-space is the unique quasi-uniformity belonging
to ;rr(80) that is not uniformly locally compact.
We conc1ude this section with some short remarks on several papers of
general interest that seem to fit best into this section.
Some results on quotient quasi-uniformities were obtained by Carlson [78]
and Hogan [252]. Among other things, Carlson observed that if (X, OU) is a
quasi-uniform space and f : X ---+ Y is a surjective map, then in general there
does not exist a quasi-uniform structure 'V on Y such that (i) f : (X, OU) ---+
(Y, 'V) is quasi-uniformly continuous and r('V) is the quotient topology for Y.
Generalizing Himmelberg's corresponding work on uniformities, Hogan tried
to obtain conditions under which the quotient quasi-uniformity induces the
quotient topology.
On the other hand, it is c1ear that initial quasi-uniformities always induce the
corresponding initial topologies (see for instance [415] where the corresponding
result is given for subspaces, products and suprema).
Haddad [230] used quasi-uniform structures on sets of ultrafilters (called
'tramails') to represent topologies and proximities. Related investigations were
recently conducted by Chicourrat [86], [87].
In [460], [461], [463] Raghavan and Reilly considered the general ques-
tion when the topology generated by a nonsymmetric structure is induced by
a compatible symmetric structure; for example when a quasi-metric space is
metrizable.
Chattopadhyay and Hazra [84] studied nonsymmetric basic proximity struc-
tures defined by ignoring the symmetry axiom from the definition of basic
proximities as investigated by Cech.
In [118] Deak considered various asymmetric generalizations of topological

structures for which the statements of the axioms do not contain an explicit
"axiom of symmetry". The treatment of this topic is bitopological in flavour.
4. Functorial Quasi-uniformities
Let T denote the (obvious) forgetful functor from the category Quu of quasi-
uniform spaces and quasi-uniformly continuous maps to the category Top of
topological spaces and continuous maps. A Junctorial admissible quasi-
uniformity on the topological spaces is a functor F : Top ~ Quu such that
T F = 1, i.e. F is a right inverse or section of T, briefly a T -seetion. Functorial
admissible quasi-uniformities on subcategories of Top are defined similarly.
Brmmer [54] was first to consider explicitly the dass of a1l functorial
quasi-uniformities, although some basic work on canonical covering quasi-
uniformities was done at about the same time by Fletcher and Lindgren [188],
[189]. He proved that the dass of all T -sections has a complete lattice structure
with respect to the partial ordering "coarser than". In particular he described the
coarsest functorial quasi-uniformity on Top. Indeed, he showed that the coarsest
Junctorial quasi-uniformity on Top is the Pervin quasi-uniformity by observing
that this quasi-uniformity is the initial quasi-uniformity for a1l continuous maps
into the SierpiIiski space with its unique quasi-uniformity. Of course, in gen-
eral a topological space admits many nonfunctorial quasi-uniformities (some
of which may be strictly coarser than the Pervin quasi-uniformity). The fine
quasi-uniformity of a topological space determines the finest T -section. It will
be discussed thoroughly in Section 5.
V sing the idea of initiality, Brmmer also popularized a method, now known
as the spanning construction, for building sections of the forgetful functor T
[54]. Much of Brmmer's work (see e.g. [55]) was motivated by the search
for a natural extension of dassical uniform space results to quasi-uniform and
bitopological spaces. His slogan was that in general such an extension is not
unique [57], [58]. For instance he showed that the realcompactness reflection
has several extensions to bitopological spaces.
In general functorial quasi-uniformities are not preserved under the usual
topological operations. While the restriction of the Pervin quasi-uniformity to
an arbitrary subspace is the Pervin quasi-uniformity, the corresponding result for
the fine quasi-uniformity does not hold; but it is true for subspaces that are the
intersection of an open and a dosed set, as is observed in the book by Fletcher
and Lindgren [197, Corollary 2.19]. In general functorial quasi-uniformities
also are not preserved under products; for instance Fletcher and Lindgren [197,
Corollary 2.18] showed that if the product of the Pervin quasi-uniformity with
itself of a Hausdorff space X is the Pervin quasi-uniformity on X 2 , then X is
finite.
Salbany [518] studied the (pairwise) completely regular spaces as the initial
hull ofthe bitopological unit interval Ib in Bitop and showed that (sup)compact
pairwise Tychonoff bitopological spaces yield the epireflective hull of Ib. He
also proved that the first coordinate functor K 1 : Pcreg ~ Top from the
category of (pairwise) completely regular bitopological spaces has a unique
right inverse Ql : Top ~ Pcreg. For X in Top, the first topology of QIX
is that of X, and the second topology has the c10sed sets of X as a base of
open sets. Indeed, it is the bitopological space generated by the Pervin quasi-
uniformity CfP of X. The associated supremum topology r(CfP*) is usually called
the Skula or b-topology of X [546]. Only recently compact Skula topologies
were characterized by Dow and Watson [143].
Salbany also discovered that a map / : X ~ Y between completely regular
To bitopological spaces is epi if and only if / is dense with respect to the
supremum topology of Y. Brmmer subsequently showed that any map between
To quasi-uniform spaces is epi if and only if it is dense with respect to the
associated supremum uniformity.
As in the last section, a quasi-uniformity is called transitive if it has a base
consisting of transitive entourages; for instance any Pervin quasi-uniformity has
this property. Much of the initial work on transitive spaces is due to Fletcher and
Lindgren [188], [189]. Birsan [42] and Reilly [471] proved that a bitopological
space is pairwise zero-dimensional if and only if it admits a transitive quasi-
uniformity. In [110] it was shown how the concept of topogenous order can be
used in answering questions conceming transitive quasi-uniformities.
The following construction of transitive quasi-uniformities is now known as
the Fletcher construction (see [172]).
Let (X, 5") be a topological space and let .stl be a collection of interior-
preserving open covers C(6 such that U.stl is a subbase for 5". For any C(6 set
U'il, = UXEX({X} x n{D : x E D E C(6}). Then the collection {U'il, : C(6 E .stl} is a
subbase for a compatible transitive quasi-uniformity on X.
On the other hand, if OU is any transitive quasi-uniformity compatible with
5", then c1early there is a collection .stl of interior-preserving open covers of X
such that U.stl is a subbase for 5" and OU = OUd.
Examples for the Fletcher construction abound (see e.g. [197]): If .stl is the
collection of all finite open covers of a topological space X, then OUd is the
Pervin quasi-uniformity of X; if .stl is the collection of all interior-preserving
open covers, then OUd is the fine transitive quasi-uniformity of X, that is the
finest compatible transitive quasi-uniformity on X; if .stl is the collection of all
weH-monotone open covers (i.e. open covers well-ordered by set-theoretic in-
c1usion), then we obtain the weIl-monotone (open covering) quasi-uniformity 0/
X introduced by Junnila [266]. It is preserved under restriction to subspaces and
coincides with the Pervin quasi-uniformity if and only if the underlying space
is hereditarily compact [150]. Its conjugate is always hereditarily precompact

[322, p. 327].
Similarly, if we apply Fletcher's construction to the point-finite resp. locally
finite open covers of a topological space we obtain its point-finite resp. locally
finite (open covering) quasi-uniformity.
Fletcher and Lindgren [189] also defined the concept of an open spectrum.
An open spectrum in a topological space X is a family {An : n E Z} of
open sets of X such that for each n E Z, An 5; A n+l, nneZAn = 0 and
UnezA n = X. They showed that if stl is the collection of all open spectra, then
OU.stt coincides with the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity. In particular it follows
that the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity is transitive. It can be shown [197,
3.21] that the restriction of the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity to a c10sed
G 6-subspace yields the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity of that subspace.
Of course, by Brmmer's characterization of the Pervin quasi-uniformity
cited above, all functorial quasi-uniformities belong to the Pervin quasi-
proximity c1ass.
In [59] Brmmer, by tidying up work of his student Halpin [231], showed
that all functorial transitive quasi-uniformities can be obtained by the Fletcher
construction via appropriate collections of interior-preserving open covers.
Interior-preserving open collections were originally called Q-collections
by Sion and Willmott [544]. The term "interior-preserving" is due to Junnila
[265]. Generalizing the concept of metacompactness, Arens suggested to call
a topological space orthocompact provided that each of its open covers has
an interior-preserving open refinement. Basic investigations on orthocompact
spaces are due to Scott (e.g. [534]), Junnila [266] and Burke [67]. Research on
orthocompact spaces led to many interesting results, among them Fleischman's
theorem [168] that suborderable spaces are orthocompact and Junnila's analogue
ofTamano's Theorem (see e.g. [197, Theorem 5.40]) that for a compactification
K of a Tychonoff space X, the product X x K is preorthocompact if and only
if X is metacompact. Although orthocompactness is not preserved by perfect
(continuous) surjections according to a result due to Burke [67], the c10sed
continuous image of an orthocompact space is orthocompact provided that it is
submetacompact (= B-refinable) [266].
It is still unknown however whether each countably orthocompact CI-
orthocompact space is orthocompact. By a well-known result due to Fletcher
and Lindgren [190] the answer to this question is positive if "countably ortho-
compact" is replaced by"countably metacompact". In fact, variants of this result
(see [197, 7.22]), mainly obtained by Junnila, are important in the theory of
quasi-uniform spaces.
Some other partial positive results of the stated problem were collected
by Knzi in [310] where he proved that a preorthocompact space with a G6-
diagonal and without isolated points is countably metacompact, that a countably
preorthocompact weakly Lindelf regular space is countably metacompact and

that anormal preorthocompact space with a Go-diagonal is countably paracom-
pact. The answer to the stated question is also positive in separable T}-spaces
(see [197, Proposition 5.13]), since by an observation due to van Douwen
in such spaces the properties of countable metacompactness and countable
orthocompactness coincide.
For the concept of a suborthocompact space we refer the reader to the work of
Yajima [587]. Another covering property from the area of quasi-uniform spaces
besides orthocompactness and its generalizations that has been proven useful
now and then in topological studies is the condition that each c1osure-preserving
c10sed collection is special (equivalently, that the fine transitive quasi-uniformity
of a topological space is equal to its point-finite quasi-uniformity). That condi-
tion was introduced and mainly studied by Junnila (see e.g. [265], [270], [271]).
It implies hereditary metacompactness and is satisfied in any metacompact
semistratifiable space.
Almost all canonical quasi-uniformities that have been studied in the litera-
ture are transitive. Answering a question due to Brmmer, Knzi [315] gave an
example of a functorial quasi-uniformity coarser than the locally finite section
that is not transitive: For any X in Top he considered the quasi-uniformity S(X)
that is generated by the Pervin quasi-uniformity of X and the finest uniformity
whose underlying topology is coarser than the topology of X. He showed that for
an arbitrary paracompact Hausdorff space X the quasi-uniformity S(X) is tran-
sitive if and only if Xis boundedly paracompact (see [200] for an explanation
of the latter cancept).
In [315] he also verified that the Pervin quasi-uniformity is the coarsest
admissible functorial quasi-uniformity on the category of Hausdorff spaces and
continuous maps. It is still an open question whether the Pervin quasi-uniformity
is also the coarsest admissible functorial quasi-uniformity on the category of
regular topological spaces and continuous maps. On the other hand, Knzi ob-
served that the coarsest functorial admissible quasi-uniformity on the completely
regular topological spaces is given by the Cech functor <:(6* : Creg -+ Unif.
In [32] Banaschewski and Brmmer called a (completely regular) bitopo-
logical space (= bispace) strongly zero-dimensional if its bispace Cech-Stone
compactification is (pairwise) zero-dimensional; that is, if its finest compati-
ble totally bounded quasi-uniformity is transitive. Strongly zero-dimensional
bitopological spaces were first investigated by Fora [202]. Banaschewski and
Brmmer showed that among those functorial quasi-uniformities which are
admissible on all completely regular bispaces, some are and others are not
transitive on the strongly zero-dimensional bispaces. This is in contrast with
their result (the proof is attributed to Pelant) that every functorial admissi-
ble uniformity on the completely regular spaces is transitive precisely on the
strongly zero-dimensional spaces.
In [317] Knzi established that the functorial quasi-uniformity of the com-

pletely regular bispaces which is spanned by the upper quasi-uniformity of
the real line is transitive on any strongly zero-dimensional bispace, thereby
answering affirmatively a question raised by Banaschewski and Brmmer.
He also showed that the finest compatible quasi-uniformity is transitive
provided either the bispace is non-archimedeanly quasi-pseudometrizable, or it
is strongly zero-dimensional and every locally finite open family with respect
to the supremum topology is countable.
In [189] Fletcher and Lindgren proved that each open Pervin-Sieber Cauchy
filter with respect to the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity of a topological space
X has a cluster point if and only if X is almost realcompact. In [201] Fletcher and
Naimpally had shown that the former condition for an arbitrary quasi-uniformity
is equivalent to Pervin-Sieber completeness provided that the induced topology
is regular.
Pervin-Sieber completeness of some other canonical quasi-uniformities was
investigated by Fletcher and Knzi in [187]. For instance they showed that in
a regular countably paracompact T2-space of nonmeasurable cardinality com-
pleteness ofthe point-finite quasi-uniformity resp.locally finite quasi-uniformity
coincides with almost realcompactness. If a ~ -product ~ is C* -embedded in its
Tychonoff product rr, and if rr is complete for any of these quasi-uniformities,
then rr is the maximal extension of ~ in the sense of Woods [584].
Recently other completeness properties for various canonical quasi-
uniformities were studied by Knzi and Romaguera [336] (see Sections 6 and
7 for additional information on these completeness properties). Among other
things they showed that the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity of a countably
metacompact space is Doitchinov complete if and only if the carrier space is
closed-complete, and that the wen-monotone quasi-uniformity of anY topolog-
ical space is left K -complete. They also established that the weIl-monotone
quasi-uniformity of a ccc regular space X is Doitchinov complete if and only
if X is almost realcompact. Earlier Ferrario and Knzi [150] had obtained
several results on bicompleteness of the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity. For
instance they showed that it is bicomplete for any completely regular hereditar-
ily realcompact space or any hereditarily countably metacompact, hereditarily
closed-complete, quasi-sober space. They also noted that a topological space is
hereditarily closed-complete provided that its semicontinuous quasi-uniformity
is bicomplete.
Furthermore they established that the weIl-monotone quasi-uniformity of a
topological space is bicomplete if and only if its topology is quasi-sober.
In the following paragraphs let K denote the bicompletion functor (on the
class of To-spaces). In [60] Brmmer called a T -section F lower K -true (resp.
upper K-true) if KFX :::: FTKFX (resp. KFX ~ FTKFX) for any space
X; sections that satisfy both conditions are called K -true. (Here:::: corresponds
to the usual coarser relation for quasi-uniformities.) If Fis K -true, then T K F

is a reflection. Brmmer [60] showed that a section F is 10wer K -true if and
on1y if F is spanned by a c1ass of bicomp1ete quasi-uniform spaces. It can be
shown that the locally finite covering quasi-uniformity is not lower K -true.
It follows from a result of Knzi [320] that a T -section F is upper K -true if
and only if Fis finer than the well-monotone (open covering) quasi-uniformity
W. The well-monotone, the fine and the fine transitive quasi-uniformity are all
K -true; the Pervin quasi-uniformity is lower K -true, but not upper K -true [150],
[60].
Answering one of Brmmer's questions, Kimmie [283] recently, with the
help of a superrigid topological space due to van Douwen [566], constructed an
upper K -true T -section F with T K F = T K W that is not lower K -true. Since
T K W is the sobrification reflector in Topo by a result due to Ferrario and Knzi
[150], T K F is idempotent.
The known characterization obtained by Brmmer, Giuli and Holgate [62]
of those sections F for which T K F is a reflection, which is based on the concept
of a direct reflection, seems still to be unsatisfactory.
Kimmie also showed that the locally finite, the point-finite and the well-
monotone covering quasi-uniformities cannot be spanned by single spaces. The
corresponding resu1t had been established before for the fine and fine transitive
quasi-uniformity by Brmmer and Halpin.
The fact that the bicompletion of certain functorial quasi-uniformities gives
rise to monads on the category of To-spaces was first discussed by Brmmer
[56] (see also [61, Proposition 3.21], where the result is proved for 10wer K -true
sections of T). That paper [56] also asked for a characterization of the category
of algebras of the monad induced by the bicompletion of the Pervin quasi-
uniformity. By a result due to Hoffmann [251] the Pervin quasi-uniformity is
bicomplete if and only if the underlying topology is hereditarily compact and
quasi-sober.
Brmmer's question was first answered by Simmons [541] who described
the monad equivalently as the prime openfilter monad and obtained its category
of algebras as the stably compact topological spaces and so-called continuous
perfect maps (see also Section 11).
In [132] Dikranjan and Knzi studied various categorical aspects of quasi-
uniform spaces (mainly separation and epimorphisms) via closure operators in
the sense of Dikranjan and Giuli. By means of appropriate c10sure operators
they computed the epimorphisms of many categories of quasi-uniform spaces
defined by separation axioms. In particular they studied the interplay of the
obvious c10sure operators of a quasi-uniform space. An important tool in their
investigations is the construction of the amalgamation in the category of quasi-
uniform spaces.
A concrete description of the Cartesian c10sed topological hull of the cate-

gory of quasi-uniform spaces and quasi-uniformly continuous maps inside the
category of quasi-(semi)uniform limit spaces and quasi-uniformly continuous
maps was provided by Nauwelaerts in [425]. He also outlined an approach to
this problem that is based on the concept of a bomological quasi-uniform space.
The idea of equipping spaces with a collection of so-called bounded subsets that
satisfies some appropriate axioms was first used in this context by Adamek and
Reiterman in the setting of uniform spaces.
s. The Fine Quasi-uniformity
From the beginning, properties of the finest compatible quasi-uniformity on

a topological space had attracted the interest of many researchers, see e.g. the
artic1e by Csaszar and Domiaty [113]. Kofner's example [284] - now known as
Kofner's plane - of a quasi-metrizable space which is not non-archimedeanly
quasi-metrizable had shown that the finest compatible quasi-uniformity of a
topological space need not have a transitive base. On the other hand, topological
spaces belonging to various c1asses have been shown to have a fine quasi-
uniformity possessing a base consisting of transitive entourages. As usual, such
topological spaces will be called transitive in the following. Among them there
are the orthocompact semistratifiable spaces (Junnila) [265], the suborderable
spaces (Kofner) [288], the Tl-spaces having an orthobase (Kofner) ([289], see
also [328]) and the hereditarily metacompact locally compact regular spaces
(Junnila, Knzi and Watson) [270].
Indeed, usually these authors obtained much stronger results which imply
transitivity of the spaces under consideration. For instance in [270] it was shown
that for any neighbomet V of a hereditarily metacompact compact regular space
there is a transitive neighbomet T such that T ~ V 3
Similarly, Junnila [265] (see [197, Theorem 6.21]) showed that the third
power of any neighbomet in a preorthocompact semistratifiable space belongs
to its fine quasi-uniformity. (Note however that it is unknown whether each
preorthocompact semistratifiable space is orthocompact; see [197, p. 171].)
Furthermore, P-spaces (Fletcher and Lindgren) [197, Proposition 6.11],
hereditarily compact spaces, spaces in which the fine quasi-uniformity has a
countable base, spaces with a countable network, non-archimedeanly quasi-
pseudometrizable spaces with a a-locally finite network (Knzi) [311] and
spaces whose topology (equivalently, specialization order) is linearly ordered
(Salbany) [522] possess the property of transitivity.
Moreover, every subspace of a transitive space that is the intersection of an
open set and a c10sed set is transitive [266]. Junnila [266] also (see e.g. [197])
proved that locally transitive submetacompact spaces are transitive and that the
countab1e union of closed (resp. open) transitive spaces is transitive. He also

noted that transitivity is preserved under closed continuous surjections.
Knzi [304] showed by two constructions which re1y on the Kofner plane
that transitivity of the fine quasi-uniformity is neither hereditary nor finite1y
productive in topo10gical spaces. He also observed that under CH a construction
due to van Douwen yie1ds a compact Hausdorff space whose finest compatib1e
quasi-uniformity does not have a transitive base. (In ZFC no compact Hausdorff
space is known that is not transitive.) It is still unknown whether the fine quasi-
uniformity of a Moore space or a non-archimedeanly quasi-metrizab1e space is
transitive.
For some time it was an open question whether the fine quasi-uniformity
of an arbitrary topological space is (Pervin-Sieber) complete (see e.g. [197, p.
59]).
In [187] Fletcher and Knzi proved that completeness of the fine quasi-
uniformity is preserved under perfect continuous surjections. Fletcher and Lind-
gren [197, Proposition 3.12] had shown before that completeness of any func-
torial quasi-uniformity is inverse invariant under such maps.
By an observation of [197, p. 59] the fine transitive quasi-uniformity is
complete if and only if every ultrafilter without cluster point has a closure-
preserving subcollection without cluster point. Hence a counterexample to the
stated question could neither be a weakly orthocompact nor a regular almost
realcompact space.
After Carlson, Hicks and Huffman [82] had given an example of a weakly
orthocompact space that does not admit any convergence comp1ete quasi-
uniformity, Fletcher and Knzi [186] exhibited anormal Hausdorff space whose
finest quasi-uniformity is not complete. In fact, some Franklin-Rajagopalan
space can be chosen as such an example.
In their first step of a solution to the problem the concept of almost pre-
compactness (originally studied by Fletcher and Naimpally [201] in another
context) was essential. (Let us also mention that some concepts related to almost
precompactness were studied by Lambrinos in [356].)
A quasi-uniform space (X, OU,) is called almost precompact provided that for
each entourage U E OU, there is a finite set F ~ X such that U(F) = X. Almost
precompact quasi-uniform spaces can be characterized by the property that each
open ultrafilter is a (Pervin-Sieber) Cauchy filter [201]. For instance the fine
quasi-uniformity of any ~-product with compact factors is almost precompact
[187].
Subsequently, Fletcher and Knzi showed that, in fact, the finest quasi-
uniformity of an arbitrary nontrivial ~-product is not comp1ete [187]. Their
result was based on the observation that in a regular space X the closure of
a weakly Lindelf w-bounded sub set is compact provided that X admits a
complete quasi-uniformity.
In [310] Knzi also showed that a weakly Lindelf almost ~o-fuIly nor-
mal (in the sense of Mansfield [400]) Tl -space that admits a complete quasi-
uniformity is realcompact.
Recently, Knzi and Watson [352] gave an example of a quasi-metrizable
space whose finest compatible quasi-uniformity is not complete. As they noted,
such aspace cannot be countably metacompact, because the finest compatible
quasi-uniformity on a countably metacompact quasi-pseudometrizable space is
complete. Since their space does not satisfy the Hausdorff separation axiom, the
problem to construct such a regular example remains open (see Problem 9 of
[320]). It seems also unknown whether the fine quasi-uniformity of any Moore
space is complete (see [336]).
By a result of Ferrario and Knzi the finest compatible quasi-uniformity of
each quasi-pseudometrizable space is bicomplete [150]. Subsequently
Romaguera and Salbany [503] showed that indeed the finest compatible quasi-
uniformity of a quasi-pseudometrizable bitopological space is bicomplete (see
also [445]). In [499] Romaguera also proved that the fine quasi-uniformity
of any sub-To-quasi-pseudometrizable (pairwise) completely regular bispace is
bicomplete.
Moreover, Ferrario and Knzi established that a topological space admits a
bicomplete quasi-uniformity if and only if its fine quasi-uniformity is bicom-
plete. The fine transitive quasi-uniformity of any countable or any first-countable
TI-spaces is bicomplete; on the other hand the fine (= unique) quasi-uniformity
of the cofinite topology on an uncountable set is not bicomplete. Further-
more the finest quasi-uniformity of each quasi-sober space is bicomplete. In
fact, as mentioned above, they noted that the sobrification of a topological
space can be obtained by constructing the bicompletion of its weIl-monotone
quasi-uniformity. Recently some far reaching extension of the latter result was
obtained by Flagg, Kopperman and Snderhauf [165] (see Section 11).
As was noted by Perez-Peiialver and Romaguera [444], the result of [336]
that the fine (indeed the weIl-monotone quasi-uniformity) of each topological
space is left K -complete, can be deduced from the fact that any filter that is
stable with respect to the conjugate of the weIl-monotone quasi-uniformity of
a topological space X contains its set of adherence points (with respect to the
topology of X).
The fine quasi-uniformity of a topological space need neither be right K-
complete nor D-complete, according to observations due to Knzi and Ryser
[345] resp. Knzi and Romaguera [336].
In [443] Perez-Peiialver and Romaguera pointed out that no quasi-metrizable
(Hausdorff) space seems to be known whose finest quasi-uniformity is not right
K -complete, although simple quasi-pseudometrizable spaces of this kind can
readily be constructed. It can be shown that the fine quasi-uniformity of each
submetacompact space is right K -complete.
Hicks and Sharma [246] considered topological spaces that have the property
that every neighbornet belongs to the fine quasi-uniformity. By an observation
due to Fox [205] (resp. Junnila, see [197, Proposition 6.25]) the Michaelline
(resp. any topological space that possesses a c1osure-preserving c10sed cover by
finite sets) is of this kind. Junnila [266] noted that also each preorthocompact
space that is the countable union of c10sed discrete subspaces has this property.
Among other things Hicks and Sharma showed that spaces satisfying their
condition are scattered provided that they are locally compact Hausdorff spaces
having a G &-diagonal.
6. Completions and Extensions
A quasi-uniform space (X, OU) is called bicomplete provided that the coarsest
uniformity OU * finer than OU is complete.
It is now well known that each quasi-uniform To-space (X, OU) has an (up to
quasi-uniform isomorphism) unique bicompletion (X, OlL) in the sense that the
space (X, OlL) is a bicomplete extension of (X, OU) in which (X, OU) is r (0lL*)-
dense. The uniformities (0lL)* and oU* coincide. Furthermore if D is a r(OU*)-
dense subspace of a quasi-uniform space (X, OU) and f : (D, OUID) -+ (Y, "V) is
a quasi-uniformly continuous map where (Y, "V) is a bicomplete quasi-uniform
To-space, then there exists a (unique) quasi-uniformly continuous extension
1: X -+ Yof f.
It seems that any reasonable extension of the completion theory of uniform
spaces to arbitrary quasi-uniform spaces first naturally leads to Csaszar's theory
of bicompleteness [98] outlined above and originally developed in the realm of
syntopogenous spaces.
In the context of quasi-proximities and quasi-uniformities the construction
was popularized and further developed mainly by Salbany [518] and Fletcher
and Lindgren [194]. In particular Fletcher and Lindgren showed that a quasi-
uniformity is bicomplete if and only if each linked Cauchy filter pair (pairwise)
converges.
In [63] Brmmer and Knzi noted that for a totally bounded quasi-uniform
(To-)space (X, OU) the topological space (X, r(OlL is a locally compact space
in which the convergence set of any ultrafilter is the c10sure of some (unique)
singleton. (Such spaces are called locally compact and strongl~sober. They will
be discussed more thoroughly in Section 11.) Furthermore OU is the coarsest
quasi-uniformity that the topological space (X, g-(0lL admits, and the uniform
topology r (OlL *) is compact.
It follows that the b-c1osure S of a totally bounded quasi-uniform space
(X, OU) in (i, O) is homeomorphic to the sobrification ofthe space (X, r(OU.
They also proved that S is equal to i if and only if (X, r(OU is a core-compact
space in which every ultrafilter has an irreducible convergence set and au is

the coarsest quasi-uniformity compatible with -r(au). If au is the Pervin quasi-
uniformity on X, then S is equal to X if and only if (X, au) is hereditarily
compact, or equivalently, aU is the Pervin quasi-uniformity on X.
Although the theory of the bicompletion of quasi-uniform spaces is very
satisfactory in many respects, several researchers feIt that too many quasi-
uniform spaces are (bi)complete for their purposes. So the search went on for
other completion theories.
Various authors noted that some natural requirements to a completion the-
ory for all quasi-uniform spaces (as for instance preservation of Hausdorff
separation) can easily lead to contradictions (see e.g. [229], [135]).
Stoltenberg [554], [555] was first to study thoroughly the unilateral comple-
tion problem of quasi-uniform spaces (for a correction see the note ofFerrer and
Gregori [154]). In modem terminology he obtained a sort of right K -completion.
Stoltenberg's work was continued by Carlson and Hicks [80], Carter and Hicks
[83], Csaszar [102], Popa [452] andmany others, mainly studying Pervin-Sieber
completeness. Note that Popa's completion need not contain the original space
as a subspace.
Fletcher and Lindgren [198] showed that a totally bounded quasi-uniform
T}-space has a T}-compactification if and only if it is point-symmetric. Their
construction preserves both total boundedness and quasi-uniform weight and
coincides with the uniform completion whenever the quasi-uniformity under
consideration is a uniformity. For the Pervin quasi-uniformity they obtained as
the underlying topological space of the compactification the Wallman compact-
ification.
A completion theory having many nice properties for a subc1ass of quasi-
uniform spaces was recently found by Doitchinov [135]. He studied a property
which is now called Doitchinov or D-completeness. In his honour, as usual, we
shall call a filter <?Ji on a quasi-uniform space (X, au) a D-Cauchy filter provided
that there exists a co-filter C on X (i.e. for each U E au there are G E C
and F E <?Ji such that G x F ~ U). In this situation, (<?Ji, C) is said to be a
Cauchy filter pair. Observe that each convergent filter on a quasi-uniform space
is a D-Cauchy filter. A quasi-uniformity is called D-complete provided each
D-Cauchy filter converges in (X, au) [136]. D-completeness is a productive
property of quasi-uniform spaces.
Note that these concepts of Cauchy filter and completeness coincide with
the usual ones in uniform spaces. Of course, each convergence complete quasi-
uniform space is D-complete.
Subsequently Kopperman called a quasi-uniform space Cauchy bounded
[295] provided that any ultrafilter on it is a D-Cauchy filter. He showed that
Cauchy boundedness lies strictly between precompactness and total bound-
edness, and that each Cauchy bounded D-complete quasi-uniform space is
compact, while there are precompact D-complete quasi-uniform spaces that are
not compact. The concept of a D-Cauchy filter was also considered by Balaguer
[27] in bis study of the notion of a compressed filter for quasi-proximity struc-
tures. He observed that a quasi-uniform space (X, OU) is Cauchy bounded if and
only if the set of D-Cauchy filters coincides with the set of filters compressed
with respect to the induced quasi-proximity 8ou.
A quasi-uniform space (X, OU) is called strongly-D-complete provided that
each co-D-Cauchy filter has a -r(OU)-c1uster point (see [295], [180]). As the
name suggests, each strongly D-complete quasi-uniform space is D-complete.
From the definition given above for filters it should be c1ear what is meant
by a Cauchy pair 0/ nets in a quasi-uniform space. In fact Doitchinov's whole
theory can easily be based on Cauchy pairs of nets, as he did in [136]. A quasi-
pseudometric space will be called d-complete provided that each D-Cauchy
sequence converges.
Doitchinov observed that in order to obtain a reasonable completion theory it
is necessary to put restrictions on the c1ass of quasi-uniform spaces considered.
First he developed a conjugate invariant completion theory for his so-called bal-
anced quasi-metric spaces. A quasi-metric space (X, d) is called balanced [134]
provided that for each Cauchy pair (Xk, Yn) of sequences and all x, y E X we
have that d (x, y) ~ sUPnEw d (x, Yn) + SUPkEW d (Xk, y). The usual quasi-metric
on the Sorgenfrey line is balanced and d-complete. A d-complete subspace of
a balanced d-complete quasi-metric space need not be c1osed.
He showed that each balanced quasi-metric space (X, d) has a standard
(necessarily unique up to quasi-isometries) balanced d-completion (X+, d+)
(in the sense that X is quasi-isometrically embedded as a dense subspace in
X+ and that each quasi-uniformly continuous map / : (X, d) ~ (Y, c) into
a d-complete balanced quasi-metric space (Y, c) can be uniquely extended to
a quasi-uniformly continuous map on X+). Furthermore the completion of the
conjugate of a balanced quasi-metric space can be identified with the conjugate
of its completion. For metric spaces the construction yields the usual metric
completion.
Then Doitchinov went on to extend his theory to quasi-uniform spaces by
introducing the concept of a quiet quasi-uniformity. Essentially the same concept
was independently found by Deak [117] using the idea of a weakly concentrated
Cauchy filter pair. Deak called a Cauchy filter pair (~, cg) on a quasi-uniform
space weakly concentrated if for any entourage U there exists an entourage V
such that V-1(y) E ~ and V(x) E cg imply that (x, y) E U. He showed that
each Cauchy filter pair that it is weakly concentrated contains a coarsest one
among the Cauchy filter pairs coarser than it.
He also said that a family of Cauchy filter pairs is uniformly weakly concen-
trated if the above condition holds for each filter pair, with V depending only on
U, but not on the filter pair. Using this terminology, a quasi-uniformity is called
quiet if the collection of its Cauchy filter pairs is uniformly weakly concen-
trated [135]. Quietness is a productive and hereditary property of quasi-uniform
spaces.
The importance of quiet quasi-uniformities stems from the fact that they
possess a satisfactory completion theory. Doitchinov [135], [136] showed that
each quiet quasi-uniform To-space (X, OU) has a standard D-completion, which
is now called its Doitchinov completion, i.e. there is an (up to isomorphism)
uniquely determined quiet D-complete quasi-uniform To-space (X+, OU+) into
which (X, OU) is embedded as a dense subspace and onto which each quasi-
uniformly continuous map f : (X, OU) ~ (Y, "V) into an arbitrary quiet D-
complete quasi-uniform To-space (Y, "V) can be uniquely extended such that the
extension is quasi-uniformly continuous.
The Doitchinov completion of the conjugate of a quiet quasi-uniform To-
space can be identified with the conjugate of its Doitchinov completion. Hence
the conjugate of a D-complete quiet quasi-uniform space is quiet and D-
complete. For uniform To-spaces the construction of the Doitchinov completion
coincides with the usual completion.
The induced quasi-uniformity OUd of any balanced quasi-metric space (X, d)
is quiet. If (X, d) is a quasi-metric space such that OUd is quiet, then (X, d) is
d-complete if and only if OUd is D-complete.
In [126] Dek showed that for a quiet quasi-uniform To-space X, up to
quasi-uniform isomorphism, X+ is the only D-complete quiet quasi-uniform
To-space in which X is doubly dense.
He extended parts of the theory of quiet quasi-uniform spaces to two larger
c1asses of quasi-uniform spaces that he had called weakly quiet and subquiet
[126], although at cost of losing some good properties of Doitchinov's original
construction. For instance he gave an example of a tota1ly bounded subquiet
quasi-uniformity that is not a uniformity, while each quiet totally bounded quasi-
uniform space is known to be uniform [182], [314]. Interestingly, the original
proof of the latter result due to Fletcher and Hunsaker is based on the Doitchinov
completion.
A discussion of some aspects of Doitchinov's completion theory from a
nonstandard point of view was given by Render [479]. Among other things he
observed that a totally bounded quasi-uniform space has a uniformly regular
D-completion if and only if it is uniform.
More generally, in [127] Dek looked for quasi-uniform completeness prop-
erties and corresponding completions that are symmetric in the following sense:
(i) OU is complete if and only if OU -1 is so; and () the completion of OU- 1
is isomorphic to the conjugate of the completion of OU. Several bitopological
notions of quasi-uniform completeness were analysed by him. For example
he showed that each quasi-uniformity has an St-completion where a quasi-
uniformity is called St-complete provided that each stable Cauchy filter pair
converges. (In order to avoid a dash with the concept of Smyth completeness
we have slightly modified his terminology.)
Although the dass of quiet quasi-uniform spaces has numerous nice prop-
erties, many quasi-uniformities encountered in practical applications lead to
nonregular spaces and, since each quiet quasi-uniformity induces aregular topol-
ogy [136], cannot be quiet. For this reason, other dasses of quasi-uniform spaces
that have canonical D-complete extensions in which a copy of the original space
is densely embedded have been investigated.
In his studies on D-completions [103], [104] Csaszar showed among other
things that every quasi-uniform space has a D-complete uniformly loose exten-
sion.
With the help of the envelopes of certain filters, Doitchinov [139] built a
D-complete extension for an arbitrary stable quasi-uniform To-space, which he
called its (standard) E-completion (envelope completion).
Let us recall that for a filter cg;; on a quasi-uniform space (X, CU) the filter
generated by {U(F) : F E cg;;, U E CU} is said to be the envelope or roundifica-
tion of cg;;. A filter that coincides with its envelope is called round (see e.g. [525],
[101]). A filter cg;; on a quasi-uniform space (X, CU) is called stable provided that
nFe'!fU (F) E cg;; whenever U E CU. In the theory of quasi-uniform spaces the
latter concept was introduced by Csaszar [101].
In [139] Doitchinov said that a quasi-uniformity is stable provided that each
D-Cauchy filter is stable. Obviously, all uniformities are stable.
Note that neighborhood filters of points are stable D-Cauchy filters. It is
readily verified that the (nonempty) intersection of a family of stable filters is
stable; moreover a filter is stable if and only if its envelope is stable [117].
There exist quiet quasi-uniform spaces that are not stable, as well as sta-
ble quasi-uniform spaces that are not quiet. The standard E-completion of a
stable quasi-uniform To-space need not be stable. Furthermore the standard E-
completion of a quiet stable quasi-uniform To-space can be different from its
Doitchinov completion, although both extensions yield the usual completion for
uniform spaces ([127], [139]).
Subsequently, Deak [127] extended Doitchinov's construction of the E-
completion of a stable quasi-uniform space to substable quasi-uniform To-
spaces. (A quasi-uniform space is called substable if every D-Cauchy filter
is finer than some stable D-Cauchy filter.)
Some basic properties of stable quasi-uniformities were exhibited by Jun-
nila and Knzi in [268]: There exist stable quasi-uniformities which are not
the supremum of stable quasi-pseudometric quasi-uniformities. Stability is pre-
served by initial constructions such as subspaces and products. The conjugate of
a quasi-uniformity is hereditarily precompact if and only if each (ultra)filter is
stable. (That result was independently obtained by Deak [127].) Consequently a
quasi-uniform space whose conjugate is hereditarily precompact is stable. Fur-
thermore they showed that a quasi-uniform space that is countably compact or

Cauchy bounded is stable if and only if its conjugate is hereditarily precompact.
The main part of their paper is devoted to stable quasi-pseudometrics (Le.
quasi-pseudometrics that induce a stable quasi-uniformity). The usual quasi-
metric on the Sorgenfrey line yields an example of a doubly stable quasi-metric.
Among other things they obtained the following results: Each regular doubly
stable quasi-pseudometric space is subparacompact and perfect. It has a G &-
diagonal if it is a Hausdorff space. The conjugate of a stable quasi-pseudometric
space is (hereditarily) weakly submetacompact. Every regular CT-metacompact
stable quasi-pseudometric space is paracompact and each regular stable quasi-
pseudometric space with a CT-point-finite base is pseudo-metrizable. More-
over every regular quasi-developable stable quasi-metric space is a Moore
space. Furthermore they observed that for a stable quasi-pseudometric space
the following conditions are equivalent: separable, ccc, weakly Lindelf and
pseudo-~I-compact. They also showed that each completely regular pseudo-
compact stable quasi-pseudometric space is compact and that each Lindelf
stable quasi-pseudometric space is hereditarily separable.
No useful characterization of those topological spaces that admit a stable
quasi-uniformity with a countable base seems to be known.
In [130] Dek and Romaguera introduced and studied co-stable quasi-
uniformities. They called a quasi-uniform space co-stahle if each co-D-Cauchy
filter is stable. They showed that each mixed-symmetric quiet quasi-uniform
space is co-stable. Furthermore D-completeness, strong D-completeness and
bicompleteness coincide in co-stable quiet quasi-uniform spaces. These two
results improved on earlier related work due to Dek [122] and Knzi [322]. A
quiet space was shown to be co-stable if and only if its D-completion is point-
symmetrie. Furthermore Dek and Romaguera called a quasi-uniform space
strongly co-stahle provided that each co-D-Cauchy filter is stable with respect
to its associated supremum uniformity. For a quiet quasi-uniform space the
properties of co-stability and strong co-stability are equivalent.
Some first reflections on applications of nonstandard methods in the theory
of quasi-uniform spaces go back to Fletcher and Lindgren [188]. Recently, Ren-
der [479] took another look at Pervin-Sieber completions using methods from
non standard analysis. He presented a method of constructing T2-completions.
Ward [576] had shown that every point-symmetric quasi-uniform Tl-space has
a Tl-completion. In fact he had proved that a Tl-quasi-uniform space (X, OlL)
has a Tl-completion if and only if for each Cauchy filter ;g; on (X, OlL) any
(OlL -1 )-cluster point of;g; is a (OlL)-cluster point of;g;. His construction of the
completion was motivated by the Katetov extension of a Hausdorff space.
Render now proved that each quasi-uniformity that contains a compatible
uniformity has a (quasi-uniform) T2-completion. For locally compact spaces
his method can be modified to yield quasi-uniform T2-compactifications. He
also obtained a (complicated) necessary condition for the existence of a T2-

completion. In [480] he presented a standard proof of this result on T2-
completions. Let us also recall that in [197, Proposition 3.48] Fletcher and
Lindgren had shown that a completely regular totally bounded T2-quasi-uniform
space (X, 'V) has a T2-compactification if and only if'V contains a uniformity
compatible with 'l' ('V).
Two further important (related) completion theories for quasi-uniform resp.
quasi-pseudometric spaces will be discussed in Section 11: Smyth and Sn-
derhauf elaborated the concept of a topological quasi-uniform space and its
completion. Bonsangue, Rutten and Van Breugel considered completions of
(extended) quasi-pseudometric spaces via the Yoneda embedding.
Csaszar started a general study of extensions of quasi-uniform spaces in
[100], [101]. His work was later continued mainly by Deak and Losonczi (see
the survey articles [108], [124]).
The basic problem on extensions is the following [101]: Let OU, be a quasi-
uniformity on X, ~ the topology induced by ou', and:J an extension of ~ defined
on the carrier set Y 2 X; describe those quasi-uniformities W extending OU, that
are compatible with :J, or give at least necessary andJor sufficient conditions
for the existence of such quasi-uniform extensions. Often such conditions are
formulated with the help of the traces s(y) in X of the :J-neighborhood filters
of the points y E Y. We recall that it can happen that several topologies :J on Y
furnish the same filters s(y); among them, there are always a coarsest one and a
finest one, called the strict extension and the [oose extension of ~ with respect
to the trace filters s (y).
The special cases where W is transitive or totally bounded (see e.g. [109],
[111]), or the remainder Y \ X is finite, or X is dense, doubly dense or supdense
in Y, have attracted special attention.
In the following we discuss some articles dealing with such extension
problems for quasi-uniformities. The following basic results were obtained by
Csaszar in [101]. A necessary condition for the existence of a quasi-uniform
extension is that s (y) is round for any y E Y \ X. This condition is sufficient
in the case that :J is a loose extension of ~. If there is at least one extension of
OU, compatible with :J then there exists a finest one among all such extensions.
Indeed, one can formulate as a general rule of thumb that if there exists a W
then there is a finest one, but in general there is no coarsest one (see Deak's
example [119]).
In [100] Csaszar found an (involved) solution to a problem stated in [101]
by giving a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a compatible
uniformly regular quasi-uniform extension.
Ferrario and Knzi [150] showed (see [124]) that ifOU, is a compatible quasi-
uniformity on a Skula-dense (= b-dense) subspace of a topological space, then
OlL has a compatible extension to the whole space if and only if the trace filters
are stable. In this case such an extension is unique.
In [367] Losonczi conducted a thorough study of finite (dense) extensions
of quasi-uniformities for prescribed topologies. In particular he investigated the
lattice (or semilattice) of compatible extensions. In [101] Csaszar had shown
for strict extensions that if Y \ X is finite then it is necessary and sufficient for
the existence of an extension of OlL to ~ that the trace filters are round and tarne.
(A filter rg; on a quasi-uniform space (X, OlL) is called tarne if for any U E OlL
there is S E rg; such that S ~ U (x) whenever rg; converges to x in the topology
induced by OlL.) In [367, Corollary 4.16] Losonczi obtained a similar result for
arbitrary finite extensions.
The problem on extensions has further variants, some of which we consider
next. Given a quasi-uniformity OlL and a (doubly dense) extension ofthe induced
bitopology, Dek [117] looked for conditions guaranteeing that there is an
extension of OlL compatible with the bitopological extension. Most of his results
were formulated in terms of trace filter pairs. So he showed that there exists an
extension of a quasi-uniformity compatible with a given system of trace filter
pairs if and only if each trace filter pair is round and Cauchy.
In [121] he established that if a quasi-uniformity can be extended to an
extension of the induced topology (bitopology), then it can be extended to any
finer topological (completely regular bitopological) extension belonging to the
same system of trace filters (filter pairs). The problem of extensions with small
quasi-uniform weight was also considered.
He also noted [117] (compare [105]) that a supdense extension compatible
with given trace filter pairs exists if and only if they are linked, round and
Cauchy. Such an extension is necessarily unique.
Furthermore he proved in [129] that there exists a (so-called) doubly uni-
formly strict extension of a quasi-uniformity for prescribed trace filter pairs
if and only if they are uniformly weakly concentrated and minimal Cauchy.
Similarly, he showed that there exists a doubly uniformly regular extension for
prescribed trace filter pairs if and only if they are minimal Cauchy and the
ultrafilter pairs finer than trace filter pairs are uniformly weakly concentrated.
In [106] Csaszar investigated quasi-uniform extensions for prescribed traces
of entourages. In particular, uniformly strict extensions were considered.
The general problem of simultaneous quasi-uniform extensions in a topolog-
ical space is the following: In a topological space (X, 5") there are given subsets
Xi ~ X (i Elf. 0) and on each Xi, a (totally bounded) quasi-uniformity OlLi.
The problem is to find necessary and sufficient conditions under which there
exists a (totally bounded) quasi-uniformity OlL on X such that r(OlL) = 5" and
the restriction OlLlXi of OlL to Xi coincides with OlLi (i E I) (see e.g. [112]). The
special case of finite partitions was dealt with by Csaszar in [107]. His work
was continued by Losonczi [368].
Deak carefully analysed the general extension problem for quasi-

pseudometrics and quasi-uniformities from subspaces to the whole space. His
main results were the following [123], [124]:
Any quasi-uniformity can be extended from a c10sed subspace of a topo-
logical space to the whole space in a compatible way. (The construction is
essentially due to Bing.)
A compatible quasi-uniformity given on an open subspace of a topological
space has an extension to a compatible quasi-uniformity of the whole space if
and only if the trace filters are round.
A bounded compatible quasi-metric d can be extended compatibly from
a subspace X of a topological space (Y, ~) to the whole space if and only
if ~ is quasi-metrizable and the quasi-uniformity induced by d has such an
extension. The analogue ofHausdorff's extension theorem for metrics holds for
bounded quasi-metrics, but not for unbounded ones. In [505] Romaguera and
Salbany showed that a bounded compatible bicomplete quasi-pseudometric on
a subspace of a bicompletely quasi-pseudometrizable bispace has a bicomplete
(compatible) extension if and only if the trace filter pairs are round and Cauchy.
In [331] Knzi and Lthy considered the following general question: If
(X, CU) is a quasi-uniform space having a doubly dense (resp. supdense) sub-
space with a given property, does (X, CU) have that property, too? Of course, the
answers to these questions are negative in general; however they are positive for
several important properties of quasi-uniform spaces. For instance they noted
that each quasi-uniform space having a supdense transitive (resp. stable, quiet)
subspace is transitive (resp. stable, quiet), while the corresponding result does
not hold for the property of point-symmetry or local symmetry. (On the other
hand Deak [129] observed that it holds for uniform local symmetry.) Among
other things in [331] it was also shown that a quasi-uniform space having a
doubly dense Smyth symmetric (resp. uniform) subspace is Smyth symmetric
(resp. uniform).
The study of Knzi and Lthy was continued by Deak in [129]. He studied
systematically whether various kinds of symmetry properties as weIl as vari-
ous properties related to quietness are preserved by firm (= supdense), doubly
uniformly strict or doubly strict extensions of quasi-uniform spaces.
Aarts and Mrsevic used quasi-proximities in their construction of cocom-
pact extensions of topological spaces in [2]. Cocompactness has its roots in an
analysis of the Baire Category Theorem due to de Groot.
7. Some Special Classes of Quasi-uniformities
This section contains interesting facts about various c1asses of quasi-uniformities,

which were introduced in the past fifty years, and some of their most important
applications. It is also inc1uded into this paper as a kind of glossary in order
to help the reader to understand better some of the results mentioned in other
seetions.
The following two c1asses of quasi-uniformities [415, p. 37 and p. 41] are
dealt with in the book by Murdeshwar and Naimpally in eonnection with their
diseussion ofthe Ro resp. regularity separation axiom (see also [424]): A quasi-
uniformity OlL is ealled point-symmetrie if r(OlL) ~ r(OlL- i ). It is said to be
loeally symmetrie if for eaeh U E OlL and x E X there is V E OlL sueh that
V-i V(x) ~ U(x). Murdeshwar and Naimpally proved that a topological spaee
is an Ro- (resp. regular) spaee if and only if it admits a point-symmetrie (resp.
loeally symmetrie) quasi-uniformity. In faet for Ro- (resp. regular) spaees the
Pervin quasi-uniformity has the eorresponding property.
The eoneept of point-symmetry was named by Salbany [518]. Point-
symmetrie quasi-uniformities were for instanee also studied by Carlson [79]
(under the name "Ioeally right symmetrie"). He showed that this property
eharaeterizes those quasi-uniform spaees for whieh the eolleetion of quasi-
uniform eoverings forms a nearness strueture with the same c10sure operator.
In [556] Stoltenberg ealled a quasi-metrie strong provided that it induees a
point-symmetrie quasi-uniformity.
The eonjugate of a point-symmetrie quasi-uniformity is now often ealled
small-set symmetrie. This eoneept was originally defined by Fleteher and Hun-
saker [179]. It is equivalent to the eondition that for eaeh open set G and
eaeh entourage V, V(G) eontains the c10sure of G (see [181]). The given
eharaeterization was obtained subsequently in [333]. The eoneept seems to be
very useful in the theory of funetion spaees (see Seetion 9).
A quasi-uniformity OlL is ealled equinormal [195] if for eaeh pair of c10sed
disjoint sets A and B there is U E OlL sueh that U (A) n B = 0. The study of
these quasi-uniform spaees began in a paper by Fleteher and Lindgren [195]
were the following results were established: Every topologie al spaee admits
an equinormal quasi-uniformity, namely the Pervin quasi-uniformity. A regular
spaee admits an equinormal quasi-metrie if and only if it admits an equinormal
metrie. A quasi-uniformity with the Lebesgue property is equinormal and any
equinormal quasi-uniformity eompatible with a regular (resp. Ro-) topology is
loeally symmetrie (resp. point-symmetrie).
A quasi-uniformity OlL on set X is ealled Lebesgue provided that for eaeh
open eover 6 of X there is an entourage V sueh that {V (x) : x E X} refines
6. The eoneept of a Lebesgue quasi-uniformity was diseussed by Fleteher and
Lindgren in [188], [197]. They showed for instanee that eaeh eompaet quasi-
uniform spaee satisfies it, that eaeh Lebesgue quasi-uniformity is eonvergenee
eomplete and that a topologieal spaee is orthoeompaet if and only if each open
eover is Lebesgue with respeet to the fine transitive quasi-uniformity. Mrsevic,
Reilly and Vamanamurthy [413] devoted a paper to the Lebesgue property,
mainly concentrating on quasi-pseudometric spaces and showing among other

things that every Lebesgue set in a quasi-pseudometric space is left K -complete.
Marin and Romaguera proved that every continuous function from a
Lebesgue quasi-uniform space to a small-set symmetric quasi-uniform space
is quasi-uniformly continuous [404]. That result improved results of many
authors (see for instance [197, p. 19], [413]). A useful corollary to their result
is the observation due to Knzi that each compact small-set symmetric quasi-
uniformity is a uniformity [323]. (Essentially the same result was obtained by
Render [481].)
It is also known that each open continuous map from a compact uniform
space into an arbitrary quasi-uniform space is uniformly open [328].
The property that every directed open cover of a quasi-uniform space (X, OU)
is Lebesgue (equivalendy, that each filter cg; satisfying the condition that
nFe'JiU-1 (F) :f= 0 whenever U E OU, possesses a cluster point) was studied by
Fletcher and Lindgren [193]. We shall call it cofinal completeness in this article.
The filters defined above are usually named weakly Cauchy filters.
Clearly, cofinal completeness implies completeness. Topological spaces the
fine transitive quasi-uniformity of which is cofinally complete are said to be
weakly orthocompact. Scott [533] showed that the latter property is preserved
under perfect (continuous) surjections.
In [341] Knzi and Romaguera observed that the quasi-uniformity generated
by an equinormal quasi-metric is cofinally complete, improving on a result in
[316].
Fletcher and Lindgren proved that a cofina1ly complete (Hausdorff) quasi-
uniform space is locally compact if and only if it satisfies a property which they
called uniform local compactness (i.e. there is an entourage V such that for each
point x of the space, V (x) is compact).
Let us note that Perez-Pefialver and Romaguera [444] called a quasi-uniform
space "Corson complete" provided that each weakly Cauchy filter clusters with
respect to the supremum topology. They also considered the weaker property
that each filter that is stable on the conjugate space clusters with respect to the
supremum topology.
They showed that in many respects the behaviour of these two proper-
ties (also discussed in their paper in equivalent net-versions) is similar to the
(weaker) condition of Smyth completeness (see below).
Furthermore in [445] they called a quasi-uniform space (X, OU) "cofinally
bicomplete" provided that the associated uniformity OU* is cofinally complete.
Theyalso considered quasi-uniformities OU such that OU* is uniformly locally
compact.
The concept of a left K -Cauchy sequence (resp. right K -Cauchy sequence)
originated with Kelly [277]. The modem terminology was introduced in [476].
Now any net (Xd)deD in a quasi-uniform space (X, OU) is called left K -Cauchy
(resp. right K -Cauchy) provided that for any entourage U E Oll, there is d E D
such that d2, dl E D and d2 :::: dl :::: d imply that (Xd" Xd2) E U (resp.
(Xd2' Xd,) E U). In papers dealing with problems in theoretical computer science
the terms forward resp. backward Cauchy nets are usually used for such nets.
Some categorical motivation for the concept of a left K -Cauchy sequence
was recently provided by Bentley and Hunsaker [39]. Unfortunately there are
convergent sequences in quasi-pseudometric spaces that are not left K -Cauchy.
In fact, a regular quasi-metric space in which each convergent sequence has a
left K -Cauchy subsequence is metrizable [333].
The corresponding concept for filters was introduced and mainly studied by
Romaguera [492], [496]: A filter c:; on a quasi-uniform space (X, OU) is said to
be left (resp. right) K -Cauchy provided that for each U E OU there is an FE'?;
such that U(x) E '?; (resp. U-l(x) E '?;) whenever x E F. A quasi-uniformity
is called left (right) K-complete provided that each left (right) K-Cauchy filter
converges.
Some basic results on these concepts are the following: Each left (resp.
right) K -Cauchy filter converges to its cluster points. Any right K -Cauchy filter
is stable. An ultrafilter is right K -Cauchy if and only if it is stable. A filter is
stable and left K -Cauchy if and only if it is Cauchy with respect to the supremum
uniformity. Using a technique due to Snderhauf, Knzi [322] showed that left
K -completeness defined by filters is equivalent to left K -completeness defined
by nets. In [338] he and Romaguera proved that the corresponding result also
holds for right K -completeness. Obviously, completeness in the sense of Pervin
and Sieber implies left K -completeness.
The behaviour of conditions from the area of K -completeness under various
kinds of maps was investigated by Knzi in [328]. For instance he showed that
the property that each co-stable filter clusters is preserved under uniformly
open continuous surjections between quasi-uniform spaces. (Here a filter was
called co-stable provided that it is stable in the conjugate space.) Note that the
latter property implies left K -completeness, which need not be preserved under
uniformly open continuous surjections.
Results of the Niemytzki-Tychonoff type have been established for many
completeness properties (compare also [343]). As noted above, Pervin and
Sieber [448] had shown that a topological space is compact if and only if each
compatible quasi-uniformity is complete (in their sense). Typical are also the
following results established by Alemany, Romaguera and Salbany: A quasi-
pseudometrizable space is countably compact if and only if every compatible
quasi-pseudometric is left K -complete (resp. right K -sequentially complete)
[502], [9]. A topological space is compact if and only if each compatible
quasi-uniformity is left (resp. right K -complete) [496]. On the other hand,
they observed that a quasi-metrizable space which admits only bicomplete
quasi-metrics is finite [503].
Romaguera [496] also established a Ward type result for Tl K -completions:

A Tl-quasi-uniform space (X, CU) has a Tl left (resp. right) K-completion if
and only if whenever '!J' is a left (resp. right) K -Cauchy filter on (X, CU) that
r(CU-I)-converges to some point x E X, then '!J' is r(CU)-convergent to x. In
[222] Romaguera in joint work with Gregori and Marin obtained some results
on a right K -completion of certain Tl-quasi-uniform spaces.
Corresponding results for Tl-completions have been established for many
other completeness properties of quasi-uniform and quasi-metric spaces.
Ferrer and Gregori [155] noted that quasi-regular left K -complete quasi-
pseudometric spaces are Baire spaces. That result was recently rediscovered by
Bentley, Herrlich and Hunsaker [37]. Further asymmetric methods to show that
certain topological spaces are Baire spaces were developed in [241]. Kelly had
already verified that the conjugate of a right K -sequentially complete quasi-
pseudometric space is a Baire space [277], [241].
Romaguera [492] also showed that a quasi-pseudometric space is left K-
sequentially complete if and only if its induced quasi-uniformity is left K-
complete. Left K -completeness of quasi-pseudometric spaces can also be char-
acterized by the condition that each co-stable filter has a cluster point [345].
Some fixed point theorems for such spaces were established by Hicks [243].
Improving on work ofFletcher and Lindgren [190], Romaguera [492] showed
that a metrizable space admits a left K -complete quasi-metric if and only if it
is completely metrizable (see also [328]).
Alemany and RQmaguera studied right K -(sequentially) complete quasi-
pseudometric spaces in [9]. They observed that an example due to Stoltenberg
[554, Example 2.4] is a right K -sequentially complete quasi-metric space that
is not right K -complete, but that each right K -sequentially complete quasi-
pseudometric R l-space is right K -complete. The terminology R I is due to Davis
[116]. Moreover they noted that the Sorgenfrey line, the Kofner plane and the
Pixley-Roy space over the reals all admit right K -complete quasi-metrics.
They also investigated the relationships between right K -sequential com-
pleteness and other well-known notions of quasi-metric completeness. In partic-
ular they noted that a metrizable space admits a right K -complete quasi-metric if
and only if it admits a bicomplete quasi-metric. (Recently Knzi noted that this
equivalence holds in fact in each quasi-metrizable Moore space). Furthermore
they characterized the bounded quasi-metric spaces having a quasi-metric right
K -(sequential) completion by a Ward type condition.
Knzi and Ryser showed in [345] that in any Lindelf right K -sequentially
complete quasi-pseudometric space each stable filter has a cluster point. On the
other hand the quasi-metric Sorgenfrey plane is right K -complete, but contains
a stable filter without cluster point.
A quasi-uniform space is hereditarily precompact if and only if each ul-
trafilter is left K -Cauchy; similarly a quasi-pseudometric space is hereditarily
precompact if and only if each sequence has a left K -Cauchy subsequence (see
[333], [321]).
In [322] Knzi characterized precompactness of a quasi-uniform space by
the condition that each maximal co-round filter is left K -Cauchy. With the help
of that result he showed that a quasi-uniform space is compact if and only if it is
precompact and left K -complete. The analogous result for quasi-pseudometrics
can readily be obtained by an application of Knig's Lemma [333], [321].
Romaguera [496] showed that the conjugate of each uniformly regular left
K -complete quasi-uniform space is right K -complete and that a uniformly reg-
ular quasi-uniform space is Smyth complete if and only if it is left K -complete.
The property of right K -completeness has tumed out to be useful in hyper
and function spaces (see Section 9).
A filter cg; on a quasi-uniform space (X, OlL) is called S-Cauchy provided
that for any U E OlL and S E cg; there is x E S with U (x) E cg;. The name was
chosen in honour of Smyth. These filters were called hereditarily Cauchy by
Deale [128]. A quasi-uniformity is said to be Smyth complete provided that each
round S-Cauchy filter is a neighborhood filter of a point. (Originally Smyth
required that the neighborhood filter should be unique in order to obtain To-
spaces.) This concept will be discussed more carefu1ly in Section 11. It can be
verified that a topological space is quasi-sober if and only if it admits a Smyth
complete quasi-uniformity.
In [322] Knzi explained the c10se connections that hold between left K-
Cauchy filters and S-Cauchy filters: A filter cg; on a quasi-uniform space is an
S-Cauchy filter if and only if there exists a left K -Cauchy filter 'je finer than
cg; such that the envelope of 'je is coarser than cg;. It follows that each left K-
Cauchy filter on a quasi-uniform space converges if and only if each S-Cauchy
filter converges.
A quasi-uniformity OlL on a set X is called unijormly regular provided that
for any U E OlL there is V E OlL such that V{x) S; U{x) whenever x E X.
Originally the concept of uniform regularity was introduced by Csaszar when
studying extensions [100].
Since quiet quasi-uniform spaces are (doubly) uniformly regular and quiet
spaces attracted a lot of attention recently, the property of uniform regularity
was studied thoroughly during the last few years.
Fletcher and Hunsaker [178] proved that every point-symmetric uniformly
regular D-complete quasi-uniform space is quiet. Every continuous quasi-metric
induces a uniformly regular quasi-uniformity and every Lebesgue quasi-
uniformity that is uniformly regular is quiet. (In this artic1e we call a quasi-
metric d continuous on a set X provided that for each p E X the function
dp : X -+ R defined by dp{x) = d{p, x) is r{d)-continuous [556], [490]; note
however that other authors have used a different terminology.)
Stoltenberg [556] observed that a quasi-metrie d on a set X is eontinuous

if and only if {y : d(x, y) < } S; {y : d(x, y) ~ } whenever x E X and
> O. He also noted that for a quasi-metrie spaee (X, d) the funetions d( ,x)
are eontinuous for eaeh x E X if and only if the quasi-metrie d- 1 is strong.
Fleteher and Hunsaker [178] established that the finest transitive quasi-
uniformity '?P!J of a topologie al spaee X is quiet and eonvergenee eomplete if it
is uniformly regular, and ~'!J is uniformly regular if X is regular, orthoeompaet
and semistratifiable. It is also known that the fine quasi-uniformity of eaeh
quasi-metrizable Moore spaee is uniformly regular.
Answering a question of Doitehinov, in a joint paper Fleteher, Hejeman and
Hunsaker [176] showed that the regular non-eompletely regular spaee due to
Mysior admits a quiet D-eomplete quasi-uniformity. Knzi [313] proved that
any T2-spaee that is eountably eompaet and sequential (or w-bounded and of
eountable tightness) is eompletely regular provided that it admits a uniformly
regular quasi-uniformity. Henee a eonstruetion due to Vaughan [569] yields an
example of a regular Tl-spaee that does not admit any uniformly regular quasi-
uniformity. Sinee eaeh quiet quasi-uniformity is uniformly regular, it follows
that the question ofFleteher, Hejeman and Hunsaker [176] whether eaeh regular
Tl-spaee admits a quiet quasi-uniformity has a negative answer.
Doitehinov [134] observed that eaeh balaneed quasi-metrie spaee is eom-
pletely regular. Deak: [120] then gave an example of a quiet quasi-metrie spaee
that is not eompletely regular.
Deak: [125] ealled a quasi-uniform spaee (X, OU) mixed-symmetrie provided
that whenever A is a closed, B is an open subset of (X, OU) and there is U E OU
sueh that U(A) n B = 0, then there is V E OU sueh that V(B) n A = 0. Sim-
ilarly a quasi-uniform spaee is ealled closed symmetrie (resp. open symmetrie)
provided that in the definition above the eondition holds for closed (resp. open)
sets A and B. Every regular mixed-symmetrie quasi-uniform spaee is loeally
symmetrie.
Closed symmetrie quasi-uniform spaees were originally ealled semi-
symmetrie. The latter property, whieh is dearly implied by equinormality, was
introdueed by Deak: [122] to answer the following question of Fleteher and
Hunsaker [180] positively: Does there exist a natural dass of quasi-uniform
spaees eontaining all uniform spaees and all equinormal quiet spaees in whieh
the eoneepts of D-eompleteness, strong D-eompleteness and bicompleteness
eoincide? In [180] they showed that eaeh uniformly regular D-eomplete quasi-
uniform spaee is bicomplete and every equinormal uniformly regular bieomplete
quasi-uniform spaee is D-eomplete. Furthermore they proved that strong D-
eompleteness and D-eompleteness eoincide in loeally symmetrie quasi-uniform
spaees.
Deak: established that the dass of dosed symmetrie uniformly regular quasi-
UnifOl1n spaees allows a positive answer to the question posed above. Subse-
quently in [322] Knzi proved that a mixed-symmetrie quiet quasi-uniform

space is D-complete if and only if it is bicomplete.
Mixed symmetry generalizes both open and c10sed symmetry [125]. Deal<:
introduced it to show that each mixed-symmetrie uniformly regular quasi-
uniform space is quiet, improving in this way simultaneously the two corre-
sponding results formulated for open and c10sed symmetry presented in [333].
As noted above, subsequently Deal<: and Romaguera [130] established the equiv-
alence of bicompleteness, D-completeness and strong D-completeness even in
co-stable quiet quasi-uniform spaces. On the other hand they observed that
co-stable uniformly regular quasi-uniformities need not be quiet.
A quasi-uniform space (X, OU) is called uniformly loeally symmetrie pro-
vided that for each U E OU there exists V E OU such that for each x E X
there is W E OU with W- 1 (V(x ~ U(x). The latter concept was introduced
by Deal<: [129] where he also established the following two main results: Each
mixed-symmetrie uniformly regular quasi-uniform space is uniformly locally
symmetrie, and each uniformly locally symmetrie quasi-uniform space is quiet.
These results help to explain the results of [333] and [125] cited in the last
paragraph.
A quasi-uniformity inducing a proximity is called proximally symmetrie or
Smyth symmetrie. This concept, which obviously strengthens open symmetry
as well as c10sed symmetry, was studied by Fleteher and Hunsaker in [181].
They showed that each proximally symmetrie quasi-uniform space is quiet, and
in the c1ass of small-set symmetrie quasi-uniform spaces the concepts of open
symmetry, c10sed symmetry and proximal symmetry are all equivalent.
Deale [129] used the idea of weak concentration of filter pairs to define and
study various other properties of quasi-uniform spaces. Here we shall only give
a small sampie of these concepts and results.
For instance he called a quasi-uniformity loeally quiet if each Cauchy filter
pair is weakly concentrated; furthermore he said that a quasi-uniformity is
weakly co-regular [129] provided that those filter pairs whose first member
is fixed are weakly concentrated. Each locally quiet and each uniformly regular
quasi-uniform space is weakly co-regular. Generalizing well-known results he
showed among other things that for a weakly co-regular quasi-uniformity OU,
OU -1 is D-complete if OU is D-complete, and D-completeness implies bicom-
pleteness. He also noted that any locally quiet doubly co-stable quasi-uniformity
is quiet.
Furthermore in [129] he established that a quasi-uniformity is uniformly
regular (resp. doubly uniformly regular) if and only if the collection of all
filter pairs whose first member is fixed (resp. the collection of all (pairwise)
convergent filter pairs) is uniformly weakly concentrated.
Deale [129] also studied various properties based on the idea that certain
filter pairs should contain a minimal Cauchy filter pair. Again we shall not go
into details. For instance he called a quasi-uniformity fully Cauehy if for any
Cauchy filter pair there is a coarsest one among the Cauchy filter pairs coarser
than it; according to him a quasi-uniformity is said to be pointwise Cauehy if
any Cauchy filter pair whose first member is fixed has a coarsest one among the
Cauchy filter pairs coarser than it.
Among the results that he obtained let us mention the following ones [129]:
Each locally quiet quasi-uniformity is fully Cauchy. Each weakly co-regular
quasi-uniformity is pointwise Cauchy. Furthermore, each fully Cauchy quasi-
uniformity is Cauchy, where he called a quasi-uniformity Cauehy provided that
(~l n 'l, ~2 n '(2) is Cauchy whenever (~l, ~2) and ('l, '(2) are Cauchy filter
pairs that are linked (i.e. each member of ~i hits each member Of'i (i E {l, 2}).
He called a quasi-uniformity filter-symmetrie provided that (~l, ~2) is
a Cauchy filter pair whenever (~2, ~t> is a Cauchy filter pair. Any proxi-
mally symmetric quasi-uniformity is filter-symmetric. He verified that a quasi-
uniformity is filter-symmetric if and only if it is quiet and doubly co-stable;
any Cauchy bounded filter-symmetric quasi-uniformity was shown to be a uni-
formity. The latter result generalized the corresponding result of [333] about
Smyth symmetry.
Improving on results of Fletcher and Hunsaker [182] and Knzi [314], he
also established that any totally bounded Cauchy quasi-uniformity is a unifor-
mity; therefore in particular each quiet totally bounded quasi-uniformity is a
uniformity.
In [498] Romaguera considered a kind of (symmetrized) weakening of the
condition of quietness in quasi-uniform spaces, which he calledfitting and which
is preserved under conjugation and bicompletion. He showed that each fitting
totally bounded quasi-uniformity is a uniformity and that each fitting quasi-
uniform space satisfies a weakened (symmetrized) version ofuniformregularity
which he named unijormly Ro.
A quasi-uniformity Oll, on a set X is called monotonie [95] provided that
there exists an operator M : Oll, --+ Oll, such that M(U) ~ M(V) whenever
U, V E Oll, and U ~ V, and such that M(U)2 ~ U whenever U E Oll,. Obviously,
each quasi-uniformity with a base that is well-ordered by reverse (set-theoretic)
inc1usion is monotonic.
The concept of monotonicity for uniform structures is due to Gartside and
Moody [218], [95].1t came up in their study of monotonic topological properties.
They showed that a topological Tl-space admits a monotonic uniformity if and
only if it is monotonically normal and has an orthobase, i.e. it is protometrizable.
For such spaces the finest compatible uniformity is monotonic.
In [95] it was shown that the unique compatible quasi-uniformity of the
cofinite topology on an uncountable set is monotonic.
The concept of a monotonie quasi-unijormity was investigated to some
extent by Junnila and Knzi in their study of monotonically orthocompact
spaees [267]. Among other things they showed that the fine quasi-uniformity
of eaeh eountable first-eountable TI-spaee is monotonie and that the fine quasi-
uniformity of the reals, endowed with the usual topology, is not monotonie.
Furthermore they established that eaeh Tl -spaee with an orthobase admits a
monotonie quasi-uniformity and that there is a eountable spaee that does not
admit any monotonie quasi-uniformity. It still seems to be unknown whether
eaeh monotonieally orthoeompaet spaee admits a monotonie quasi-uniformity.
8. Uniform Ordered Spaces
A topological T2-ordered space (X, rzf,:S) is a topologieal spaee (X, rzf)

equipped with a rzf x rzf -c1osed partial order :So An arbitrary topologie al T2-spaee
may be eonsidered a topologieal ordered spaee by equipping it with equality
as its partial order. Henee the theory of topologie al ordered spaees generalizes
c1assieal results from topology and funetional analysis. The origins of the theory
ofpartially ordered topologieal spaees were surveyed by Choe in [89], where for
T2-ordered spaees the term "eontinuously ordered" was used. In the following
we shall eoneentrate on the theory of uniformizable ordered spaees, whieh is
mainly due to N aehbin.
In his monograph [420] he studied norma1ly and eompaetly preordered
spaees and initiated the study of ordered eompaetifieations. For instanee, gen-
eralizing Urysohn's Lemma, he showed that a topologieal ordered spaee X is
normally ordered if and only if for any disjoint c10sed sets A and B where A
is a lower set and B is an upper set, there is an inereasing eontinuous bounded
real-valued funetion f defined on X sueh that f(A) = 0 and f(B) = 1.
He observed that for any quasi-uniform To-spaee (X, OU), the tripie
(X, rzf(OU*), nOU) is a topologieal ordered spaee and ealled the topologieal or-
dered spaees determined by this eonstruetion eompletely regular (or uniformiz-
able) ordered spaees. He eharaeterized the topologieal ordered spaees X that
allow T2-order(ed) eompaetifieations as the eompletely regular ordered spaees
and eonstrueted the largest sueh T2 -order eompaetifieation by embedding X
into an ordered eube with Cfb(X, t) many faetor spaees where Cfb(X, t) denotes
the set all eontinuous inereasing funetions from X into the unit interval. The
latter order eompaetifieation is now ealled the Nachbin compactification oX.
It is eharaeterized by the property that any eontinuous, inereasing funetion from
X into any eompaet T2-ordered spaee ean be lifted to oX. For instanee, the
Naehbin eompaetifieation of the open unit interval is the c10sed unit interval;
for eompletely regular ordered spaees equipped with the diserete order, namely
equality, it agrees with the Ceeh-Stone eompaetifieation.
Naehbin showed that a topologieal ordered spaee (X, rzf, :s) is eompletely
regular ordered provided that the following two eonditions are satisfied:
(i) If a, b E X such that f(a) ~ f(b) whenever f : X ~ [0,1] is

continuous and increasing, then a ~ b.
() For any point a E X and neighborhood V of a there are two continuous
maps f, g : X ~ [0, 1] such that f is continuous and increasing, g is continuous
and decreasing, f(a) = g(a) = 1 and min{f(x), g(x)} = 0 for any x EX \ V.
Each completely regular ordered space is strongly orderconvex, i.e. the
family consisting of all open upper sets and all open lower sets forms a subbase
for the topology. An example of a partially ordered space with a completely
regular topology that is not completely regular ordered was given by Schwarz
and Weck-Schwarz [532].
By a result due to Nachbin any compact T2-ordered space (X, '5, ~) is
determined by a unique quasi-uniformity OlL. It consists of the set of all '5 x '5-
neighborhoods of ~ in the product space X x X. Of course, the quasi-uniformity
OlL is totally bounded and bicomplete. Furthermore, r(OlL) is the upper and
r(0lL- 1) the lower topology of X.
Priestley [458] gave an important application of Nachbin's theory in her
representation theory for distributive lattices. She showed that every compact
totally ordered disconnected (topological ordered) space arises as the (so-called)
dual of a distributive lattice and that each distributive lattice is isomorphic to the
lattice of dopen upper sets of its dual space. In fact, the category of bounded
distributive lattices together with lattice-homomorphisms preserving 0 and 1,
and the category of compact totally ordered disconnected spaces together with
continuous increasing maps are dual to each other.
The compact totally ordered disconnected spaces turn out to be exactly those
compact T2-ordered spaces whose determining quasi-uniformity is transitive
(see [63]).
In [354] Lal and Singal presented aversion of Nachbin's theory based on
quasi-proximities and suitable for constructing order compactifications.
Many important dassical results on order compactifications are due to Blat-
ter. In their fundamental paper [45] he and Seever described quasi-proximities
as lattice cones of functions. They applied their results to bicompactifications
of quasi-proximity spaces and compactifications of completely regular ordered
spaces. Their paper was motivated by some problems from approximation
theory.
In [43] Blatter studied order compactifications oftotally ordered topological
spaces. He showed that a completely regular ordered space whose order is total
has a smallest order compactification. Furthermore he observed that such a
space has an (up to equivalence) unique order compactification if and only if
every nonempty proper dopen upper set has an infimum. Hence for instance
the Sorgenfrey line has a unique order compactification. These investigations
were later continued by Kent and Richmond [280]. It was noted by Fletcher and
Lindgren [196] that the completely regular ordered spaces with total order are
exact1y the suborderable spaces.
In [44] Blatter extended results on algebras of real-valued continuous func-
tions due to Hewitt, which are related to the c1assical Stone-Weierstrass theorem,
to Nachbin's completely regular ordered spaces. He used his results to charac-
terize those completely regular ordered spaces that have a unique order com-
pactification. Subsequently Salbany [520] obtained a related characterization of
bitopological spaces that admit a unique quasi-uniformity.
Fletcher and Lindgren [196] used their theory of the bicompletion to advance
the theory of order compactifications and completions of completely regular
ordered spaces further. Their approach to constructing order completions of
completely regular ordered spaces with the help of the bicompletion of deter-
mining quasi-uniformities c1arified many of the results concerning Nachbin's
uniform ordered spaces obtained earlier (see also the papers by Redfield [466],
[467]). Their results were inc1uded in their book [197] where also various open
problems on topological ordered spaces were listed.
Some of them were studied in three papers by Knzi. In [309] he observed
that in a suborderable space the uniformity C(6(X) is convex if and only if each
c10sed discrete set is countable. (Recall that a quasi-uniformity Oll is called
convex provided that for each U E Oll there is V E Oll such that V ~ U and
V(x) is orderconvex whenever x EX. For instance, for any To-quasi-uniformity
Oll, the uniformity Oll * is convex with respect to nou. Also the fine uniformity of
any suborderable space is convex [196].) Moreover he proved that a completely
regular ordered space for which every compatible convex uniformity is totally
bounded, need not be pseudocompact.
In [318] he studied those topological ordered spaces X for which the set of
all neighborhoods of the partial order in the product topology forms a quasi-
uniformity that determines X. It was shown for instance that a topological
ordered space with a countably compact sequential topology satisfies the stated
condition if and only if the set of all neighborhoods of its diagonal is a uni-
formity. While each suborderable space has the property under consideration,
the real plane with its usual order and topology does not satisfy it. His in-
vestigations were motivated by the following problem posed by Fletcher and
Lindgren [197, p. 9]: For which quasi-uniform spaces (X, Oll) is the family of all
r(Oll* x Oll*)-neighborhoods of nou a quasi-uniformity compatible with r(Oll)?
In [319] he also obtained some characterization ofthose quasi-uniformities
Oll on a set X for which there does not exist a strictly coarser quasi-uniformity
on X that determines the same uniform ordered space as Oll. His characterization
sheds some light on the theory of minimal order compactifications of completely
regular ordered spaces.
In the spirit of Taimanov's c1assical theorem Hunsaker [257] obtained an ex-
tension theorem for continuous increasing mappings. He deduced that the quasi-
proximally continuous mappings are the only continuous, increasing mappings

from a completely regular ordered space into a compact ordered topologieal
space that can be lifted to the associated order compactification.
An interesting concept was studied by Lawson [359] who called a com-
pletely regular ordered space X strictly completely regular ordered if given a
closed lower (resp. upper) set A and a point x E X \ A, there exists a continuous
increasing function f : X -+ [0, 1] such that f(A) = 0 and f(x) = 1 (resp.
f (A) = 1 and f (x) = 0). It seems that the condition was first considered by
Canfell [68] who assumed incorrectly that it characterizes completely regular
ordered spaces.
Knzi [312] noted that a completely regular ordered space (X, CZJ, :::) is
strictly completely regular ordered if and only if the bispace (X, CZJU, CZJO) is
pairwise completely regular. Here CZJU resp. CZJo denotes the upper topology resp.
the lower topology of X.
Moreover he showed that a completely regular ordered I -space fulfils Law-
son's condition provided that it satisfies at least one of the following three
conditions: it is locally compact, it is a C-space, it is a topologieallattice. Let
us recall that according to Priestley [458] a topological ordered space is called
an I -space (resp. C -space) provided that A t and A -I- are open (resp. closed)
whenever A is open (resp. closed).
In [312] with the help of the Tychonoff plank Knzi constructed a completely
regular ordered C -space that is not strict1y completely regular ordered. His
example relies partiallyon an idea due to McCartan [408]. He later noted that
a modification of his space yields a non-pseudocompact completely regular
ordered space that is determined by a unique quasi-uniformity [319]. In [350]
Knzi and Watson gave another example of a completely regular ordered space
that is not strictly completely regular ordered and whieh has many additional
niee properties: It is an I -space, the topology CZJ of X is metrizable and the
bitopologieal space (X, CZJU, CZJO) is pairwise regular, but not pairwise completely
regular.
In [422] Nailana called a pairwise completely regular bispace (X, 0'>, 92,)
strictly completely regular provided that its topologies are the upper and lower
topologies of the completely regular ordered space (X, 0'> v 92" :::(lJ. (Here :::(lJ>
denotes the specialization order of 0'>.) He showed that the category of strict1y
completely regular bispaces is isomorphie to the category of strict1y completely
regular ordered spaces.
The functorial methods developed by Brmmer (see Seetion 4) were used by
Schauerte [526] in the context of completely regular ordered spaces, continuing
earlier work of Salbany. In [519] Salbany had examined, from a bitopolog-
ieal view, certain constructions relating to extensions that center around the
representation of aspace as a sort of subspace in a canonical product.
Kent and Richardson [279] introduced probabilistie quasi-metrie spaees and

used them to study the relationships that exist between certain probabilistic met-
ric spaces and some natural and intrinsic orders on such spaces. They obtained
many results that parallel standard results in Nachbin's theory.
Recently, Salbany and Todorov [524] obtained the Nachbin order compact-
ification of a given completely regular ordered space as nonstandard ordered
hull. They also presented a characterization of the class of completely regular
ordered spaces which are closed subspaces of products of copies of the ordered
realline.
In [13] Andrikopoulos and Stabakis reconsidered a difficult problem of
Nachbin that asks for conditions under which a partially ordered uniform space
is determined by a quasi-uniformity. For linear orders such a quasi-uniformity
exists (and is unique) if and only if the uniformity is convex (see e.g. [196]).
In [156] Ferrer and Gregori studied those completely regular linearly ordered
spaces that are determined by the Pervin quasi-uniformity of some subtopology.
Kent and Liu [278] investigated on a given completely regular ordered space
X those families of continuous increasing functions into [0, 1] that induce both
the order and topology on X and showed that for each such family there exists
a smallest order(ed) compactification of X with the property that each member
of the family can be extended over the compactification. Furthermore each
defining family generates in a natural way a totally bounded quasi-uniformity
on the space X whose bicompletion produces the ordered compactification.
In [578] Weber began his studies of the notion of a uniform lattice. He
showed that many theorems known for topological Riesz spaces and topological
Boolean rings can be proved for this weaker structure.
Recently Reinhold [478] investigated the structure of the complete join-
semilattice of all (non-equivalent) order(ed) compactifications of a completely
regular ordered space. Some research on the cardinality and structure of the
semilattice of ordered compactifications [410] was also done by Mooney and
Richmond (compare [411]).
Investigations on topological preordered spaces that are related to problems
in utility theory were for instance conducted by Herden (see [242]).
9. Hyperspaces and Function Spaces
While the monograph of Murdeshwar and Naimpally contains a small chapter

on quasi-uniformities on function spaces, neither function spaces nor hyper-
spaces are even mentioned in the book by Fletcher and Lindgren. In fact,
probably because only few results on uniformities on function spaces and
hyperspaces generalize straightforwardly to the quasi-uniform setting, the study
of quasi-uniformities on function spaces and hyperspaces made progress only
very slowly. Recently, however the interest in quasi-uniform function and hy-
perspaces increased considerably. Partially this fact can be explained by their
applications in theoretical computer science (see e.g. Snderhauf's thesis [558]
or Section 11).
The research dealing with quasi-uniformities on function spaces was initi-
ated by a paper of Naimpally [423] and investigations due to Fletcher and his
collaborators Liu and Seyedin (see e.g. [171], [174], [199], [535], [536], [537]),
who were mainly interested in applications of quasi-uniformities to the study of
topological homeomorphism groups.
Naimpally [423] showed that if Xis a topological space, (Y, 'V) is a quasi-
uniform space and ~(X, Y) is the family of continuous maps from X to (Y,
r ('V equipped with the quasi-uniformity 9Lv of quasi-uniform convergence,
then the evaluation map e : ~(X, Y) x X -+ Y defined by e(g, x) = g(x) is con-
tinuous, i.e. (~(X, y), 9Lv) is jointly continuous. Furthermore with Murdeshwar
he established that the topology induced on ~(X, Y) by the quasi-uniformity of
compact convergence is finer than the compact-open topology [414, Theorem
7.5].
In [171] Fletcher considered the full homeomorphism group H(X) of a so-
called representable (= strongly locally homogeneous [28]) topological space
X equipped with an appropriate topology of quasi-uniform convergence and in
[174] he observed that if (X, dU) is a quasi-uniform space and Ga subgroup of
H (X) such that each member of G is dU-quasi-uniformly continuous, then G is
a paratopological group (see Section 12) provided that it carries the topology of
quasi-uniform convergence with respect to dU. In [199, Example 3.2] Fletcher
and Liu (compare [324]) gave an example showing that in general G is not a
topological group.
Seyedin [535] proved that for an Ro-space X equipped with a compatible
point-symmetric quasi-uniformity dU and for a subgroup G of H (X) such that
G is quasi-equicontinuous with respect to dU, G is a topological group under
the topology of pointwise convergence; for an arbitrary quasi-uniformity dU the
method yields a paratopological group.
Several results obtained by some of these authors were over-optimistic and
had to be corrected later (e.g. by Cao and Render [70], [481]). Their investiga-
tions were continued by Kouphos and Papadopoulos in [298]. These two authors
studied exponentiallaws for function spaces equipped with the quasi-uniformity
of quasi-uniform convergence.
Concepts of boundedness in connection with function spaces were investi-
gated by Papadopoulos [437], [439]. A subset A ofaquasi-uniform space (X, dU)
is called bounded if given any entourage V there are n and finite F ~ X such
that A ~ V n (F). In the theory of quasi-uniform spaces the concept ofbounded-
ness was introduced by Murdeshwar and Theckedath [416]. Some bitopological
eoneepts of boundedness related to pseudoeompaetness were applied to the

quasi-pseudometrie setting in [217].
In the light of the progress made reeently in the area of quasi-uniform
spaees, the topie of quasi-uniform funetion spaees was reeonsidered in the
last years by many authors (see e.g. [337], [338], [481]). In [337] Knzi and
Romaguera diseussed various kinds of eompleteness properties of the quasi-
uniformity of quasi-uniform eonvergenee. For instanee they showed that for a
topologieal spaee X and a quasi-uniform spaee (Y, Oll) the quasi-uniformity of
quasi-uniform eonvergenee on the set of all funetions from X to Y is right K-
eomplete (bieomplete) if and only if Oll is right K -eomplete (bieomplete) and
that the eorresponding result does not hold for left K -eompleteness. Before, in
[436] Papadopoulos had shown that D-eompleteness is preserved provided that
Oll is quiet.
Romaguera [495] also observed that the quasi-uniformity of quasi-uniform
eonvergenee on the set C(6(X, Y) of eontinuous funetions from X to Y is bieom-
plete if and only if Oll is bicomplete.
Beeause of the diffieulties eneountered in developing a general theory, in
[435], [436], [438] Papadopoulos tried to foeus on appropriate subdasses of
quasi-uniform spaees (for instanee on quiet spaees). It followed from subsequent
results of Cao [71], Knzi [323], Render [481] and Romaguera [495] that the
dass of small-set symmetrie quasi-uniformities is partieularly useful for that
purpose and seems to behave better than the dass of quiet spaees.
In [323] Knzi answered the following three questions due to Papadopoulos
all negatively.
Let X be a topologieal spaee, Y be a quiet quasi-uniform spaee and let
'fJe ~ C(6(X, Y). Let also 'fJe be eompaet relative to ajointly eontinuous topology.
Is 'fJe quasi-equieontinuous?
Let X be a topologieal spaee and let (Y, Oll) be a quiet quasi-uniform
spaee. Does the eompaet-open topology eoincide with the topology of eompaet
eonvergenee on C(6(X, Y)?
Let (X,~) be a eompaet quasi-uniform spaee, (Y, Oll) be a quiet quasi-
uniform spaee and f : X -+ Y be a eontinuous funetion. Is then f : X -+ Y
quasi-uniformlyeontinuous?
On the other hand he showed that all three questions have a positive answer
provided that they are stated for small-set symmetrie instead of quiet spaees.
In [481] Render showed that the importanee of the dass of small-set sym-
metrie spaees is founded on the faet that many results being valid for uniform
spaees earry over to this larger dass, for example the Aseoli Theorem and the
exponentiallaw.
These authors showed by various striking eounterexamples that sueh ad-
ditional assumptions are really needed to obtain eorreet results. Render for
instanee gave an example of a loeally symmetrie eompaet Hausdorff quasi-
uniform spaee X sueh that the set of all (eontinuous) funetions from X to
X is not (Pervin-Sieber) eomplete for the quasi-uniformity of quasi-uniform
eonvergenee.
Cao [71] (see also [338]) proved that if Xis a topological spaee and (Y, OU) is
a quiet (or small-set symmetrie) quasi-uniform space, then <f6(X, Y) need not be
c10sed in the set of all functions from X to Y equipped with the quasi-uniformity
of quasi-uniform convergence; however, it is known that <f6(X, Y) is c10sed in
that space y X provided that OU is locally symmetric [423], [438].
Recently, Porter continued the research on quasi-uniformities on homeo-
morphism groups with her investigations on variants of the open-open topology
[453], [454], [455], [456]. Among other things she showed that the open-open
topology on the group H (X) of all self-homeomorphisms of a topological space
X coincides with the topology of quasi-uniform convergence transmitted by the
Pervin quasi-uniformity of X. Fletcher [174] had characterized those topological
(Tl- )spaces for which the paratopological group H (X) is not discrete.
Porter also observed that for a semiregular space X, H(X) is a topological
group provided that it is equipped with the topology of quasi-uniform conver-
gence transmitted by the Pervin-type quasi-uniformity generated by the regular
open sets of X.
In his survey artic1e [324] Knzi continued her work by applying results
about function spaces to quasi-uniform isomorphism groups. Among other
things he observed that the group of all quasi-uniform isomorphisms of a
bicomplete quasi-uniform To-space equipped with the quasi-uniformity of quasi-
uniform eonvergenee yields a paratopologieal group whose two-sided quasi-
uniformity is bicomplete. He also showed that if X is a topological space
in which each c10sed set is the intersection of finitely many regular c10sed
sets (for instance, X is metrizable), c;P is the Pervin quasi-uniformity of X
and :iQl> is the quasi-uniformity of quasi-uniform convergence on H(X), then
(H (X), 0, 'l' (:iQT) is a topological group. He also argued that the same construc-
tion applied to the fine quasi-uniformity of a completely metrizable space yields
a topological group, while this is not the case for the fine quasi-uniformity of
the Sorgenfrey line.
Moreover [500] Romaguera and Ruiz-G6mez introduced and studied bitopo-
logical versions of theorems of pointwise, compaet and (quasi-)uniform compaet
convergence on spaces of continuous functions, extending several c1assical
theorems on function spaces to the bitopological case.
Similarly, the investigations on quasi-uniform hyperspaces started only
slowly. In the light of the celebrated investigations due to Michael [409] it
had already been observed by Levine and Stager [362] as weH as Berthiaume
[40] that for a quasi-uniform spaee X we can define on the set of (nonempty)
sub sets of X a Hausdorff (= Bourbaki) quasi-uniformity in a way analogous
to the construetion for uniform spaces. In those two papers the construction
was mainly studied for the case in which the underlying quasi-uniformity is
the Pervin quasi-uniformity of a topological space. In particular, Levine and
Stager proved that the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity of a Pervin quasi-uniformity
always induces the Vietoris topology. Berthiaume analysed the connections
between the topology induced by the upper (resp. lower) quasi-uniformity and
the upper (resp. lower) Vietoris topology further. He employed his results about
quasi-uniformities on hyperspaces to show that an infinite product of upper
semicontinuous multivalued mappings, with compact sets as values, is again
upper semicontinuous.
His investigations were continued by Francaviglia, Lechicki and Levi [210]
who used quasi-uniformities to define and study convergence of nets of semi-
continuous multifunctions. Among other things they observed that the bitopo-
logical space determined by the upper and lower Vietoris topology is quasi-
uniformizable if and only if the original space is normal. They also noted that
for a locally compact space X the bitopological hyperspace consisting of the
lower Vietoris topology and the so-called cocompact topology is (uniquely)
quasi-uniformizable. It is weIl known that the join of these two topologies,
which is usually called the Fell topology of X, is compact and Hausdorff for a
locally compact space X.
The study of the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity induced by arbitrary quasi-
uniformities was continued by Cao [69] and Knzi and Ryser [345]. In par-
ticular, Cao showed that the locally finite topology defined on the collection
of nonempty closed sets coincides with the topology of the Hausdorff quasi-
uniformity of the locally finite covering quasi-uniformity. Knzi and Ryser
observed that the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity of a compact (resp. hereditarily
precompact) quasi-uniform space need not be compact (resp. hereditarily pre-
compact), while it is precompact (resp. totally bounded, supcompact) if and
only if the underlying space is precompact (resp. totally bounded, supcompact).
Bicompleteness on the other hand (even for quasi-metric spaces) behaves rather
badly under the Hausdorff hyperspace construction. Furthermore extending the
Burdick-Isbell Theorem from uniform spaces to the quasi-uniform setting the
two authors established that the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity of a quasi-uniform
space (X, OU) is right K -complete if and only if each stable filter on (X, OU) has
a cluster point. They also observed that for a bounded quasi-pseudometric space
(X, d), its Hausdorff quasi-pseudometric d* is right K -sequentially complete if
and only if d is right K -sequentially complete. They verified that for instance
the point-finite open covering quasi-uniformity of a metacompact space has the
property that each stable filter has a cluster point.
Continuing this line of research, in [340] Knzi and Romaguera showed that
the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity of a quasi-uniform space (X, OU) is compact if
and only if (X, OU) is compact and (X m , OU-1IXm ) is hereditarily precompact,
where X m denotes the set of the minimal elements of X with respect to the
(specialization) preorder nou. They also noted that the problem to eharaeter-
ize hereditary preeompaetness of the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity is related to
classieal results on better quasi-ordering. Furthermore in [72], together with
Cao and Reilly, they investigated the relationship between the Bourbaki quasi-
uniformity and the Vietoris topology on the family 'j{o(X) of all nonempty
eompaet subsets of a quasi-uniform spaee (see also [509]). Extending clas-
sical results about uniform spaees due to Morita, they established that for
a so-ealled eompaet1y symmetrie quasi-uniform spaee (X, Oll) the Hausdorff
quasi-uniformity on 'j{o(X) is (pervin-Sieber) eomplete if and only if Oll is
eomplete, and that the Bourbaki quasi-uniformity induees the Vietoris topology.
Their eoneept of eompaet symmetry strengthens the well-known notion of loeal
symmetry, which is not sufficient to prove these results. They also noted that
a eompaet1y symmetrie quasi-uniform spaee indueing a k-topology is small-set
symmetrie.
Some partial results on left K -eompleteness of the Hausdorff quasi-
uniformity were obtained in [339] by Knzi and Romaguera. In partieular it
was proved that the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity of the well-monotone quasi-
uniformity of any topological spaee is left K -eomplete. It was also observed
that the eondition that eaeh eo-stable filter clusters is only neeessary, but not
sufficient for left K -eompleteness of the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity.
In [341] Knzi and Romaguera showed that for any small-set symmetrie
quasi-uniform spaee, uniform loeal eompaetness is preserved by the Hausdorff
quasi-uniformity restrieted to eompaet sets.
Hohl and Levi [253] diseussed hit-and-miss hyperspaee topologies in terms
of their upper and lower parts, foeusing among other things on their quasi-
uniformization by appropriate Urysohn families. The splitting up ofuniformities
on hyperspaees into upper and lower quasi-uniformities was also treated by
Pasquale [442].
The results of Knzi and Ryser cited above were used by Cao, Reilly and
Romaguera [75] to explore various kinds of eompleteness of the multifunction
space (equipped with its natural Hausdorff quasi-uniformity) in terms of suitable
properties of the range spaee. Also a classical result due to Hunsaker and
Naimpally about loeal eompaetness of the multifunetion spaee was extended
from the uniform to the quasi-uniform setting.
In [73] Cao and Reilly introdueed and investigated a eoneept of almost
quasi-uniform eonvergenee for multifunetions; in [76], in eollaboration with Va-
manamurthy, they eompared various kinds of eonvergenees for multifunetions.
Furthermore in [74] Cao and Reilly diseussed almost eontinuity for multifune-
tions between bitopological spaees. They also established bitopological ana-
logues of closed graph and open mapping theorems for multihomomorphisms
between paratopological groups.
Using similar methods, in [281] Khanh had presented general open mapping
theorems for families of multifunctions in his so-called directly complete quasi-
metric spaces. (In our terminology "directly complete" means that the conjugate
is right K -sequentially complete.) His theorems generalize many known open
mapping theorems, c10sed graph theorems, theorems of the Lustemik type,
subtraction theorems, and theorems on approximation and semicontinuity (see
also [133, p. 20]).
Chou and Penot discussed criteria for uniform openness of multifunctions
betweeen quasi-uniform spaces [90]. To this end they introduced a concept of
convergence for infinite products of relations.
Related to these investigations, in [328] Knzi considered asymmetric ver-
sions of the fact that each almost uniformly open (multivalued) map with c10sed
graph from a supercomplete uniform space into an arbitrary uniform space is
uniformly open.
Rodriguez-L6pez and Romaguera [486] compared some graph topologies
with the topology of quasi-uniform convergence on the set of lower semi-
continuous real-valued functions of a quasi-pseudometric space. In this way
they obtained several analogues of known results about the set of continuous
real-valued functions on a metric space.
10. Quasi-metrizable Spaces
The question wbich topologies are quasi-pseudometrizable was studied since

the thirties when Wilson [580] published bis paper on quasi-metrics. In that
paper he proved that each second-countable topological (Tl- )space is quasi-
metrizable. Clearly, also each countable product of quasi-metrizable spaces is
quasi-metrizable.
A c1assical result due to Frink [211] showed that each quasi-uniformity
having a countable base can be induced by a quasi-pseudometric.
Only few papers on quasi-metric spaces were published in the following
three decades, e.g. the ones by Albert [3], Ribeiro [484] and Balzanat [30].
Albert may be the first to point out the importance of To-quasi-pseudometrics
that are not quasi-metrics.
Since the Bing-Nagata-Smirnov metrization theorem was published, mathe-
matidans were looking for a similar general quasi-metrization theorem. In 1967
Norman [433], and Sion and Zelmer [545] independently proved that each Tl-
space with a O'-point finite base is quasi-metrizable. However that condition is
not necessary; the Sorgenfrey line is quasi-metrizable, but does not possess a 0'-
point-finite base. A more general result was given by Nedev (dting Doitchinov)
[430] and later by Fletcher and Lindgren [188], who proved that a topological
space is non-archimedeanly quasi-pseudometrizable if and onIy if it has a 0'-
interior-preserving base. Both Nedev, and Fletcher and Lindgren asked if this
906 HANS-PE1ER A. KNZI
condition is necessary for quasi-metrizability. Kofner showed by an example

[284], which is now known as the Kofner plane T, that it is not. In [286] he
proved that T is also perfect, subparacompact and hereditarily orthocompact.
For a long time his method remained the only way to construct quasi-metrizable
spaces that are not non-archimedeanly quasi-metrizable (see also Knzi's dis-
cussion in [311]). Only recently another such space was obtained in a paper by
Knzi and Watson [353] where Kofner's geometrical insight was replaced by a
combinatorial argument.
An error of Ribeiro [484] led to the question whether quasi-metrizable
spaces could be characterized as y-spaces (i.e. whether their topology could
be induced by a local quasi-uniformity having a countable base). The name
y-space is due to Hodel [247] (for another characterization of y-spaces using
w-structures see [248]). Fox observed that a TI-space is a y-space if and only if
it has a a-cocushioned pairbase [207]. Many equivalent characterizations of y-
spaces were listed and discussed by Fletcher and Lindgren [191]. We recall that
a topological space is pseudometrizable if and only if it admits a local uniformity
with a countable base (see e.g. [579]). In fact, a TI-space X is metrlzable if it
admits a local quasi-uniformity Oll, with a countable base such that for all x E X,
U E Oll, there is V E Oll, with V(x) s; U-l(x) by the so-called Collins-Roscoe
Metrization Theorem (see e.g. [96]).
First let us give some positive partial results conceming Ribeiro's prob-
lem. Kofner proved that the answer is positive for suborderable spaces and
(Tl - )spaces having orthobases [288], [289]. Indeed he showed that each space
with an orthobase is 2-transitive, i.e. for each neighbomet U there is a transitive
neighbomet V such that V S; U 2 . Similarly, he proved that each suborderable
space is 3-transitive. The cited results of Kofner improved on earlier work of
Bennett [36] and Gruenhage [225]. Bennett had essentially shown that a sub-
orderable y-space with a a-discrete dense set is quasi-metrizable. Gruenhage
[225] had proved that each paracompact y-space with an orthobase is non-
archimedianly quasi-metrizable. The concept of an orthobase was introduced
by Lindgren and Nyikos [365]. A base ~ for a topological (TI- )space is an
orthobase provided that for each subcollection ~' of~, n~' is open or ~' is a
base for the neighborhood filter of some point. Each space with an orthobase is
orthocompact and each developable orthocompact (TI- )space has an orthobase.
A useful characterization of spaces having an orthobase by decreasing chains
of transitive partial neighbomets was obtained by Junnila and Knzi in [267]
(compare [328]).
Junnila established that each developable y-space is quasi-metrizable [266].
An elegant proof of the latter result was subsequently given by Fox [204]. He
showed that if U is a neighbomet of a developable y-space X then there exists
another neighbomet W of X such that W 4 S; U 2 .
It is still unknown whether each developable quasi-metrizable space is non-

archimedeanly quasi-metrizable.
Fox [207] and Knzi [300] observed independently that each topological
space that admits a local quasi-uniformity OU with a countable base such that OU- 1
is a local quasi-uniformity is quasi-pseudometrizable. Recently Andrikopoulos
and Stabakis tried to improve that result [14].
Finally, Fox [206] found a method of constructing y-spaces that are not
quasi-metrizable. The first step in Fox's proof consisted of developing a method
that allowed to construct spaces that are quasi-metrizable spaces, but for some
fixed n E (J) are not n-pretransitive [205] (i.e. they possess a neighbomet U
such that U n does not belong to the fine quasi-uniformity). In fact, his method
verified that M n +1 is not n-pretransitive, where M is the Michaelline. It follows
that M W has a neighbomet V such that for each positive integer n, V n does not
belong to the fine quasi-uniformity.
Fox's first example of a non-quasi-metrizable y-space was not regular, but
later with the help of Kofner he could refine his construction and obtained
a Tychonoff counterexample [209]. In that paper the authors also announced
that there exists even a paracompact (T2 - )counterexample. The corresponding
modifications of the published space were outlined by Fox in a letter to Knzi
[208], but they were never published. For the benefit of the reader that letter is
induded here.
Letter from Fox to Knzi; dated October 16, 1985
Further to my aerogram yesterday, here is an outline of how to modify
the regular counterexample to make it paracompact.
It requires (1) a modified construction of Y from Y that preserves para-
compactness, and (2) a modified construction of i from X that preserves
paracompactness.
(1) This time, partition R into three sets A, B and C. A and B are as
before, and every open sub set of R containing C is countable. Y x (A U B)
is an open subset of Y with neighbourhoods defined in the same way as
before. Choose a distinguished point zo E Y (which one is irrelevant).
Dedare (x, c) E Y X C to be isolated if x :;f Zo, and let
Vn[(zo, c}] = {(y, r) E Y x R : Iy - zol < 2-n and (r fj. C or y = zo)};
U[(zo, c}] = Y.
To show that Y is paracompact, take any open cover. Then there is a locally
finite refinement that covers Y x (R \ {rl , r2, ... }) where rl, r2, ... E AU B.
We can add a discrete family of open sets that will cover the rest of Y x A
together with a dopen subset of Y x B. This leaves a dopen sub set of Y x B,
which we can then cover using the paracompactness of Y.
(2) Partition R into three sets A, B, C as in (1). This time, let .i -

(Xl U X 2 U ... ) x B U {zo} x AU {zo} x C.
Each (Xl U X 2 U ... ) x {b}, bEB, is a elopen subspace topologized in
the same way as before (hut note this time there is no XCV). Give the points
in {zo} x C the same sort of neighbourhoods as in (1). Choose for each
(zo,a) E {zo} x A a sequence S(zo,a) = {((Xil,Xi2, ... ),bi} : i E N} in
XCI) x B, where bi ~ a as i ~ 00, so that: for each countable subset E of
XCI) x B whose canonical projection onto B is somewhere dense in R, there
is a point aE E A where S(zo, aE) n E is infinite. Let
Uk[(ZO, a}] = {(zo, a)} U

(X,b}ES(zo,a)
u
and Ib-al<2- n
U {((Xl, ... ,Xn-I,Y): Y E Un-k+l[xnJ}

00
n=k
Paracomyactness is similar to (1), and non-quasimetrizability is similar

to the old X. Note in (2) we only use the condition that B is dense in R, not
that it is Baire.
Answering a question of Fleteher and Lindgren, Knzi [302] showed how
Fox's original machine for building a non-quasi-metrizable y-space can be used
to construct (non-orthocompact) preorthocompact spaces. In [306] he discussed
various degrees of the property of preorthocompactness and its elose formal
analogy with normality conditions.
Based on Fox's bitopological criterion for quasi-metrizability (see below),
Kopperman [296] chararacterized quasi-pseudometrizable topologies as topolo-
gies having a u-self-cocushioned pairbase whose dual is u-self-cocushioned.
Recently, Hung [256] gave a simple characterization of quasi-(pseudo)-
metrizability that nicely illustrates the difference between quasi-metrizable
spaces and y-spaces:
In his words quasi-(pseudo)metrizability of a topologie al space X is the
availabilityon X of a decreasing neighborhood base (Un(x)} at every X E X,
so constituted that, for every countable and relatively locally finite A ~ X and
n E w, we have U;(A) ~ Un(A) for some m E w (dependent on A and n).
Furthermore in [255] he considered - among other things - an interest-
ing subproperty of y-spaces defined in terms of so-called shrinkings of open
neighborhoods.
It seems to be unknown whether each locally compact y-space is (non-
arehimedianly) quasi-metrizable [320, Problem 6]. Knzi observed that the
answer to this question is positive for zero-dimensional spaces and noted that
eaeh regular submetaLindelf locally eompact y-spaee is a non-arehimedeanly
quasi-metrizable Moore spaee [307].
In [95] it was shown that for each infinite cardinal there exists a y-space
(resp. quasi-metrizable space) X such that q(X) > (resp. tq(X) > )
where q(X) (resp. tq(X is the minimal cardinality of a base of a compatible
quasi-uniformity (resp. transitive quasi-uniformity) on X.
Let us mention that numerous other quasi-metrization theorems have been
obtained, e.g. by Romaguera and his collaborators. In the following we mention
just a few:
In [489] Romaguera gave a characterization of strongly quasi-metrizable
spaces in terms of a collection of pairs of real-valued functions in the style of a
characterization of developable spaces due to Brandenburg.
In [490] he showed that a topological space (X, ;?T) is (continuously) quasi-
metrizable if and only if there exists a family ?:F = U~o?:Fn of functions from
X into the unit interval [0, 1] such that
(B) for each n E w and ?:F' ~ ?:Fn, inf?:F' is lower semicontinuous (resp.
continuous) and
(e) {f-I(E, 1] : E > 0, f E ?:F} is a base for;?T.
In joint work with Antonino [16] he obtained a related characterization of
quasi-metrizability by equinormal quasi-metrics.
A different kind of characterization of quasi-pseudometrizability was given
by Vitolo [573]. He showed that a To-space is quasi-pseudometrizable if and only
if it is topologically embeddable into the lower Hausdorff quasi-pseudometric
hyperspace of a metric space restricted to the nonempty c10sed subsets.
It should finally be mentioned, however, that many people working in the
area of quasi-metrizable spaces think that the problem of finding a striking
topological characterization of this c1ass of spaces is still open.
Results leading toward a characterization of quasi-metrizability for bitopo-
logical spaces began in the early sixties when the first papers by Kelly [277]
and Lane [358] were published. Kelly showed that a bitopological space is
quasi-pseudometrizable if it is pairwise regular and both topologies are second
countable. Improving on a result of Lane [358] and confirming a conjecture of
Patty [441], Salbany [517] subsequently showed that a pairwise regular bispace
(X, qp, 21) is quasi-pseudometrizable provided that qp has a a - 21-Iocally finite
base and 21 has a a - qp-Iocally finite base. A related result was also obtained
by Romaguera [488]. These conditions however are all not necessary.
The first satisfactory general solution to the bitopological quasi-pseudo-
metrization problem was given by Fox [207], but unfortunately never published.
He showed that a bitopological space (X, qp, 21) is quasi-pseudometrizable if and
only if qp has both a a-qp-cocushioned pairbase and a a-21-cushioned pairbase
and 21 has both a a-21-cocushioned pairbase and a a-qp-cushioned pairbase. An
essentially equivalent formulation of his result is the following: A pairwise TI-
space (X, ;?T, :1) is quasi-metrizable if and only if it is pairwise stratifiable and
both (X,5") and (X, '[f) are y-spaces. An elegant variant of Fox's ideas was
later described by Kopperman [296] using the concept of a dual.
Again, many more quasi-metrization theorems for bitopological spaces can
be found in the literature, e.g. the ones by Pareek [440] and Raghavan and
Reilly [459], [465], as weIl as some others by Romaguera. For instance, in
the spirit of a metrization theorem due to Guthrle and Henry, in [487] Roma-
guera proved that a bitopological space is quasi-pseudometrizable if and only
if it is the initial bispace induced by a a-pairwise relatively complete family
of real-valued functions, where pairwise relatively complete means pairwise
semi-equicontinuous and punctually bounded. Some related characterizations
of non-archimedeanly quasi-metrizable bitopological spaces were obtained by
Gutierrez and Romaguera in [228]. Fox had noted [207] that a bitopological
space (X, Cl},~) is non-archimedeanly quasi-pseudometrizable if and only if ~
has a base consisting of Cl}-c1osed sets that is the countable union of ~-interior
preserving and Cl}-c1osure preserving collections and Cl} has a base consisting of
~-c1osed sets that is the countable union of Cl}-interior preserving and ~-c1osure
preserving collections.
In [493] Romaguera presented some necessary and sufficient condition for
quasi-pseudometrization of bitopological spaces in terms of g-functions by
generalizing a corresponding metrization theorem due to Nagata.
In the spirit of Katetov's c1assical theorem Romaguera and Salbany [501]
showed that a (pairwise) Hausdorff (pairwise) compact bispace (X, Cl},~) is
quasi-metrizable if and only if the bispace (X x X x X, Cl} x ~ x Cl}, ~ x Cl} x
52) is hereditarily (pairwise) normal. Similarly, they generalized the c1assical
theorem of Sneider that every Hausdorff compact space with a Go-diagonal
is metrizable to bitopological spaces. In [403] Marin and Romaguera obtained
some quasi-metrization theorems for pairwise monotonically normal bispaces.
In [523] Salbany called a 5"1 X 5"2-open cover C(& of the diagonal of a
bispace (X, 5"1, 5"2) even ifthere is a 5"1 x 5"2-neighborhood V ofthe diagonal
such that {V- I (x) x V(x) : x E X} refines C(&. In his paper he gave a necessary
and sufficient condition for quasi-pseudometrizability of those bispaces for
which every 5" 1 x 5"2 -open cover of is even. Recently [499] Romaguera
discussed the connections between Salbany's notion of evenness and some
concept of a pairwise Lebesgue quasi-uniformity. Furthermore Brown [53]
obtained a bitopological version of Arhangel'skiI's theorem that a Hausdorff
space is metrizable if and only if it is fully normal and has a base of countable
order.
Nevertheless it is important to realize that - although the search has gone on
for decades - no reasonable property of bitopological quasi-pseudometrizable
spaces has been found that could substitute for paracompactness, which has
tumed out to be so useful in the area of metric spaces.
For some early attempts to find such a concept due to Fletcher, Hoyle III
and Patty as well as Datta, we refer the reader to [177], [115], [292]. Cooke and
Reilly [97] presented a survey of some related concepts of pairwise compactness
discussed in the literature.
Extending a characterization of paracompactness due to Junnila to the bi-
topological setting, Marin and Romaguera [402] gave a definition of pairwise
paracompactness that allowed them to prove that a Tl-bitopological space is
quasi-metrizable if and only if it is pairwise developable and pairwise para-
compact. Generalizing that concept of pairwise paracompactness Romaguera
[499] introduced the concept of a (pairwise) almost 2-fully normal bispace: A
bispace (X, CZP,~) is called almost 2-fully normal provided that the set of all
~ x CZP-neighborhoods of the diagonal in X x X forms a quasi-uniformity on
X compatible with (CZP, ~). Among other things, he showed that abispace is
quasi-pseudometrizable if and only if it is pairwise developable and (pairwise)
almost 2-fully normal.
In [52], [215] Brown resp. Ganster and Reilly compared the concept of
pairwise paracompactness due to Marin and Romaguera with related notions,
e.g. the 8-pairwise paracompact spaces due to Raghavan and Reilly [464] or the
concepts of (semi-)sequential normality introduced by Brown [52]. (A bitopo-
logical space (X, 5"1, 5"2) is called 8-pairwise paracompact if every 5"i open
cover admits a 5"1 v 5"2-open refinement which is 5"1 v 5"2 locally finite for
i = 1,2.)
Certainly the following unpublished example [203] due to Fox will allow
the reader to understand better the difficulties involved in that matter.
Part of a letter jrom Fox to Salbany, dated June 19, 1979.
It seems impossible to prove the latter theorem (namely, a stratifiable devel-
opable space is metrizable) above without intimate use ofparacompactness,
and it would appear that to find a bitopological quasi-metrization analogue
one would need a satisfactory concept of paracompactness for bitopological
spaces. We are in fact going to present a counterexample to the obvious
analogue, namely a pairwise stratifiable, pairwise developable bitopological
space which is not quasi-metrizable.
Let (X, CZP,~) be a bitopological space. We say that CZP is developable with
respect to ~ if there exists a countable family {Dn : n E N} of ~ x CZP-
neighborhoods of the diagonal tJ. in X x X such that for each point x E X
the family {Dn(x) : n E N} is a CZP-neighborhood base at x. Such a family
{Dn : n E N} we call a development of CZP with respect to ~. If CZP is
developable with respect to ~, and ~ is developable with respect to CZP, we
say that (X, CZP,~) is pairwise developable.
With this definition, ... quasi-metrizable bitopological spaces are in fact
pairwise developable.
Counterexample. A pairwise stratifiable, pairwise developable bitopological

space which is not quasi-metrizable.
Let X = NN U N x [1, wo] (where the union is understood to be dis-
joint). Let ~ be the discrete topology on X. We simultaneously define
both the topology (l} on X, and the countable family {D n : n E N} of
subsets of X x X, as folIows: A basic (l}-neighbourhood of fENN is
Dn[f] = {f} U U~n{k} x [f(k), wo]. A basic (l}-neighbourhood of (k, wo)
is Dn[(k, wo)] = {k} x [n, (Uo]. A basic (l}-neighbourhood of (k, m), where
m < wo, is Dn[(k, m)] = {(k, m)}; thatis, (k, m) is discrete.
We note that (X, (l},~) is PTI. To verify that (X, (l},~) is pairwise
stratifiable, we first note that (l} is obviously stratifiable with respect to
~ as ~ is discrete. On the other hand, if we define ({Jn : ~ -+ ~ by
({Jn(A) = A n (NN U [1, n] x [1, n] U [1, n] x {wo}), then
(i) c1(iJ>({Jn (A) = ({Jn (A) ~ A,
(ii) U~I ({Jn(A) = A, and
(iii) A ~ B implies ({Jn(A) ~ ({Jn(B);
and hence ~ is also stratifiable with respect to (l}.
To verify that (X, (l}, ~) is pairwise developable, we note that each D n is a
~ x (l}-neighbourhood ofthe diagonal !:l. in X x X, and so {Dn : n E N} is a
development of (l} with respect to ~. Furthermore, D; I Cf] = {f}, if n > k
then D;I[(k, wo)] = {(k,wo)}' andifn > max{k,m} then D;I[(k,m)] =
{ (k, m) }. Therefore {D;; I : n E N} is a development of:i with respect to rg>.
To show that (X, (l},~) is not quasi-metrizable, we suppose p to be a
compatible quasi-metric on (X, (l}, ~). For each k E N find f(k) E [2, wo)
such that pk, wo), (k, f(k) - 1 < 2- k . Then fENN ~ X.
Since pis compatible, there must exist n E N such that BU, p, 2- n ) ~
{f} U U~l {k} x [f(k), wo]. Let k ~ n + 1 be such that pU, (k, wo <
!. !
2-n. Then pk, wo), (k, f(k) - 1) < 2-n also, but pU, (k, f(k)-
1) ~ 2 -n. This contradicts the triangle inequality, and so (X, (l}, :i) is not
quasi-metrizable.
For instance, in [506] the preceding example was used to show that some
obvious approach to generalize to bispaces the c1assical topological result that
each M -space with a G eS-diagonal is metrizable will not work.
To some extent independently of the problem of quasi-metrizability many
authors developed over the years a common stock of results that is now called
the theory of quasi-metric spaces.
Stoltenberg [556] showed that each regular strong quasi-metric space is a
Moore space and that each quasi-metric stratifiable space is metrizable. Fletcher
[173] proved that a TI-space that admits a locally symmetrie quasi-uniformity
with a countable base is metrizable. Heath [235] constructed a non-quasi-

metrizable Moore space; such aspace was also defined by Kofner [284].
Fletcher and Lindgren [190] (compare [197, Corollary 7.24]) established
that a developable space is orthocompact if and only if it is quasi-metrizable
by a strong non-archimedean quasi-metric. Engelking and Lutzer [147] showed
that each quasi-metrizable suborderable space is paracompact. In fact, it fol-
lows then from [29] that each quasi-metrizable monotonicaliy normal space is
paracompact. Fletcher and Lindgren [197, Theorem 7.29] noted that any LOfS
that can be condensed onto a y-space is non-archimedeanly quasi-metrizable.
They also observed that the Engelking-Lutzer line shows that the corresponding
result does not hold for suborderable spaces.
Gruenhage [225] gave an example of a linearly ordered topological space
that has a point-countable base, but is not quasi-metrizable. Heath [236] con-
structed a quasi-metric Souslin line with a point-countable base. van Douwen
and Wicke [567] presented a regular quasi-metrizable space that is, among
other things, not countably orthocompact. In [451] Pol constructed a perfect1y
collectionwise normal nonparacompact space that admits a stable quasi-metric
(see [268]).
Kofner [286] gave a construction that yields to any quasi-metrizable not non-
archimedeanly quasi-metrizable space another quasi-metrizable space which is
not a -orthocompact.
In [300] Knzi noted that for a quasi-(pseudo)metric space (X, d) the
weights of r(d) and r(d- l ) agree and that the height of r(d) is equal to
the width of r(d- l ). Hence r(d) is second countable if and only if r(d- l )
is second countable, and r(d) is hereditarily separable if and only if r(d- l ) is
hereditarily Lindelf. He also observed that the weight of a quasi-pseudometric
space is equal to its network weight.
Several elassical results about dimension theory of metric spaces were
extended to quasi-metric spaces by Arenas, Romaguera and Tarres in [20],
[513]. For instance they noted that dim(X, CZP v 22) is preserved by the bicomple-
tion for any quasi-metrizable space (X, CZP, 22). Many still open problems were
formulated in these two papers. In the quasi-metric setting, Arenas [19] also
investigated some concepts of dimension that are dependent on the distance.
Kofner proved that a first-countable elosed image of a quasi-metrizable
space is quasi-metrizable [287]. In particular, quasi-metrizability is preserved
by perfect (continuous) surjections [286]. Furthermore he showed that quasi-
metrizability is not preserved under compact (continuous) open surjections in the
elass of separable Moore spaces [290]. He observed that there are non-quasi-
metrizable spaces in MOBI, the smallest elass containing metric spaces and
elosed under open compact maps. He also verified that pseudo-open mappings
do not preserve quasi-metrizability, even if they are two-to-one. Gittings [220]
had shown before that quasi-metrizability is preserved under open finite-to-one

maps.
The corresponding positive results all also hold for y-spaces and non-
archimedeanly quasi-metrizable spaces, see e.g. Kofner's discussion in [290]:
Choban and Nedev [88] seem to be first to prove that perfect surjections preserve
y-spaces. In [570] Velicko announced that the first-countable image of a y-space
under a c10sed continuous map is a y -space.
In [325] Knzi noted that a perfect preimage having aGa-diagonal of a
regular quasi-metrizable space need not be quasi-metrizable. Various results
on the preservation of properties of K -completeness under closed (resp. open)
continuous maps between quasi-metric spaces were given in [328].
As mentioned above, Deak [123] observed that the c1assical technique due
to Hausdorff and Bing for extending pseudometrics from subspaces to the whole
space also works similarly in the area of quasi-pseudometrics: Let Y be a
topological space, let X ~ Y and let p be a quasi-pseudometric defined on
X. If there exists an admissible quasi-pseudometric d on Y such that p ~ d
on X x X, then p can be extended to an admissible quasi-pseudometric p of
Y such that p ~ d. (Here we say that a quasi-pseudometric d on a topological
space (X, flJ) is admissible provided that red) ~ flJ. Some authors use the term
"continuous" instead of "admissible"; but we have used this term already for a
different concept.)
The (quasi-pseudometric) bicompletion of a quasi-pseudometric (To-)space
was independently constructed by Di Concilio [131] and Salbany [518].
In an important paper Reilly, Subrahmanyam and Vamanamurthy [476] (see
also [477]) compared different kinds of Cauchy sequences and completeness
concepts in quasi-pseudometric spaces. The definitions that they proposed al-
lowed versions of c1assical theorems such as the Baire Category Theorem,
the Contraction Principle and Cantor's characterization of completeness to be
formulated in the quasi-pseudometric setting. Answering one of their questions,
Ferrer and Gregori [153] resp. Knzi [301] gave examples of sequentially com-
pact quasi-pseudometric spaces that are not compact. In fact Knzi proved that
a quasi-pseudometric space is compact if and only if it is countably compact and
all c10sures of singletons are compact. Already Niemytzki [432] had proved that
each sequentially compact quasi-metric space is compact. In particular, compact
quasi-metrizable Hausdorff spaces are metrizable [432], [484]. Various authors
had also noted that each compatible quasi-metric on a countably compact quasi-
metrizable space is strong. Raghavan and Reilly devoted several papers to this
observation and related results [460], [463], [473]. (lndeed, recall that each
Lebesgue quasi-uniformity on a regular (resp. Ro)-space is locally symmetric
(resp. point-symmetric) [195].)
Ciesielski, Flagg and Kopperman [92] proved that a topological space X
is Polish if and only if its topology can be induced by some quasi-metric the
conjugate quasi-metric of which induces a compact (not necessarily Hausdorff)

topology. An application of this result in theoretical computer science is dealt
with in [91].
Romaguera and Salbany [502] wrote a paper on countably compact quasi-
pseudometric spaces. Among other things they showed that a quasi-pseudo-
metrizable space is compact if and only if every compatible quasi-pseudometric
is precompact; furthermore they proved that it is countably compact if and only
if each compatible quasi-pseudometric is (Pervin-Sieber) complete.
The work of Reilly, Subrahmanyam and Vamanamurthy on Cauchy se-
quences was continued by Gutierrez and Romaguera in [229]. Knzi tried
to systematize that kind of work in [316]. He showed that each Tychonoff
sequentially (Pervin-Sieber) complete quasi-metric space is Cech complete and
has a base of countable order. He also proved that each Tychonoff orthocompact
Cech complete space with a G 8-diagonal admits a convergence complete (non-
archimedean) quasi-metric and that each sequentially convergence complete
quasi-metric space is a p-space having a G8-diagonal. Moreover he estab-
lished that each precompact sequentially complete quasi-pseudometric space
is compact.
Furthermore he showed that there are sequentially convergence complete
(resp. zero-dimensional sequentially complete) quasi-metric spaces that are not
(Pervin-Sieber) complete and that a quasi-metric space that has property wD is
sequentially (convergence) complete if and only if it is (convergence) complete.
On the other hand he noted that a quasi-metric Hausdorff space is sequen-
tially convergence complete if and only if it is convergence complete.
He also found a construction of a quasi-metric completion that tumed
out to be very useful Iater on and allowed him to obtain characterizations of
quasi-metric spaces having various kinds of quasi-metric completions. Some
supplementary results on convergence complete quasi-metric spaces were sub-
sequently established by Antonino and Romaguera [18]. Romaguera [492] also
showed that each regular Ieft K -complete quasi-metric space is a complete
Aronszajn space.
He established that a quasi-metric space (X, d) has a quasi-metric Ieft
K -completion if and only if each Ieft K -Cauchy sequence in (X, d) which con-
verges in (X, d- 1 ) converges in (X, d). Moreover he proved in [494] that each
regular quasi-developable Ieft K -complete quasi-metric space is subcompact in
the sense of de Groot.
In [336] Knzi and Romaguera showed that each (Tychonoff) Cech complete
or scattered quasi-metrizable space admits a Ieft K -complete quasi-metric. Fur-
thermore they noted that a metrizable space admits a D-complete quasi-metric if
and only if it is an Fu8-set in each metric space in which it is embedded. In [328]
it was shown that a Moore space admits a Ieft K -complete quasi-metric if and
only if it is a complete Aronszajn quasi-metrizable space. Indeed, Knzi recently
announced that a quasi-metrizable space admits a left K -complete quasi-metric

if and only if it has a A-base (in the sense of Wicke and Worrell).
The still open problem of describing those quasi-pseudometrizable spaces
that admit bicomplete quasi-pseudometrics (i.e. the induced quasi-uniformity is
bicomplete) led to many interesting investigations.
First Romaguera and Salbany [504] observed that a quasi-pseudo-metrizable
bispace is bicompletely quasi-pseudometrizable if and only if its supremum
topology is completely pseudometrizable. An example presented in [506] il-
lustrates that an arbitrary pairwise Tychonoff bispace possessing a Dieudonne
complete supremum topology need not admit a bicomplete quasi-uniformity.
In [342] Knzi, Romaguera and Salbany showed that a quasi-pseudometric
space which admits only bicomplete quasi-pseudometrics is hereditarily com-
pact and quasi-sober (and thus admits a unique quasi-uniformity and has a
countable topology). This characterization is based on their result that a quasi-
pseudometrizable space is hereditarily compact and quasi-sober if and only if
each sequence that converges to all its cluster points clusters with respect to the
Skula topology.
Iunnila and Knzi [269] further proved that a metrizable space admits a
bicomplete quasi-metric if and only ifit is an absolute metric Fu (equivalently,
if it has - in the sense of Frolik - a complete sequence of a -discrete closed
covers).
They also noted that every bounded admissible quasi-pseudometric defined
on a sub set of a metrizable space Y can be extended to an admissible quasi-
pseudometric on an Fu-subset of Y.
Subsequently, several of their results were generalized in various directions.
In [401] Marciszewski and Pelant characterized metric spaces of higher Borel
classes by complete sequences of covers.
In [348] Knzi and Wajch generalized the quasi-metric part of the Iunnila-
Knzi result to higher Borel classes in the following way: (As usual, we shall
denote here the supremum metric of a quasi-metric p and its conjugate p-I by
p*.)
Let 1 ~ a < (VI. For a metrizable space X, the following conditions are
equivalent:
Ci) X admits a compatible quasi-metric p such that CX, p*) is an absolute
Ga-set.
Cii) X is an absolute Fa+I-Set.
Let 2 ~ a < (VI. For a metrizable space X the following conditions are
equivalent:
Ci) X admits a compatible quasi-metric p such that CX, p*) is an absolute
Fa-set.
Cii) X is an absolute G a+ 1-set.
In [349] they showed that an arbitrary compatible quasi-metric p on a

metrizable space X has the following property:
If 1 < a < (VI (resp. 0 < a < (VI) and X is an absolute ~a-set (resp.
~a-set), then (X, p*) is an absolute ~a-set (resp. ~a-set).
In [349] they also established related results on mappings: Let a < (VI.
For every mapping f from a metric space (X, d) to a topological space Y the
following conditions are equivalent:
(i) f has a a-discrete base (in the sense ofHansell [232]) in (X, d) consisting
of sets of additive dass a + 1.
(ii) There exists a compatible quasi-metric p on (X, d) such that f has a
a-discrete base in (X, p*) consisting of sets of additive dass a.
Perez-Pefialver and Romaguera [445] noted that the fine quasi-uniformity
OU of any quasi-pseudometrizable bispace X is cofinally bicomplete, since OU*
coincides with the fine uniformity of the pseudometrizable supremum topology
on X. Furthermore they proved that a quasi-pseudometrizable bispace X admits
a quasi-pseudometric inducing a cofinally bicomplete quasi-uniformity if and
only if the supremum topology on X admits a pseudometric whose induced
uniformity is cofinally complete.
Dek [122] had called a quasi-uniform space (X, OU) halJ-complete pro-
vided that each Cauchy filter with respect to the supremum quasi-uniformity
converges in (X, OU) and shown that each uniformly regular half-complete quasi-
uniform space is bicomplete. In [8] Alemany and Romaguera characterized
those quasi-metric spaces having a quasi-metric half-completion and those
quasi-metric spaces whose bicompletion is quasi-metric. They observed that a
quasi-pseudometric space (X, d) is half-complete if and only if each d* -Cauchy
sequence converges in (X, d).
Many authors obtained results on special dasses of quasi-pseudometrics,
some of which we wish to discuss next.
Ferrer and Gregori [152] observed that the Pervin quasi-uniformity of a
topological space is quasi-pseudometrizable if and only if its topology is count-
able.
Knzi [311] showed that the fine quasi-uniformity of a topological space
is quasi-metrizable if and only if it is a quasi-metrizable space containing only
finitely many nonisolated points.
In [17] Antonino and Romaguera noted that a topological space X admits a
compatible Lebesgue quasi-metric if and only if it is a quasi-metrizable space
whose set X' of nonisolated points is compact.
Romaguera [491] proved that a Tl-space X admits an equinormal quasi-
metric if and only if it has a decreasing sequence {Un : n E (V} of neighbomets
of X such that for every two disjoint dosed sets A and B there exists k E (V
satisfying Uf(A) nB = 0. He also verified that dosed continuous surjections
preserve quasi-metrizability by equinormal quasi-metrics.
With Knzi and Salbany [343] he also showed that a quasi-pseudometrizable

space admits only hereditarily precompact (resp. totally bounded) quasi-
pseudometrics if and only if it is hereditarily compact (resp. hereditarily compact
and quasi-sober). They also proved that for a quasi-metrizable bispace (X, 1lP, !!2.)
which admits only bicomplete quasi-metrics, the topology llP v !!2. is compact
provided that (X, 1lP) is hereditarily Lindelf; the Lindelf condition cannot be
omitted in this result, as an example illustrates.
In [497] Romaguera obtained a characterization of those bispaces whose
finest quasi-proximity is quasi-metrizable in terms of (real-valued) quasi-
proximally continuous functions. He also observed that there are bispaces whose
finest quasi-proximity is quasi-metrizable but their finest quasi-uniformity is
not. Furthermore he showed that if the finest quasi-proximity of a Hausdorff
topological space X is quasi-metrizable, then X is a metrizable space with only
finitely many nonisolated points.
Preconvex quasi-pseudometrics were introduced and studied by Hejcman
and Vilimovsky in [239]. They called a quasi-pseudometric d on a set X
preconvex if there is a positive real c such that for any points x, y E X
satisfying d (x, y) < c and any positive reals r and s satisfying d (x, y) <
r + s there exists z E X with d(x, z) < r and dez, y) < s. Furthermore
a (quasi-)unormity is said to be preconvex if it is generated by a family of
preconvex (quasi-)pseudometrics. Note that the standard quasi-metric on the
Sorgenfrey line is preconvex.
In [291] Kong, Kopperman and Meyer showed that every To-space whose
topology arises from a non-archimedean quasi-pseudometric has (what they
call) a metric analogue.
Moreover Salbany [521] studied the injective c10sure operator in various
topological settings. For example he investigated the injectives in the category
of quasi-pseudometric spaces and contraction mappings. He obtained the result
that a quasi-pseudometric space is injective with respect to isometries if and
only if it is radially convex and hypercomplete.
By means ofthe concept of a demi-quasi-metric space, in [426] Nauwelaerts
described the Cartesian c10sed topological hull of the category of extended
quasi-pseudo-metric spaces and non-expansive maps as a special instance of a
family (in the sense of Bourdaud) of Cartesian c10sed topological subconstructs
ofthe category of quasi-distance (that is, so-called extended quasi-pseudo-semi-
metric) spaces and non-expansive maps.
Finally we note that the balanced quasi-metrics of Doitchinov [134] resp.
the weighted quasi-metrics of Matthews [407] are discussed in Sections 6 resp.
11, to which we refer the interested reader.
In the literature there are numerous attempts to generalize Banach's fixed
point theorem to the realm of quasi-metric and quasi-uniform spaces; in par-
ticular many authors interested in applications of quasi-unorm structures in
computer science have established some kind of fixed point theorems (see e.g.
the papers by Matthews resp. Flagg and Kopperman [407], [162]). Several
papers are entirely devoted to fixed point theorems, e.g. the ones by Harder
and Hicks [233], [243] as weIl as the ones by Reilly and Subrahmanyam [472],
[475]. A fixed point theorem for functions in a quasi-uniform space which
generalizes the Banach contraction principle was for instance given by Morales
[412].
Some contributions to the work of Hicks, in particular related to his version
of Caristi's theorem were subsequently made by Ciric [93], [94], Checa and
Romaguera [85], Jachymski [262] and Rhoades [483].
Moreover Kada, Suzuki and Takahashi [272] introduced and studied some
special kind of asymmetric distance function in metric spaces that they called
w-distance to improve various classical fixed point theorems. In [25] Baisnab
and Jas extended the concept of positive definiteness, defined by Dugundji for
metric spaces, to quasi-proximity spaces in order to prove some fixed point
theorem.
Semi-Lipschitz functions in quasi-metric spaces were defined and studied by
Romaguera and Sanchis [507] and then applied to problems ofbest approxima-
tion. (A function f : X ~ R from a quasi-metric space (X, d) into the reals is
said to be semi-Lipschitz ifthere exists k ~ 0 such that f(x) - f(y) ::: kd(x, y)
whenever x, y EX.)
We conclude this section with a discussion of applications of quasi-metrics
in other areas of mathematics (see also Sections 11 and 12). In [263] Jawhari,
Misane and Pouzet investigated in depth graphs and ordered sets as a kind
of quasi-metric space where - instead of real numbers - the values of the
distance function belong to an ordered semigroup equipped with an involution.
It was shown that many known results on retractions and fixed point property
for classical metric spaces extend to these spaces. The authors concluded that
their approach supports the idea that certain concepts of infinistic nature, like
those which inspired metric spaces, can perfectly apply to the study of discrete,
or even finite structures.
Cunningham [114] discussed the concept of nonymmetric distance in math-
ematical psychology with the help of bidirectional trees. Numerical methods
were presented that can be used to derive a representation for any given set of
dissimilarities.
An application ofnonsymmetric distance functions to questions ofbiomath-
ematics was outlined by Beyer, Smith and Waterman [41]. These authors used
quasi-pseudometrics to measure the distance between biological sequences,
such as amino acid sequences or nucleotide sequences and developed various
algorithms to compute those distances.
In [141] Domiaty sketched an intrinsic theory of quasi-metric spaces in the

sense of Rinow and in [142] he studied the relevance of quasi-metrics to the
structure of space time.
Aumann [22] studied a lattice-theoretic approach to catastrophe theory. It
is based on his "Emissionsrume", which essentiallyare just (extended) quasi-
pseudometric spaces in disguise.
The aim of Zaustinsky's study [589] was to ascertain to what extent the
results ofBuseman's theory offinitely compact metric space with locally unique
geodesics depended on the symmetry of the metric. It turned out that nearly
every theorem of the symmetric theory which could be formulated at all without
the assumption of symmetry holds without this assumption.
Sontag argued in [551] that a very natural framework for the study of
(energy) dissipation - in the sense of Willems, Moylan and Hill - is that
of indefinite quasi-pseudometric spaces. (Those distances are also allowed to be
+00 or negative.) Several basic facts about dissipative systems are shown to be
simple consequences of the properties of such spaces. He also suggested that
these spaces provide a natural context for the study of optimal control problems,
and even for "gap" formulations of robustness.
In [21] Arenas and Sanchez-Granero used quasi-metrics in their theory of
fractal structures on metric spaces.
11. Applications to Theoretical Computer Science
We should remark first that in investigations related to computer science quasi-

pseudometrics are normally assumed to satisfy the To-axiom in order that their
specialization preorder is a partial order; in fact, authors (and we in the following
paragraphs) often use the term "quasi-metrics" for such distance functions.
The study of concepts from the theory of quasi-uniform spaces in connec-
tions with problems from theoretical computer science seems to originate with
Smyth [547]. In his opinion quasi-metric and quasi-uniform spaces provide, inter
alia, a common generalization of cpo' s and metric spaces as used in denotational
semantics. But to accommodate the examples suggested by computer science,
he thought that a reworking of basic notions involving limits and completeness
would be necessary.
An important technical tool to reconcile orders and metric spaces emerged
from Kopperman's influential paper [294] where he developed bis idea of a
continuity space in order to show that all topologies come from generalized
metric spaces. In this article an approach to topological spaces via quasi-metrics
with values in special semigroups was outlined. It was also shown that aspace
is completely regular if and only if it can be induced by such a symmetric
quasi-metric. Of course, the idea to replace the reals in the definition of (quasi-
pseudo)metrics by some more general structure is a very old one (see e.g.
the papers cited by Reichel in his study on wJL-quasi-metrizable spaces [468]

or the study of (separation axioms induced by) Boltjanskii's semifield quasi-
pseudometrics conducted by Anton and Pervin [15] resp. Hicks and Satterwhite
[245]; compare also with more recent (metric) investigations due to Priess-
Crampe and Ribenboim [457]).
Although quasi-uniform and continuity spaces are very similar concepts,
in some contexts the additional structure available in continuity spaces makes
them easier to handle.
In [161] Flagg refined Kopperman's notion of a continuity space to the
concept of a "V -continuity space. He suggested that the appropriate abstract
structure to play the role of distances in a general theory of metric spaces is
that of a value quantale "V; that is a completely distributive quantale, in which
the set of elements well above 0 is a filter. A continuity space, as defined by
Flagg, is just a category enriched in a value quantale. Thus the entire machinery
of enriched category theory is immediately available for the study of continuity
spaces. Flagg's theory owes much to Lawvere's striking idea to consider a
quasi-pseudometric space a generalized poset [360].
In [159] Flagg constructed the Cauchy (bi)completion of a continuity space.
To this end he applied enriched category theory to study Cauchy completeness
in continuity spaces. His main result is the equivalence in continuity spaces of
the category theoretic and the uniform notions of Cauchy completeness. This
theorem provides a simple construction of the Cauchy completion of a continuity
space.
In recent years a dass of spaces has emerged - the locally compact strongly
sober spaces (by some authors also called stably continuous or skew compact;
see e.g. [297, Comment 4.12]) - which appears to be a suitable analogue in
the category of To-spaces to the dass of compact spaces in the category of
Hausdorff spaces.
As mentioned before, in [63] Brmmer and Knzi had shown that if Oll, is
a compatible tota1ly bounded quasi-uniformity on a To-space (X, ~), then the
bicompletion (i, oU) of (X, Oll,) is a strongly sober, locally compact space. The
strongly sober locally compact spaces can be characterized as the topological
To-spaces that admit a totally bounded bicomplete quasi-uniformity. It is the
coarsest compatible quasi-uniformity of such spaces. A crucial property of these
spaces is the fact that their way-below relation is multiplicative (see e.g. also
[264]).
The topologies under consideration have an alternative characterization as
the upper topology of compactly ordered spaces (in Nachbin's sense; compare
Seetion 8). Hence compactification with respect to this dass can be viewed
as ordered compactifications or strongly sober compactifications. The corre-
spondence between quasi-proximities and strongly sober compactifications sub-
sumes the c1assical correspondence between proximities and Hausdorff com-

pactifications.
In [548] Smyth argued that in searching for "the" category of domains of
computation, these bicomplete totally bounded quasi-uniform spaces or compact
pospaces are worth considering.
Banaschewski and Brmmer [31] presented a frame theoretic approach to
this topic. They showed that stably continuous frames are exactly the first parts
of compact regular biframes.
In bis paper on the Fell compactification (compare with Fell's original
construction [149]), Knzi [305] proved that some general facts about quasi-
uniformities, when specialized to the coarsest compatible quasi-uniformity on
a (sober) core-compact space, are equivalent to several well-known results
from the theory of (distributive) continuous lattices. Moreover, the idea of
the coarsest compatible quasi-uniformity on a core-compact space helped to
c1arify some connections between the theory of the Fell compactification and
the theory of Hausdorff compactifications. In particular he constructed the Fell
compactification of a locally compact space as the bicompletion of its coarsest
compatible quasi-uniformity.
Similarly, van Gool [568] proved that every continuous lattice has a unique
quasi-uniform structure generating both the order and the Lawson topology. The
way-below relation can be characterized with the help of this quasi-uniform
structure. He also extended results about the analytical properties of real-valued
lower semicontinuous functions to lower semicontinuous functions with values
in a continuous lattice.
In their papers Lawson [359] and Smyth [549] collected and surveyed many
of the known facts on strongly sober compactifications and illustrated various
theorems in the context of continuous dcpo's and domains (see also the artic1e
by Flagg and Koppermann [163]). A similar corresponding theory for continuity
spaces was developed by Flagg and Kopperman in [164]. They showed that their
category of symmetrically compact 'V-continuity spaces with continuous maps
has the key properties required of a category of domains and that it captures, in
a natural way, the traditional examples.
Moreover in [160] Flagg showed that the forgetful functor G: CmptPoSp ~
PoSet is monadic where CmptPoSp denotes the category of compact pospaces
with continuous increasing maps and PoSet denotes the category of partially
ordered sets and increasing maps. His theorem can be considered an asymmet-
ric version of Manes' theorem. Earlier Simmons [541] and Wyler [586] had
shown that CmptPoSp is algebraic over the category of topological spaces and
continuous maps (compare Section 4).
In [264] Jung and Snderhauf sharpened the notion of a quasi-uniform
space to spaces wbich carry with them functional means of approximating
points, opens and compacts. Assuming nothing but sobriety, the requirement
of uniform approximation ensures that such spaces are compact ordered in the
sense ofNachbin. The canonical quasi-uniformity ofthese (so-called uniformly
approximated) spaces X is generated by functions in the sense that there exists
a base consisting ofhypergraphs of continuous functions, where the hypergraph
of a function f : X --+ X is defined by {(x, y) : f (x) E {y}}.
The category of totally bounded bicomplete quasi-uniform spaces also yields
the starting point of Snderhauf's construction of a function space constructor
yielding a symmetric monoidal c10sed category [560]. Since, for the sake of
completeness, the author had to consider multivalued functions, also a suit-
able powerspace functor was defined. His powerspace construction (related to
Hausdorff's construction) inc1udes some well-known constructions like the
Smyth, Hoare and Plotkin powerdomains.
As an application, he gave a convenient model for the real numbers in
that category. In [564] he generalized the construction to the wider c1ass of
uniformly locally totally bounded quasi-uniform spaces, which is contained in
the c1ass of all S-completable spaces (see the following paragraph). In this
artic1e a refined function space construction was introduced. His basic idea is
that quasi-uniformities, being a common refinement of uniformities and partial
orders, may serve as a useful tool to introduce the notion of quantity into domain
theory.
Another important idea due to Smyth [550] was the suggestion to endow a
quasi-uniform space (X, OlL) with a topology r:J that is not necessarily its standard
topology r(OlL), but is linked to its quasi-uniform structure by some additional
axioms. Any topological quasi-uniform space (X, OlL, r:J) satisfies r:J ~ r(OlL);
furthermore nOlL coincides with the specialization preorder of r:J.
Moreover Smyth defined an appropriate concept of a Cauchy filter (now
often called S-Cauchy filter) on a topological quasi-uniform space and called
a topological quasi-uniform space complete if every round Cauchy filter is the
r:J -neighborhood filter of a (unique) point. Let us note that for topological quasi-
uniform spaces carrying the standard topology the concepts of S-Cauchy filter
and Smyth completeness (= S-completeness) reduce to the concepts considered
in Section 7. Smyth formulated much of the material of his paper in terms of
the syntopological spaces due to Csaszar.
Correcting an error in a preliminary version of Smyth' s artic1e, Snderhauf
[557] verified that by choosing an appropriate set ofaxioms one can indeed
obtain a categorically nice completion theory in Smyth's sense, which extends
the c1assical completion theory for uniform spaces.
Furthermore he called a quasi-uniform space equipped with its standard
topology S-completable (i.e. Smyth-completable) if its Smyth completion also
carries the standard topology and proved that a quasi-uniformity is S-
completable if and only if each (round) S-Cauchy filter is stable. For Smyth-
completable spaces the construction of the Smyth completion coincides with
the bicompletion. He also showed by a counterexample that Smyth's original

axioms would not work. Unfortunately, the set ofaxioms due to Snderhauf may
not be completely satisfactory yet: As Knzi observed in [322], those axioms
need not be preserved by restricting the quasi-uniformity and topology of a
topological quasi-uniform space to arbitrary subsets. He proved however that
they are preserved under arbitrary products.
Knzi [322] also noted that in Snderhauf's characterization of Smyth-
completable quasi-uniform spaces the word "S-Cauchy filter" can be replaced
by "left K -Cauchy filter". Hence a quasi-uniform space (X, Oll) is S-completable
(S-complete) if and only if each left K-Cauchy filter is Cauchy in (X, Oll*)
(converges with respect to the supremum topology r(Oll*. In particular, each
Smyth complete quasi-uniform space is left K -complete.
Another condition equivalent to Smyth completability is given by the prop-
erty that each round S-Cauchy filter is the envelope of a Cauchy filter with
respect to the supremum uniformity. Furthermore he noted that a topological
quasi-uniform space (X, Oll, 5") where Oll-I is hereditarily precompact carries its
standard topology r(Oll) and is S-completable. Moreover a quasi-uniformity is
tota1ly bounded if and only if it is hereditarily precompact and S-completable.
Results related to these investigations were also obtained in Hungary. In
[128] Deak observed that a filter in a quasi-uniform space is the second member
of a linked Cauchy filter pair if and only if it is stable and S-Cauchy (where,
as mentioned earlier, in his terminology S-Cauchy filters are called (weakly)
hereditarily Cauchy filters); similarly a quasi-uniformity is Smyth complete if
and only if it is bicomplete and each S-Cauchy filter is stable (compare with
Snderhauf's results [557] cited above). Finally he showed that the following
conditions are equivalent for a quasi-uniform space: (i) it has a Smyth complete
superspace; (ii) it has a Smyth complete firm (= supdense) extension; (iii) each
S-Cauchy filter is stable. Recently Csaszar [105] also studied conditions under
which a D-Cauchy filter cg admits a co-filter ~ such that the Cauchy filter pair
(~, cg) is linked.
Originally Smyth and Snderhauf developed their theory in terms of filters.

In [561] Snderhauf introduced the notion of a computational Cauchy net
and an appropriate notion of strong convergence (namely convergence with
-1
respect to 5" v r (Oll to get the result that an arbitrary topological quasi-
uniform space (X, Oll, ~) is Smyth complete if and only if every computational
Cauchy net strongly converges. Before, he [559] had treated the special case
that the additional topology of the topological quasi-uniform space coincides
with the standard topology and proved that a quasi-uniform space is Smyth-
completable (resp. Smyth complete) if and only if each left K -Cauchy net
is Cauchy (resp. converges) with respect to the supremum uniformity. As the
notion of convergence associated with S-Cauchy filters is not just the usual
topological convergence, the usual filter-net translation does not work in this
case and it is not a trivial task to derive such characterizations.
If we equip an arbitrary topological space with the weIl-monotone quasi-
uniformity (and its standard topology), then we obtain the sobrification equipped
with its weIl-monotone quasi-uniformity as its S-completion. Developing this
result, essentially due to Ferrario and Knzi [150], [322], in ajoint paper Flagg,
Kopperman and Snderhauf [165] introduced a functor w from the category
of topological quasi-uniform To-spaces and continuous, quasi-uniformly con-
tinuous maps to the category of quasi-uniform To-spaces and quasi-uniformly
continuous maps that equips the underlying set X of a topological quasi-uniform
space (X, OU, '!J) with some kind of weIl-monotone quasi-uniformity OU~ derived
from OU and '!J and acts as identity on morphisms. They showed that t' (OU~) = '!J
and t' OU~) -1) = t' (OU -1). Furthermore, they proved that for any topological
quasi-uniform space (X, OU, '!J) with Smyth completion (X, au, ~) the roundifi-
cation Rd of filters yields a quasi-uniform isomorphism from the bicompletion
(X, aU;) of (X, OU~) to (X, au'). Indeed, they verified that Rd is a natural
isomorphism b 0 W --+ W 0 s where b (resp. s) denotes the bicompletion (resp.
Smyth completion) functor. In particular, it follows from their results that the
Smyth completion (X, au, ~) of (X, au., '!J) can be obtained via the bicompletion
(X, aU;) and that a topological quasi-uniform space is Smyth complete exactly
when its image under the functor w is bicomplete.
In [166] Flagg and Snderhauf introduced and studied a concept of a topo-
logical 'V -continuity space. They showed that the Smyth completion of a quali-
tative domain with its Alexandroff topology yields the ideal completion together
with its Scott topology. For the case of posets this theorem reduces to a result
due to R.-E. Hoffmann: The sobrification of aposet in its Alexandroff topology
equals the ideal completion ip its Scott topology.
A further important attempt to reconcile orders and metric spaces is due to
Matthews [407]. It arose in the context ofhis studies of denotational semantics
of dataflow networks. Based on his idea that points do not necessarily have zero
distance from themselves he introduced the concept of a partial metric. He also
showed that an equivalent theory can be obtained by his so-called weighted
quasi-pseudometrics. A quasi-pseudometric space (X, q) is weightable [407] if
there exists a (so-called weight) function I . I : X --+ R+ (here R+ denotes the
set of the nonnegative reals) satisfying
q(x, y) + lxi = q(y, x) + Iyl

whenever x, y E X. In this case q is called a weightable quasi-pseudometric
and the pair (q, I .1) is called a weighted quasi-pseudometric. Matthews showed
that each weighted quasi-pseudometric can be replaced by a bounded weighted
quasi-pseudometric inducing the same topology.
Obviously, each metric is weightable and the weight function of a weightable

quasi-pseudometric is determined up to an additive constant.
In their topological study of weighted quasi-pseudometrics Knzi and
Vajner [347] showed among other things that topologies induced by weightable
quasi-pseudometrics are quasi-developable and that the Pixley-Roy space over
the reals does not admit a weighted quasi-metric; but that each (To)-space
with a l1-point-bounded base admits a weighted quasi-pseudometric. Theyalso
characterized those partially ordered sets whose Alexandroff topology admits a
weightable quasi-pseudometric. Finally they developed a method of construct-
ing weighted quasi-pseudometrics with the help of certain weighted paths. It fol-
lowed from their results that the well-known completely regular pseudocompact
space \11 due to Mr6wka admits a weighted quasi-metric.
By observations due to Knzi [322] each totally bounded quasi-uniformity
with a countable base is weightable and each weightable quasi-pseudometric
induces a Smyth-completable quasi-uniformity. Observing that the induced
quasi-uniformity is totally bounded on each weighted stable quasi-pseudometric
compact space, he deduced that a weighted quasi-pseudometric on a regular
space that is stable induces a metrizable topology.
Connections between the partial metrics of Matthews and topological as-
pects of domain theory were further developed by O'Neill [434]. He allowed
points to have negative weights and used valuations as a kind of generalized
norms to construct weighted quasi-pseudometrics. The connection between par-
tial metrics and valuations was also investigated by Bukatin, Scott and Shorina
in [64], [65]. Each of these approaches expounded the generation of partial
metrics via valuations. A c1ass of spaces for which these two kinds of functions
are in fact equivalent was exhibited by Schellekens in [531].
Schellekens [527] also provided a topological foundation for the complexity
analysis ofprograms via his theory of"complexity(distance) spaces". His com-
plexity spaces are weightable and thus, belong to the c1ass of Smyth-completable
quasi-uniform spaces.
An important point (from the point of view of computer science) regard-
ing the theory of complexity spaces is that their theory provides new means
to analyse the complexity of algorithms based on techniques typically used
in denotational semantics, as for instance fixed point analysis. He illustrated
the applicability of his theory to the c1ass of "divide and conquer" algorithms
and in particular presented a new proof of the fact that mergesort has optimal
asymptotic average running time.
In joint work with Romaguera he determined some of the quasi-metric prop-
erties ofbis complexity space [508], [509]. They introduced the dual complexity
space and with the help of this concept they established further properties of
the complexity space. In particular, they showed that the complexity space is
Smyth complete and that its subspaces are totally bounded if they possess a
(complexity) lower bound. Furthermore they observed that it is possible to

carry out the complexity analysis of algorithms based on the dual complexity
space and that the dual complexity space is mathematically somewhat more
appealing than the original complexity space. They also studied a general no-
tion of complexity space from the point of view of convergence in [510]. In
particular they introduced the so-called quasi-metric of complexity convergence
and investigated its completeness properties. That induced quasi-uniformity
is finer than the quasi-uniformity of pointwise convergence and weaker than
the quasi-uniformity of (quasi-)uniform convergence. They showed that Smyth
completeness is preserved by the quasi-uniformity of complexity convergence
and obtained versions of Grothendieck's compactness theorem in this context.
In [512] they introduced the notion of a norm-weightable Riesz space and
proved that the dual complexity space is the negative cone of a biBanach
norm-weightable Riesz space (compare Section 12). They also characterized
norm-weightable Riesz spaces in terms of semivaluation spaces. Finally, they
defined quasi-uniform Riesz spaces and characterized them in the setting of
semivaluation spaces.
In [528], [346] Schellekens noted that a quasi-pseudometric space is S-
completable if and only if every left K -Cauchy sequence on the space is
biCauchy, i.e. Cauchy with respect to the supremum pseudometric.
He studied in [529], [530], [531] interesting subc1asses ofweightable spaces,
e.g. the so-caUed weightable directed spaces and, especiaUy, the upper weight-
able spaces. Furthermore he discussed (quasi-uniformly continuous) join semi-
lattices and lattices, and he exhibited connections between his theory and the
dimension theory of modular lattices.
Introducing formal balls Edalat and Heckmann [146] provided a simple
explicit construction of a computational model for a Polish space. In fact, for
every metric space X they constructed a continuous poset BX such that X
is homeomorphic to the set of maximal elements of BX with the relative Scott
topology. The poset BX is a dcpo if and only if X is complete, and w-continuous
if and only if X is separable. Recently, Heckmann [238] dealt with a variant of
Matthews's partial metrics to investigate the basic properties ofthe spaces BX.
Using results on quasi-pseudometrics due to Smyth, Rutten [514] developed
a generalized ultrametric domain theory that is directly based on Lawvere's
"V -categorical interpretation of (quasi-)metric spaces. Rutten continued and gen-
eralized his work in ajoint paper with Bonsangue and van Breugel [47] (see also
[46]), which contains the most complete description ofthese ideas so far. These
authors tried to reconcile the enriched categorical approach of Lawvere and
the topological approach of Smyth. Among other things it was shown how to
construct completions and powerdomains for their generalized (quasi-)metric
spaces. Their completions can be interpreted as a kind of K -completions for
quasi-pseudometric spaces. The basic idea of this kind of completeness is
the following: A point x of an extended quasi-pseudometric space (X, d) is

said to be the (directed) forward-limit of a left K-Cauchy net (Xi)iEl in X
provided that d(x, y) = infiEl SUPj~i d(xj, y) holds for all y E X. Then a
quasi-pseudometric space can be called forward-complete (resp. sequentially
forward-complete) provided that allieft K -Cauchy nets (resp. left K -Cauchy
sequences) have a forward-limit.
Restricted to the special cases of preorders and ordinary metric spaces
these constructions would yield, respectively, chain completion and Cauchy
completion. All constructions are formulated in terms of (a metric (sequential)
version ot) the Yoneda embedding. It is interesting to compare them with a now
c1assical construction due to Stoltenberg [554].
In [515] Rutten used weighted limits and colimits in generalized met-
ric spaces to give a purely enriched-categorical formulation of forward- and
backward-Cauchy sequences and their forward- and backward-limits. Further-
more he showed how formal balls arise in a natural way by means of the
co-Yoneda embedding, and are related to fuzzy and c10sed balls by means of
the Isbell conjunction.
The Yoneda-completion of a quasi-pseudometric space was further inves-
tigated by Knzi and Schellekens in [346]. (In the context of topological "V'-
continuity spaces similar results were independently obtained by Flagg and
Snderhauf [166].)
In particular Knzi and Schellekens showed that the largest c1ass of quasi-
pseudometric spaces idempotent under the Yoneda-completion is the c1ass of
Smyth-completable spaces. They also proved that the Yoneda-completion (resp.
sequential Yoneda-completion) of a quasi-pseudometric space (X, d), inter-
preted as a quasi-uniform space, yields the quasi-uniform space of the Smyth
completion (resp. the subspace of the Smyth completion consisting of the round
S-Cauchy filters associated with the left K -Cauchy sequences) of (X, <JUd, "C(d.
Sequential Yoneda-completion and Yoneda-completion coincide for Smyth-
completable quasi-pseudometric spaces. Finally they observed that a precom-
pact Smyth complete topological quasi-uniform (To- )space is compact.
Related results along the same lines were also obtained by Flagg, Snderhauf
and Wagner [167]. They developed in the setting of continuity spaces a logical
approach to quantitative domain theory by introducing an appropriate notion
of ideal. They constructed ideal completions for arbitrary continuity spaces,
defined a general version of the Scott topology and showed that it can be used to
characterize Scott-continuous maps; furthermore they defined algebraic quanti-
tative domains and gave a representation theory for them in terms of bicomplete
continuity spaces. They noted that their theory of quantitative domains via ideals
is equivalent to a theory based on left K -Cauchy nets.
In the context ofLawvere's approach, using enriched categories, ideals were
independently introduced as Bat modules over the quasi-(pseudo)metric space
by Vickers in [572], when constructing a locale that enjoys many properties

appropriate for a completion. Various examples and constructions ineluding
the lower, upper and Vietoris powerlocales were given, which turn out to be
completions of finite powerspaces. His exposition used the language oflocales as
"topology-free spaces". Completion was viewed as a construction that changes
the nature of the object that it is applied to - from set with structure to a locale.
In [562] Snderhauf developed a theory of powerspaces for quantitative
domains which carrled over the theme of replacing the 2-valued logic by a
more elaborate logic. Taking the logic of quasi-pseudometrlc spaces, namely
[0,00] with usual addition and multiplication, he found a elose connection to
the powerdomain of extended prob ability measures.
In [563] he defined a natural quasi-pseudometric on the set of continuous
valuations on (the open sets of) a topological space and investigated it in the
spirit of quasi-metric domain theory. In particular the space of valuations of an
ordinary algebraic domain D (equipped with its Scott topology) was shown to
be an algebraic quasi-pseudometric domain. Moreover it was proved that it is
precisely the lower powerdomain of D.
12. Applications to Topological Algebra
Various attempts to use quasi-uniformities in topological algebra can be found

in the literature. In particular, the study of paratopological groups with the help
of quasi-uniformities is weH known [415, p. 9]. A paratopological (or quasi-
topologieal) group is a group equipped with a topology such that its group
operation (multiplication) is continuous. The Sorgenfrey line with addition as
group operation yields a typical example of that kind of structure. Clearly each
paratopological group topology possesses a natural conjugate whose topology
is defined by algebraic inversion and an associated suptopology which gives
rise to a topological group. Hence it is a topological group if and only if its
original and its conjugate topologies coincide. Many authors have determined
conditions under which a paratopological group is a topological group; see
e.g. [482] Reznichenko's recent discussion of this problem, where it was also
shown that in Tychonoff paratopological groups pseudocompactness is such a
condition.
By definitions analogous to those used in the case of topological groups,
on a paratopological group one can define three (standard) compatible quasi-
uniformities, namely the left quasi-uniformity, the right quasi-uniformity and the
two-sided quasi-uniformity. For first investigations on paratopological groups
that are relevant to our topic we refer the reader to the papers by Fletcher and
Lindgren [192] and Raghavan and Reilly [462].
Many of the basic results on paratopological groups were coHected and first
presented in a systematic form by Marin and Romaguera [405]. They showed
that the ground set of the bicompletion of the two-sided quasi-uniformity of a

paratopological (To)-group naturally carries the structure of a paratopological
group; moreover the quasi-uniformity of that bicompletion yields the two-sided
quasi-uniformity of the constructed paratopological group.
Furthermore they observed that each first-countable paratopological group
admits a left-invariant quasi-pseudometric compatible with its left quasi-
uniformity. The two-sided quasi-uniformity of a To-quasi-pseudometrizable
paratopological group is bicomplete if and only if the associated supremum
topology is completely metrizable.
Extending further results from the theory of topological groups, in [406]
they proved that the ground set of the bicompletion of the left quasi-uniformity
of a paratopological (To- )group G naturally carries the stucture of a topological
semigroup. They also characterized those paratopological groups for which the
semigroup is a group H by the condition that each filter which is Cauchy with
respect to the left uniformity is Cauchy with respect to the right uniformity ofthe
associated topological group on G; under the latter condition the bicompleted
left quasi-uniformity of G yields the left quasi-uniformity of the paratopological
group H.
Together with Knzi in [332] they also generalized parts of their theory
to topological semigroups (with neutral element). Among other things, they
showed that for such a To-semigroup X in which the left translations are open,
the bicompletion of the left quasi-uniformity of X (defined in the obvious
way) can be considered a topological semigroup which contains the topological
space X as a supdense subsemigroup (see also [293]). For semigroups which
are (left-)cancellable or which are locally totally bounded, further theorems
similar to those known from the c1assical theory of (para)topological groups
were established. For instance it was shown that if (X, ~) is a cancellative To-
topological semigroup with neutral element such that the topologies induced by
its left and right quasi-uniformities coincide, then the bicompletion of its two-
sided quasi-uniformity OUB is the two-sided quasi-uniformity of the (obvious)
canceIlative semigroup structure on the set of OUB-Cauchy filters; furthermore
on the latter semigroup the topologies of the left and right quasi-uniformities
coincide again. An analogous result was obtained for To-topological semigroups
that are locally totally bounded (with respect to OUB). Similarly to the c1assical
case, comparable results were also proved for the left quasi-uniformity OUL
of a To-topological semigroup (with neutral element) in case that it is locally
totally bounded (with respect to OUL> resp. it is left-canceIlable and satisfies the
condition that each out - Cauchy filter is a OUR-Cauchy filter.
A distributive near-ring N with a topology ~ is called a quasi-topological
near-ring if the mappings (x, y) 1-+ X + y, X 1-+ ax, x 1-+ xa, a E N,
are all continuous. Noting that in this case (N, -~) is a quasi-topological
near-ring as weIl, in [273] Karthikeyan applied some of the results due to
Marin and Romaguera on the bicompletion of the two-sided quasi-uniformity

of a paratopological group to his theory of quasi-bitopological near-rings and
(continuous) actions on N-groups.
In [344] Knzi, Romaguera and Sipacheva observed that the two-sided
quasi-uniformity of a regular paratopological group is quiet in the sense of
Doitchinov. Furthermore they established that the Doitchinov completion of the
two-sided quasi-uniformity of an abelian regular paratopological group G can be
considered an abelian paratopological group containing G as a (doubly dense)
subgroup. In this sense for instance the additive group of reals equipped with the
Sorgenfrey topology is the Doitchinov completion of its subgroup consisting of
the rationals.
They also noted that their result cannot be extended to arbitrary regular
paratopological groups by providing a regular paratopological group in which
the product of two Cauchy filter pairs need not be a Cauchy filter pair (with
respect to the two-sided quasi-uniformity).
Finally they showed that a paratopological group that is regular and 10-
cally hereditarily precompact (with respect to the left quasi-uniformity) is a
topological group. Similarly, each Tl-paratopological group whose two-sided
quasi-uniformity is left K -complete and stable was shown to be a topological
group. Still unpublished investigations on free paratopological groups were
conducted by Romaguera, Sanchis and Tkachenko.
In the rest of this section we exhibit some further work on algebraic struc-
tures where concepts from asymmetric topology were used successfully.
In [293] Kopperman characterized those topological semigroups whose
topology arises from a collection of (left) sub-invariant pseudometrics or quasi-
pseudometrics. The concept of a continuity space is already mentioned in that
paper.
Heath [237] gave (among other things) examples of a cancellative topo-
logical semigroup that is a Moore space, although it is not quasi-metrizable,
and a connected, locally compact, cancellative topological semigroup that is a
quasi-metrizable Moore space, but not metrizable.
In [12] A10 and Deeba continued work ofIseki dealing with possibilities to
define natural (quasi-)uniformities on BCK-algebras.
In the spirit of Kopperman's continuity spaces, Golan [221] tried to find
topologies on spectra of rings analogous to the Zariski topology as a first step
towards the definition of a noncommutative algebraic geometry.
Quasi-uniformities have also been applied successfully to questions in func-
tional analysis. In [4], [5] Alegre, Ferrer and Gregori studied quasi-uniform
structures in linear lattices, which are generated by their so-called quasi-norms.
(Here the basic idea is that the equation Ilax 11 = aIIx 11 need only hold for
nonnegative real a.) As they noted, the latter concept is c10sely related to the
c1assical notion of a sublinear functional.
They also obtained a type of Hahn-Banach Theorem for upper semi-

continuous functionals on their pseudotopologieal vector spaces, whieh they
had equipped with a translation invariant quasi-uniformity (see also [7]). The
article [6] contains investigations on variants of the Baire space property in
quasi-normed spaces.
Of course, the idea to consider concepts of half-norms in real vector spaces
is much older than these papers. The article by Nagel [421, p. 59] contains some
remarks on the history of that subject.
A related notion can also be found under the name of a nonsymmetrie norm
in Russian articles dealing with problems in sign-sensitive approximation theory
(see e.g. the paper by Dolzhenko and Sevast'yanov [140]).
In [509] Romaguera and Schellekens showed that the structure of a quasi-
normed semilinear space provides a suitable setting to carry out an analysis
of the dual complexity space. A quasi-normed space whose induced quasi-
pseudometric is bieomplete is called a biBanach space.
In this context we should mention the interesting concept of a convex quasi-
uniform structure introduced by Keimel and Roth [276] in their book "Ordered
Cones and Approximation". In order to find a unified presentation of Korovkin
type approximation theorems these authors left the setting of vector spaces and
tumed to more general structures whieh they called locally convex (partially
ordered) cones. The structure of these cones is still rich enough to yield Hahn-
Banach type theorems. As they showed, a possible approach to locally convex
cones is through appropriate quasi-uniform structures.
Henriksen, Kopperman, Mack and Somerset [240] applied the theory of
joincompact (= supcompact pairwise Tychonoff) bitopologieal spaces in a uni-
fying study about the ideal theory of commutative rings and C* -algebras. Some
interesting problems about distance matrices for finite subsets of quasi-metric
spaces were posed by Watson in [577].
13. Quasi-uniform Frames and Fuzzy Quasi-uniformities
Covering quasi-uniformities in the pointless context were first studied thor-

oughly by Frith [212] in his thesis. The concept of abiframe, whieh was crucial
for Frith's study had been introduced before by Banaschewski, Brmmer and
Hardie [33]. Frith also made use of the conjugate pair-cover approach to quasi-
uniform spaces due to Ganter and Steinlage [216]. Furthermore he realized
that the congruence lattiee of a frame is naturally viewed as a completely
regular biframe in whieh the "first" subframe is just (an isomorphie copy of)
the given frame. Connections between fuzzy topologieal structures and frames
were exhibited.
During the last years Fletcher, Hunsaker and Lindgren [183], [184], [185]
developed a theory of entourage quasi-uniformities for frames. They showed
that the new theory comprises the classical theory of quasi-uniform spaces as
weH as the theory of frame uniformities and is, in the setting of biframes,
equivalent to Frith's theory of covering quasi-uniformities. Many results about
compactifications and completions have been established by these three authors
for frame quasi-uniformities which extend the c1assical theory of quasi-uniform
spaces. For instance in their article [184] they considered totally bounded quasi-
uniformities and quasi-proximities for frames and proved that for a given quasi-
proximity < on a frame L there is a totally bounded quasi-uniformity on L that is
the coarsest quasi-uniformity and the only totally bounded quasi-uniformity, that
determines <. Furthermore they constructed the compactification of a totally
bounded frame quasi-uniformity.
In [213], [214] Frith, Hunsaker and Walters-Wayland presented the
(bi)completion of a quasi-uniform frame. Applied to a uniform frame their
procedure yields its (unique) completion. The notion of Samuel compactification
was extended to quasi-uniform frames. As expected, the Samuel compactifica-
tion of a quasi-uniform frame is defined to be the completion of its totally
bounded coreection. So-called Cauchy completions of quasi-uniform frames
were constructed by Kim [282]. It is known that each complete quasi-uniform
frame is Cauchy complete.
Doitchinov's paper [138] contains a discussion of such theories. While he
considered the entourage approach an important step in the development of
the theory of frames, he thought that the work done so far relies too heavily
on the idea of a conjugate "companion" frame. In his opinion the idea of a
conjugate space which appears quite naturally when considering a quasi-uniform
space consisting of points, is in fact something foreign in the pointless case. In
particular he suggested a different definition of u-smallness for frame elements
- a concept which is central in the theory of Fletcher, Hunsaker and Lindgren.
In any case, as in the spatial setting, entourage-like theories seem to be more
manageable than covering ones in the study of quasi-uniformities. An interest-
ing alternative (but equivalent) approach to entourage (quasi-)uniformities on
frames was recently presented by Picado [449], [450]. It clarified some points
raised in Doitchinov's discussion [138]. Picado's arguments rely on the presenta-
tion of the coproduct of the underlying frame by itself as a frame of C -ideals and
his entourages are special elements of that coproduct. He stated that the concept
of a quasi-uniform frame should be obtained from the corresponding symmetric
concept just by dropping the symmetry condition. In [260] Hunsaker and Picado
investigated the frame (quasi-uniformities) with a transitive base and established
results analogous to the corresponding spatial ones for zero-dimensional frames
and zero-dimensional biframes.
According to aresult ofNeville every frame is isomorphic to the generalized
Gleason algebra of an essentially unique bi-Stonian space (X, ff, ~). In [175]
Fletcher, Frith, Hunsaker and Schauerte showed that the unique quasi-uniformity
that detennines rzJ and the specialization order of :J' (in Nachbin's sense) is
compatible with :J' and coarser than the Pervin quasi-unifonnity of:J'.
The study ofjuzzy quasi-uniformities was initiated by Hutton [261]. Since
then fuzzy concepts in asymmetrie topology have been investigated by several
authors. In general, they tried more or less successfully to extend major c1assical
results about quasi-unifonnities to some fuzzy setting. The basic idea ofHutton's
fuzzification of quasi-unifonnities is the observation that if (X, Oll) is an ordinary
quasi-uniform space, then each entourage U can be identified with a function
U : 2 x -* 2 x by defining A -* U (A) as usual; obviously A 5; U (A) for every
A E 2 x and U preserves unions.
Hutton hirnself showed that every fuzzy topological space is fuzzy quasi-
unifonnizable. In [274] Katsaras proved that there exists a one-to-one correspon-
dence between the family of all fuzzy quasi-proximities, on a set X, and the
family of all totally bounded fuzzy quasi-proximities on X. In [275] he and Peta-
las considered a concept ofthe fuzzy fine (transitive) quasi-unifonnity. Wu and
Wu [585] proved that a fuzzy bitopological space is fuzzy quasi-unifonnizable
if and only if it is pairwise completely regular. Moreover it was shown that if
the (bi)space is also (pairwise) compact, then the fuzzy bitopology is induced
by a unique fuzzy quasi-unifonnity. Fuzzy Hausdorff-Bourbaki structures and
their relations with the fuzzy Vietoris structures were investigated by Maes in
[399].
In [145] Dzhajanbajev and Sostak introduced a concept of a fuzzy (quasi-)
uniformity which is consistent with fuzzy topology as it was defined by the
second author. According to Sostak a fuzzy topology on a set X is a fuzzy
subset of the fuzzy powerset I x (i.e. a mapping rzJ : I x -* l) satisfying certain
axioms.
However the approach to quasi-unifonnities outlined by these two authors,
which contains Hutton's theory as an important, but very special crisp case, led
to relations between fuzzy quasi-unifonnities and fuzzy quasi-proximities that
are essentially different from c1assical ones. Therefore, in his investigations on
fuzzy syntopogenous structures Sostak [552] suggested an alternative definition
of a fuzzy quasi-unifonnity which seems to be more satisfactory. In a related
artic1e [227], various quasi-uniform counterparts of even fuzzy topologies were
considered.
In the spirit of Nachbin, the three authors Allam, EI-Saady and Mashhour
[11] investigated the relationship between order and fuzzy unifonnities with
the help of fuzzy quasi-unifonnities. Fuzzy syntopogenous preordered spaces
were studied in [10]. Moreover the artic1e [26] contains a discussion of a notion
of a fuzzy proximity ordered space. Some concept of a stratified fuzzy quasi-
uniformity was considered in [35].
In [223], [224] Gregori and Romaguera proved some fixed point theorems
for fuzzy mappings in Smyth complete and left K -complete quasi-pseudometric
spaces.
In this context we should also mention the theories of pointwise topology
and pointwise quasi-uniformities on completely distributive lattices, developed
mainly in the Chinese mathematicalliterature [575], [588], [539]. One of its
purposes, according to Wang [575], is the intention to bring the theories ofpoint-
set topology and fuzzy topology together in a unified theory. In [540] Shi proved
for instance that each topological molecular lattice is quasi-uniformizable.
14. Approach Spaces and Approach Quasi-uniformities
In [378] Lowen axiometized the concept of a ([0, oo]-valued) distance 0 between

points and sub sets of a given set X in a very natural manner and introduced in
this way the concept of an approach space. Intuitively, an approach distance
measures how far a given point x of X is away from being an adherence point
of a given subset A S; X. Observe that it may happen that o(x, A) is small
whereas all o(x, {an with a E A are large. A notion c10sely related to the
concept of an approach structure was introduced by Shchepin in [538] under
the name of a K-metric.
Given approach spaces (X, 0) and (X', 0') a map f : X --+ X' is called a con-
tractionifo'(f(x), f(A::: o(x, A) wheneverx EX andA S; X. Thetopolog-
ical category of approach spaces AP and contracting maps contains nicely em-
bedded the categories oftopological spaces and extended (quasi-)pseudometric
spaces:
For a topological space (X, ?J), 0'!J defined by o'!J(x, A) = 0 if x E c1'!J(A),
and o?J(x, A) = 00 if x ~ c1?J(A) , is an approach distance on X and the
continuous maps between topological spaces correspond exacdy to the contrac-
tions between the so defined topological approach spaces. Similarly, if (X, d)
is an extended quasi-pseudometric space, then Od(X, A) = infaEAd(x, a) de-
fines an approach distance and the contractions between quasi-pseudometric
approach structures are exact1y the non-expansive maps between the extended
quasi-pseudometric spaces.
Each approach space (X, 0) possesses both an underlying topology ?Ja and
an underlying extended quasi-pseudometric da (determined by the topological
resp. quasi-pseudometric corefiection): The topological c10sure operator of?Ja is
given by c1?J~A = {x EX: o(x, A) = O} and the extended quasi-pseudometric
is defined by da (x, y) = o(x, {y}).
An approach distance on X corresponds bijectively to a so-called gauge
~ of extended quasi-pseudometrics on X : The approach distance ocg of the
gauge ~ on X is determined according to the formula Ocg = SUPdEcgOd. For an
approach distance 8 on X we obtain the gauge ' associated with 8 as the set of
all extended quasi-pseudometrics d on X which satisfy 8d ::; 8.
The gauge ' of an approach space (X, 8) induces (= generates) a quasi-
uniformity ~(') on X, which is compatible with the topology 5'8. By means
of this construction we obtain for topological approach spaces the fine quasi-
uniformity of the induced topology, and for quasi-pseudometric approach spaces
their standard quasi-pseudometric quasi-uniformity.
Symmetric gauges (i.e. gauges having bases consisting of extended pseudo-
metrics) describe the so-called uniform approach spaces, which in the obvious
way are related to uniform spaces.
In the following years Lowen and his students studied the concept of an ap-
proach space more carefully. As in topological and metric spaces a convergence
theory can be developed in AP.
Approach spaces also seem to be the right setting for a unified treatment of
certain topological and metric properties, as well as for the development of a
theory of approximation (see e.g. [379]).
Some of the advantages of the notion of an approach space (see the dis-
cussion contained in [384]) can readily be seen by taking arbitrary products of
metric spaces in AP: The notion of a distance is not lost, but the point-to-point
distances no longer suffice to describe the structure. All point-to-set distances
are required, and in general approach spaces these cannot be derived from their
point-to-point distances.
In the book "Approach Spaces: The Missing Link in the Topology - Uni-
formity - Metrie Triad" [382], which appeared in 1997, Lowen explained
the theory of approach spaces developed over the past ten years in a systematic
form: Several completely different, but equivalent characterizations of approach
spaces were discussed, e.g. approach systems (related to neighborhood systems
in topology), regular function frames (paralleling c10sed sub sets in topology),
hulls (similar to topological c1osures), towers (special families of pre-topological
c10sure operators) and approach limits (corresponding to the description of a
topology via convergence of filters). The author also demonstrated that cer-
tain well-known spaces, like hyperspaces, function spaces, probabilistic metric
spaces, spaces of measures and spaces of random variables are equipped with a
natural approach structure (see also [381], [390]).
Indeed, many interesting applications of approach distances in the theory
of hyperspaces of metric spaces were found. In [386], for a metric space X
and a fairly arbitrary collection L of subsets of X, the hyperspace CL(X) of
all nonempty c10sed subsets of X (to be identified with their distance func-
tionals) was endowed with a canonical approach distance function having the
topology of uniform convergence on members of L as topological corefiection
and the Hausdorff metric as metric eorefiection. It was shown that for particular
choices of L, canonical approach distance functions overlying the Wijsman and
Attouch-Wets topologies can be obtained. In [388] some results in the setting

of approach spaces were proved that generalize important facts from the theory
of proximal "hit-and-miss" hypertopologies of metric spaces. In general, these
methods yield results that are richer than the c1assical ones (see also [389]
where some c1assical descriptions of hypertopologies as initial topologies were
extended to the quantitative setting of approach hyperspace structures).
In Lowen's monograph it was also shown how approach structures allow
to refine some known topological properties of well-studied spaces to get, for
instance, measures oftheir compactness (see also [23], [24]) and connectedness.
For instance in [377] a measure of compactness m (X) had been defined for
an approach space X and it was shown to be essentially equivalent to the
Kuratowski measure of noncompactness for extended pseudometric spaces. For
X topological, m(X) = 0 if and only if Xis compact. For X extended quasi-
pseudometric, m(X) = 0 if and only if X is precompact. Motivated by the
search of adescription of the exponential objects in AP, several concepts of
local compactness in approach spaces and their stability under mappings and
products were investigated by Lowen and Verbeeck in [395].
Similarly, in [380] a measure of connectedness for an approach space was
introduced and analogous unifying results were obtained for the topological
(resp. metric concept) of connectedness (resp. Cantor-connectedness).
As a typical application of such ideas let us mention that in [390] for a
normed real vector space X a uniform approach structure overlying the weak
topology (resp. the weak* topology) on X (resp. X') was introduced and it was
shown how for a Banach space the measure of compactness of the unit ball
equipped with the weak approach distance can be interpreted as a "measure of
reflexiveness" .
In Lowen's book it was verified that the epireflective hull of the category
of extended quasi-pseudometric spaces and non-expansive maps in AP is equal
to AP. Furthermore uniform approach spaces were characterized in AP as the
subspaces of a product of extended pseudometric approach spaces. For the
category UAP of these "completely regular" approach spaces a theory of com-
pletions and compactifications was presented. These constructions were shown
to be the right generalizations in AP of the completion of metric spaces and
of the Cech-Stone compactification of Tychonoff spaces, respectively (see also
[383], [385]). While all topological approach spaces are complete, for metric
approach spaces the constructed completion yields the usual metric completion.
In fact a uniform approach space (X, 8) is complete if and only if the metric
space (X, d{j) is complete.
For a Tychonoff topological approach space the constructed compactifi-
cation coincides with the usual Cech-Stone compactification. In general, the
topological coreflection of the constructed compactification is the Smirnov
compactification of some well-defined proximity associated with the uniform

approach space.
With the help of this technique, for instance, w can be equipped with a
natural approach distance which extends the usual metric on w, and which has
the Cech-Stone compactification as topological corefiection.
Subsequently, further investigations on compactifications and completions
of approach spaces were conducted. In [391] Lowen and Sioen constructed a
Wallman-Shanin-type compactification theory for approach spaces that extends
the c1assical topological Wallman compactification theory. Sioen also showed
in [542] that for a given Hausdorff uniform approach space its Cech-Stone
compactification can be obtained as a Wallman-Shanin-type compactification
with respect to a suitable choice of a WS base, so generalizing the c1assical
topological result that the Cech-Stone compactification is homeomorphic to the
Wallman-Shanin compactification corresponding to the separating base of all
zero sets of continuous functions. Moreover in [543] he studied the functorial
behaviour of the Wallman-Shanin-type compactification for approach spaces.
In the spirit of Isbell, who had constructed the hyperconvex (= injective) hull
of a metric space as the set of all its tight maps equipped with the supremum
metric, in [387] Lowen and Sioen developed the completion theory of metric
spaces with the help of a special c1ass of real-valued maps that they called
supertight maps. They also derived corresponding alternative descriptions for
the completions of both Hausdorff uniform and Hausdorff uniform approach
spaces.
In [393] Lowen and his student Vaughan developed a completion theory
for all approach spaces with an underlying To-topology. Por uniform approach
spaces it coincides with the afore-mentioned completion theory of approach
spaces.
Their construction yields a completion for any (extended) quasi-pseudometric
(To- )space that in general is not a quasi-pseudometric space (compare with
the ideas discussed in Section 11). Their theory corresponds to the (strict)
completion ofneamess spaces. In [394] they determined conditions that ensure
that for an (extended) quasi-pseudometric To-space their completion is again
quasi-pseudometric. They also explained connections of their theory with the
usual concept of a left K -Cauchy sequence: Por instance they showed that
for a so-called limit-regular insular (extended) quasi-pseudometric To-space
their completion yields a quasi-pseudometric left K -completion, which can be
defined in a straightforward way.
In [392] Lowen and Sioen studied some separation axioms in AP; they
argued that whereas the lower separation axioms (~ T2) are qualitative (=
topological), the higher ones have a quantitative nature: Por instance there
exists a quasi-pseudometric space that induces a completely regular topology,
but a nonuniform approach structure. Hence complete regularity in approach
NONSYMMETRIC DlSTANCES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED TOPOLOGIES 939
spaces is a numerical, nontopologieal separation axiom. The problem to define

a satisfactory concept of approach normality seems still to be open.
Based on their result that the category CAP of convergence approach spaces
is a topological quasitopos (Le. a hereditary Cartesian c10sed topologieal cate-
gory) containing AP, in [374] Lowen and Lowen identified the quasitopos hull
of AP as a certain bireflective subcategory of CAP, namely as the category
of pseudo-approach spaces. It is known [48], [373] that the category CAP is
isomorphie to the category of limit tower spaces of Brock and Kent and that the
category of convergence spaces and continuous functions is embedded as a full
subcategory in CAP.
In [373] the hereditary topological hull of AP was described by means ofthe
concept of apre-approach space. The latter concept is a natural generalization
of both pre-topologieal (= Cech c1osure) and pre-metric (= distance) spaces.
In [376] it was proved that the exponential objects in the category PRAP of
pre-approach spaces and contractions are the pre-metric spaces and that the
subcategory of pre-metric spaces is the bieoreflective hull of the finite spaces
in PRAP. Verbeeck's thesis [571] contains further related information on expo-
nential objects in subconstructs of PRAP. He also characterized pre-approach
spaces by a set ofaxioms for the convergence of a-ideals whieh resemble the
axioms of filter convergence in a pre-topologieal space.
Furthermore, in [375] the Cartesian c10sed topologieal hull of the category
AP was characterized as a subcategory of the category of pseudo-approach
spaces, whose objects were called epi-approach spaces.
Similarly, the Cartesian c10sed topologieal, extensional topological (= hered-
itary topologieal) and topological universe (= topological quasitopos) hulls
of the category of uniform approach spaces and contractions were described
by Nauwelaerts in [427] as subcategories of the category of pseudo-approach
spaces and contractions, and were shown to be reasonable generalizations of the
corresponding hulls of the category of completely regular topologie al spaces and
continuous maps.
In [428] he also demonstrated that the Cartesian c10sed topologieal hulls
of AP and UAP in CAP are specific instances of a family (in the sense of
Bourdaud) of Cartesian c10sed topologieal subconstructs in CAP that unifies
corresponding families occurring in the category of convergence spaces and
quasi-distance spaces.
In [361] approach concepts in merotopie, Cauchy and convergence spaces
were studied. A concept of non-archimedian approach space was considered by
Brock and Kent in [49].
The theory of completions and compactifications in AP outlined above how-
ever showed that the theory of approach spaces is essentially local. For instance,
although the approach structure of a complete uniform space is complete, there
exist complete uniform approach spaces for which the associated uniform space
is not complete. In order to handle uniform concepts a corresponding uniform

approach theory was needed.
Recently WindeIs [581] (compare [397]) developed the foundations of a
theory of approach (quasi- )uniform spaces that extends Lowen's (Iocal or topo-
logical) theory of approach spaces. More precisely, his notion of an approach
(quasi-)uniform space simultaneously (quasi-)uniformizes the concept of an
approach space and quantifies the concept of a (quasi-)uniform space.
Among other things he established that approach quasi-uniform spaces
can equivalently be defined by quasi-uniform approach systems, quasi-uniform
gauges or quasi-uniform towers. He also showed that many examples discussed
in approach theory in fact carry a canonical approach (quasi-)uniformity.
The category of quasi-uniform spaces as weH as the category of extended
quasi-pseudometric spaces are nicely embedded in the category AqUnif of ap-
proach quasi-uniform spaces and uniform contractions. Furthermore he showed
that there is a canonical forgetful functor from AqUnif into the category AP of
approach spaces.
In [583] WindeIs gave a numerical generalization of the weH-known metriza-
tion lemma for uniform spaces. He conc1uded that each approach uniform space
has a basis consisting of pseudo-metrics and that the underlying approach space
of an approach uniform space is a uniform approach space. It foHows that
uniform approach spaces are those approach spaces that are compatible with
some approach uniformity.
In [398] Lowen and WindeIs presented in the context of approach uniformi-
ties a reflective completion theory which generalizes the well-known comple-
tions of metric and uniform spaces. Their concept of completeness for approach
uniformities implies completeness of the induced approach structure and their
completion behaves nicely with respect to initial structures and hyperspaces. In
particular, they showed that the above mentioned Cech-Stone-like compactifica-
tion can be described as the underlying approach structure of the completion of
the initial approach uniformity of the AUnif -source of all uniform contractions
into the unit interval; here AUnif denotes the category of approach uniform
spaces and uniform contractions.
Quasi-uniform properties are for approach quasi-uniformities what topolog-
ical properties are for approach spaces. Since in approach spaces a quantification
of topological properties is possible, WindeIs argued that the category AqUnif
is the right setting for the quantification of quasi-uniform properties, such
as total boundedness, (bi)completeness and uniform connectedness. To this
end he introduced certain measures that describe to which extent an approach
quasi-uniformity fulfi1s the corresponding property (see [396]).
While at present the range of such quantifications is given by the nonnegative
(extended) reals, we would conjecture that future investigations on approach
structures might wish to dispense with that restriction and imitate the model of
continuity spaces.
Using the language of approach spaces for problems related to theoretical
computer science, in [582] WindeIs introduced a Scott (approach) distance
which is a canonical numerification of the Scott topology and allows quantita-
tive considerations. He showed that the Scott distance shares many important
features of the Scott topology.
In [429] Nauwelaerts introduced a family of Cartesian c10sed topologi-
cal subconstructs in the category of semi-approach uniform limit spaces and
uniform contractions, which is a topological universe containing AUDif and
the category of semi-uniform limit spaces in the sense of Preuss. He argued
that the objects that he obtained in this way satisfy some kind of regularity
condition and observed that analogous results and examples can be established
in a non-symmetric setting.
References
[1] Aarts, I.M. and Mrsevic, M., Pairwise complete regularity as a separation axiom,
J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 48 (1990), 235-245.
[2] _ _ , A bitopological view on cocompact extensions, Topology Appl. 42
(1991), 1-16.
[3] Albert, G.E., A note on quasi-metric spaces, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 47 (1941),
479-482.
[4] Alegre, C., Ferrer, I. and Gregori, v., Quasi-uniform structures in linear lattices,
Rocky Mountain J. Math. 23 (1993), 877-884.
[5] _ _ , Quasi-uniformities on real vector spaces, Indian 1. Pure Appl. Math. 28
(1997),929-937.
[6] _ _ , On a dass of real normed lattices, Czechoslovak Math. J. 48(123) (1998),
785-792.
[7] _ _ , On the Hahn-Banach theorem in certain linear quasi-uniform structures,
Acta Math. Hung. 82 (1999), 325-330.
[8] Alemany, E. and Romaguera, S., On half-completion and bicompletion of quasi-
metric spaces, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 37 (1996), 749-756.
[9] _ _ , On right K -sequentially complete quasi-metric spaces, Acta Math.
Hung. 75 (1997), 267-278.
[10] Allam, A.A., EI-Saady, K. and Hussein, S.A., Fuzzy syntopogenous structures
and order, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 63 (1994), 91-98.
[11] Allam, A.A., EI-Saady, K. and Mashhour, A.S., Fuzzy uniform structures and
order, 1. Fuzzy Math. 2 (1994), 57-67.
[12] A16, R.A. and Deeba, E.Y., A note on uniformities of a BCK-algebra, Math.
Japonica 30 (1985), 237-240.
[13] Andrikopoulos, A. and Stabakis, J., On Nachbin's problem conceming uni-
formizable ordered spaces, Acta Math. In/orm. Univ. Ostrav. 5 (1997), 65-70.
[14] _ _ , The coregular property on y-spaces, Czechoslovak Matk. J. 49(124)

(1999),431-442.
[15] Anton, H. and Pervin, w.J., Separation axioms and metric-like functions, Pacific
1. Matk. 6S (1976),299-306.
[16] Antonino, J.A. and Rornaguera, S., Equinormal metrics and upper semi-
continuity, Matk. Japonica 36 (1991), 147-151.
[17] _ _ , On Lebesgue quasi-metrizability, Boll. U.M.1. A (7) 7 (1993), 59-66.
[18] _ _ , On convergence complete strong quasi-metrics, Acta Matk. Hung. 64
(1994),65-73.
[19] Arenas, EG., Pseudo-distance dependent dimensions, Publ. Matk. Debrecen S3
(1998), 1-10.
[20] Arenas, EG. and Rornaguera, S., Dimension of quasi-metrizable bitopological
spaces, Questions Answers Gen. Topology 14 (1996),131-138.
[21] Arenas, EG. and Sanchez-Granero, M.A., A characterization of non-
archimedeanly quasi-metrizable spaces, Rend. Istit. Univ. Trieste 30 SuppI.
(1999), 21-30.
[22] Aurnann, G., Katastrophentheorie auf Verbnden, Sitz. ber. Bayer. Akad. Wiss.
Matk.-nat. (1977), 1-11.
[23] Baekeland, R. and Lowen, R., Measures ofLindelf and separability in approach
spaces, Internat. 1. Matk. Matk. Sei. 17 (1994), 597-606.
[24] _ _ , Measures of compactness in approach spaces, Comment. Matk. Univ.
Carol. 36 (1995), 327-345.
[25] Baisnab, A.P. and Jas, M. Positive definiteness in quasi-proximity spaces and
fixed point theorems, Bull. Calcutta Matk. Soc. 80 (1988), 153-160.
[26] Bakier, M. Y. and El-Saady, K., Fuzzy proximity ordered spaces, Fuzz:y Sets Syst.
104 (1999), 341-350.
[27] Balaguer, B., Compressed and Cauchy filters, Ann. Univ. Sei. Budapest. 38
(1995), 153-160.
[28] Bales, J.W., Representable and strongly locally homogeneous spaces and
strongly n-homogeneous spaces, Houston 1. Matk. 2 (1976), 315-327.
[29] Balogh, Z. and Rudin, M.E., Monotone normality, Topology Appl. 47 (1992),
115-127.
[30] Balzanat, M., Sobre la metrizaci6n de los espacios casi metricos, Gaz. Mat.
Lisboa 12 (1951), 91-94.
[31] Banaschewski, B. and Brmmer, G.C.L., Stably continuous frarnes, Matk. Proc.
Cambridge Pkil. Soc. 104 (1988), 7-19.
[32] _ _ , Strong zero-dimensionality ofbifrarnes and bispaces, Quaestiones Matk.
13 (1990), 273-290.
[33] Banaschewski, B., Brmmer, G.c.L. and Hardie, K.A., Bifrarnes and bispaces,
Quaestiones Matk. 6 (1983), 13-25.
[34] Barnhill, C. andFletcher, P., Topological spaces with a unique compatible quasi-
uniform structure, Arck. Matk. (Basel) 21 (1970), 206-209.
[35] Bayoumi, E, Stratified fuzzy uniformities, J. Fuzzy Matk. 6 (1998), 339-349.
[36] Bennett, H.R., Quasi-metrizability and the y-space property in certain general-
ized ordered spaces, Topology Proc. 4 (1979), 1-12.
[37] Bentley, H.L., Herrlich, H. and Hunsaker, W.N., A Baire category theorem for
quasi-metric spaces, Indian J Math. 37 (1995), 27-30.
[38] Bentley, H.L., Herrlich, H. and Husek, M., The historical development of uni-
form, proximal, and nearness concepts in topology, in Handbook of the History
ofGeneral Topology, C.E. Aull and R. Lowen (eds.), vol. 2, Dordrecht, Kluwer,
1998, 577--629.
[39] Bentley, H.L. and Hunsaker, W.N., Cauchy sequences in quasi-uniform spaces:
categorical aspects, Lecture Notes Computer Science, vol. 393, Springer, Berlin
(1989), 278-285.
[40] Berthiaume, G., On quasi-uniformities in hyperspaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
66 (1977), 335-343.
[41] Beyer, W.A., Smith, T.F. and Waterman, M.S., Some biological sequence
metrics, Adv. Math. 20 (1976), 367-387.
[42] Birsan, T., Transitive quasi-uniformities and zero dimensional bitopological
spaces, An. Sti. Univ. "Al. I. Cuza" IaJi Sect. Ia Mat. 20 (1974), 317-322.
[43] Blatter, 1., Order compactifications of totally ordered topological spaces, J.
Approximation Theory 13 (1975), 56--65.
[44] _ _ , Hewitt's Stone-Weierstrass theorems for ordered topological spaces,
in Functional Analysis, de Figueiredo (ed.), Proc. of the Brazilian Math. Soc.
Symposium 1974, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Math., vol. 18, Dekker,
New York (1976), 9-25.
[45] Blatter, J. and Seever, G.L., Interposition and lattice cones of functions, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 222 (1976), 65-96.
[46] Bonsangue, M.M., Rutten, J.J.M.M. and van Breugel, F., Alexandroff and Scott
topologies for generalized metric spaces, in Papers on General Topology and
Applications, Eleventh Summer Conference, Southem Maine, 1995, Annals
New York Acad. Sei., vol. 806, 1996, 49--68.
[47] _ _ , Generalized metric spaces: completion, topology, and powerdomains
via the Yoneda embedding, Theoretical Computer Science 193 (1998), 1-51.
[48] Brack, P. and Kent, D.C., Approach spaces, limit tower spaces, and probabilistic
convergence spaces, Appl. Categ. Struct. 5 (1997), 99-110.
[49] _ _ , On convergence approach spaces, Appl. Categ. Struct. 6 (1998), 117-
125.
[50] Brown, L.M., On topological spaces with a unique compatible quasi-uniformity,
Glasgow Math. J. 18 (1977), 11-12.
[51] _ _ , Confluence para-quasi-unijormities, Topology theory and applications,
5th Colloq., EgerlHung. 1983, Colloq. Math. Soc. Janos Bolyai, vol. 41, 1985,
125-152.
[52] _ _ , Semi-sequentially normal bitopological spaces, Topology Appl. 44
(1992),57--62.
[53] _ _ , P-Q-metrizability ofbitopological spaces with a dual base of countable
order, Acta Math. Hung. 83 (1999), 315-325.
[54] Brmmer, G.C.L., Initial quasi-uniformities, Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Sero
A 72 =Indag. Math. 31 (1969),403-409.
[55] _ _ , On certain factorizations of functors into the category of quasi-uniform
spaces, Quaestiones Math. 2 (1977), 59-84.
[56] _ _ , On some bitopologically induced monads in Top, Structure of Topo-

logical Categories (Proceedings, Universitt Bremen 1978), Mathematik-
Arbeitspapiere Universitt Bremen, vol. 18, 1979, 13-30a.
[57] _ _ , Two procedures in bitopology, Categorical Topology (Proc. Conf., Berlin
1978), Springer Lecture Notes Math., vol. 719, Berlin, 1979, pp. 35-43.
[58] _ _ , On the non-unique extension of topological to bitopological proper-
ties, Categorical Aspects ofTopology and Analysis (Proc. Conf. Ottawa 1980),
Springer Lecture Notes Math., vol. 915 (1982), pp. 50-67.
[59] _ _ , Functorial transitive quasi-uniformities, Categorical Topology (Proc.
Conf. Toledo Ohio 1983), Heldermann, Berlin 1984, 163-184.
[60] _ _ , Completions of functorial topological structures, in Recent Develop-
ments ofGeneral Topology and its Applications, Intern. Conf. in Memory ofF.
Hausdorff, Math. Research, vol. 67, Akademie Verlag, Berlin (1992), 60-71.
[61] _ _ , Categorical aspects of the theory of quasi-uniform spaces, Rend. Ist.
Mat. Univ. Trieste 30 Suppl. (1999), 45-74.
[62] Brmmer, G.c.L., Giuli, E. and Holgate, D.B., Direct refiections, Appl. Categ.
Struct. 8 (2000), 545-558.
[63] Brmmer, G.C.L. and Knzi, H.P.A., Sobrification and bicompletion of totally
bounded quasi-uniform spaces, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 101 (1987),237-
247.
[64] Bukatin, M.A. and Scott, J.S., Towards computing distances between programs
via Scott domains, in Logical Foundations of Computer Science, S. Adian,
A. Nerode (eds.), Springer Lecture Notes Computer Science, vol. 1234, 1997,
33-43.
[65] Bukatin, M.A. and Shorina, S.Y., Partial metrics and co-continuous valuations,
Foundations of software science and computation structures, 1st international
conference, FoSSaCS '98, Lisbon, 1998, Nivat, M. (ed.), Springer Lecture Notes
Computer Science, vol. 1378, 1998, pp. 125-139.
[66] Burdick, B.S., Uniform and proximal hyperspaces for bitopological spaces,
Topology Proc. 24 (Summer 1999), to appear.
[67] Burke, D.K., Orthocompactness and perfect mappings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
79 (1980), 484-486.
[68] Canfell, M.J., Semi-algebras and rings of continuous functions, Thesis, Univer-
sity ofEdinburgh, 1968.
[69] Cao, J., On hyperspace topologies of some quasi-uniform spaces, 1. Math.
Research Exposition 11 (1991), 523-528.
[70] _ _ , Quasiuniform convergence for multifunctions, 1. Math. Research
Exposition 14 (1994), 327-331.
[71] _ _ , Answers to two questions of Papadopoulos, Questions Answers Gen.
Topology 14 (1996), 111-116.
[72] Cao, J., Knzi, H.P.A., Reilly, I.L. and Romaguera, S., Quasiuniform hyper-
spaces of compact subsets, Topology Appl. 87 (1998), 117-126.
[73] Cao, J. and Reilly, I.L., Almost quasiuniform convergence for multifunctions,
Ann. Soc. Math. Pol., Sero I, Commentat. Math. 36 (1996),57-68.
[74] _ _ , On pairwise almost continuous multif!1ctions and closed graphs, Indian
J. Math. 38 (1996), 1-17.
[75] Cao, J., Reilly, LL. and Romaguera, S., Some properties of quasiuniform
multifunetion spaees, 1. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 64 (1998), 169-177.
[76] Cao, J., Reilly, LL. and Vamanamurthy, M.K., Comparison of convergenees for
multifunetions, Demon. Math. 30 (1997), 171-182.
[77] Carlson, J.W., On the eategory of quasi-uniform spaees, Kyungpook Math. J. 16
(1976),63-69.
[78] _ _ , Quotient struetures for quasi-uniform spaees, Colloq. Math. 36 (1976),
63-68.
[79] _ _ , Nearness and quasi-uniform struetures, Topology Appl. 15 (1983), 19-
28.
[80] Carlson, J.W. and Hieks, T.L., On eompleteness in quasi-uniform spaces, J.
Math. Anal. Appl. 34 (1971), 618-627.
[81] _ _ , Some properties of quasi-uniform struetures, Arch. Math. (Basel) 24
(1973),81-86.
[82] Carlson, J.W., Hieks, T.L. and Huffman, S.M., Complete quasi-uniform spaces,
Canad. Math. Bull. 23 (1980), 497-498.
[83] Carter, K.S. and Hieks, T.L., Some results on quasi-uniform spaees, Canad.
Math. Bull. 19 (1976), 39-51.
[84] Chattopadhyay, K.e. and Hazra, RN., Basic quasi-proximities, grills and
eompaetifieations, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 15 (1985), 835-851.
[85] Cheea, E. and Romaguera, S., Continuity of eontraetive mappings on eomplete
quasi-metrie spaees, Math. Japonica 35 (1990), 137-139.
[86] Chicourrat, M., RE-proximites et ultrafiltres, CR. Acad. Sei. Paris 318 (1994),
143-148.
[87] _ _ , RE-proximities as fixed points of an operator on pseudo proximities,
Topology Appl. 104 (2000), 39-51.
[88] Choban, M.M. and Nedev, S.L, On the theory of O-metrizable spaees, I, 11, m
(Russian), Vestnik Moskov. Univ. Sero l. Math. Meh. 27 1, 8-15; 2, 10-17; 3,
10-15 (1972).
[89] Choe, T.H., PartiallY ordered topologie al spaees, An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 51
(1979), 53-63.
[90] Chou, C.C. and Penot, J.-P., Infinite produets ofrelations, set-valued series and
uniform openness ofmultifunetions, Set-Valued Anal. 3 (1995), 11-21.
[91] Ciesielski, K., Flagg, Re. and Kopperman, R, Charaeterizing topologies
with bounded eomplete eomputational models, Electronic Notes Theoreti-
cal Computer Science 20 (1999), URL: http://www.elsevier.nl/loeate/entes/
volume20.html
[92] _ _ , Polish spaees, eomputable approximations, and bitpological spaees,
Topology Appl., to appear.
[93] Ciric, L., Periodic and fixed point theorems in a quasi-metrie spaee, 1. Austral.
Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 54 (1993),80-85.
[94] _ _ , Semi-eontinuous mappings and fixed point theorems in quasi metric
spaees, Publ. Math. Debrecen 54 (1999), 251-261.
[95] Collins, P.J., Gartside, P.M., Kopperman, RD., Knzi, H.P.A. and Moody, P.J.,
On topologies generated by filters of relations, in Papers on General Topology
and Applications, Seventh Summer Conferenee at the University of Wiseonsin,

1991, Annals New York Aead. Sei., vol. 704, 1993, 53-69.
[96] Collins, P.J. and Morita, K., Coverings versus entourages, Topology Appl. 82
(1998), 125-130.
[97] Cooke, I.E. and Reilly, I.L., On bitopological eompaetness, J. London Math.
Soc. 9 (1975), 518-522.
[98] Csaszar, A., Fondements de la topologie generale, Budapest-Paris 1960.
[99] _ _ , Double eompaetifieation d'espaees syntopogenes, Ann. Univ. Sei.
Budapest. Sect. Math. 7 (1964), 3-11.
[100] _ _ , Regular extensions of quasi-uniformities, Studia Sei. Math. Hung. 14
(1979), 15-26.
[101] _ _ , Extensions of quasi-uniformities, Acta Math. Hung. 37 (1981), 121-145.
[102] _ _ , Complete extensions of quasi-uniform spaces, in General Topologyand
its Relations to Modem Analysis andAlgebra V, Proc. Fifth TopoI. Symp. 1981
(Heldermann, Berlin 1982), pp. 104-113.
[103] _ _ , D-completions of Pervin-type quasi-uniformities, Acta. Sei. Math. 57
(1993), 329-335.
[104] _ _ , D-complete extensions of quasi-uniform spaces, Acta Math. Hung. 64
(1994),41-54.
[105] _ _ , On a dass of D-Cauchy filters, Serdica Math. J. 24 (1998), 1-4.
[106] _ _ , Quasi-uniform extensions for prescribed traces of seetions of entourages,
Acta Math. Hung. 79 (1998), 237-252.
[107] _ _ , On a problem of simultaneous quasi-uniform extension, Acta Math.
Hung. 82 (1999), 173-186.
[108] _ _ , Old and new results on quasi-uniform extension, Rend. Ist. Mat. Univ.
Trieste 30 Suppl. (1999), 75-85.
[109] _ _ , On J. Deak's construction for quasi-uniform extensions, Rend. Ist. Mat.
Univ. Trieste 30 Suppl. (1999),87-90.
[110] _ _ , Transitive quasi-uniformities and topogenous orders, Acta Math. Hung.
86 (2000), 83-87.
[111] _ _ , Finite extensions of topogenities, Acta Math. Hung., 89 (2000), 55-69.
[112] _ _ , Simultaneous extensions oftopogenities, preprint.
[113] Csaszar, A. and Domiaty, R.Z., Fine quasi-uniformities, Ann. Univ. Sei.
Budapest. 22-23 (1979-80), 151-158.
[114] Cunningham, J.P., Free trees and bidirectional trees as representations of
psyehological distance, J. Math. Psychology 17 (1978), 165-188.
[115] Datta, M.C., Paraeompactness in bitopological spaces and an application to
quasi-metric spaces, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 8 (1977), 685-690.
[116] Davis, A.S., Indexed systems of neighborhoods for general topological spaces,
Amer. Math. Monthly 68 (1961), 886-893.
[117] Deak, J., Extensions of quasi-uniformities for prescribed bitopologies I, n,
Studia Sei. Math. Hung. 25 (1990), 45-67 and 69-91.
[118] _ _ , Bimerotopies I, 11, Studia Sei. Math. Hung. 25 (1990), 241-261 and
307-321.
[119] _ _ , Notes on extensions of quasi-uniformities for prescribed topologies,
Studia Sei. Math. Hung. 25 (1990), 231-234.
[120] _ _ , A non-completely regular quiet quasi-metric, Math. Pannonica (2) 1

(1990), 111-116.
[121] _ _ , Quasi-uniform extensions for finer topologies, Studia Sei. Math. Hung.
25 (1990), 97-105.
[122] _ _ , On the coincidence of some notions of quasi-uniform completeness
defined by filter pairs, Studia Sei. Math. Hung. 26 (1991), 411-413.
[123] _ _ , Extending a quasi-metric, Studia Sei. Math. Hung. 28 (1993), 105-113.
[124] _ _ , A survey of compatible extensions (presenting 77 unsolved problems),
Colloq. Math. Soc. Janos Bolyai, vol. 55, Top., Pecs (Hungary) 1989, 1993,
127-175.
[125] _ _ , A note on weak symmetry properties of quasi-uniformities, Studia Sei.
Math. Hung. 29 (1994),433-435.
[126] _ _ , Extending and completing quiet quasi-uniformities, Studia Sei. Math.
Hung. 29 (1994), 349-362.
[127] _ _ , A bitopological view of quasi-uniform completeness I, II, III, Studia Sei.
Math. Hung. 30 (1995), 389-409; 30 (1995), 411-431 and 31 (1996), 385-404.
[128] _ _ , Quasi-uniform completeness and neighbourhood filters, Studia Sei.
Math. Hung. 32 (1996), 9-13.
[129] _ _ , Short notes on quasi-uniform spaces, I-V; Uniform local symmetry,
Doubly uniformly strict extensions, Co-regularity, Cauchy type properties, Prop-
erties preserved by extensions, Acta Math. Hung. 69 (1995), 175-184; 69 (1995),
347-357; 70 (1996), 247-257; 70 (1996), 317-327; 79 (1998),169-177.
[130] Deak, J. and Romaguera, S., Co-stable quasi-uniform spaces, Ann. Univ. Sei.
Budapest. 38 (1995), 55-70.
[131] Di Concilio, A, Spazi quasimetrici e topologie ad essi associate, Rend. Accad.
Sei. Fis. Mat., Napoli (4) 38 (1971), 113-130.
[132] Dikranjan, D. and Knzi, H.P.A, Separation and epimorphisms in quasi-uniform
spaces, Appl. Categ. Struct., 8 (2000), 175-207.
[133] Dmitruk, AV., Milyutin, AA and Osmolovskii, N.P., Lyusternik's theorem and
the theory of extrema, Russian Math. Surveys 35 (1980), 11-51.
[134] Doitchinov, D., On completeness in quasi-metric spaces, Topology Appl. 30
(1988), 127-148.
[135] _ _ , On completeness of quasi-uniform spaces, CR. Acad. Bulg. Sei. (7) 41
(1988), 5-8.
[136] _ _ , A concept of completeness of quasi-uniform spaces, Topology Appl. 38
(1991),205-217.
[137] _ _ , Another class of completable quasi-uniform spaces, CR. Acad. Bulg.
Sei. (3) 44 (1991), 5-6.
[138] _ _ , Some reflections on quasi-uniform frames, Topology with Applications,
Szekszard (Hungary) 1993, Bolyai Society, Mathematical Studies, vol. 4, 1995,
pp. 151-158.
[139] _ _ , E-completions of quasi-uniform spaces, Proc. Symposium on Categori-
cal Topology, University ojCape Town 1994, B. Banaschewski, C.R.A Gilmour
and H. Herrlich (eds.), Dept. Math., University of Cape Town 1999, 89-102.
948 HANS-PETER A KNZI
[140] Dolzhenko, E.P. and Sevast'yanov, E.A, Sign-sensitive approximations, the

spaee of sign-sensitive weights. The rigidity and the freedom of a system,
Russian Aead. Sei. Dokl. Math. 48 (1994), 397-401.
[141] Domiaty, RZ., Zur inneren Geometrie quasimetriseher Rume, Mitt. Math. Ges.
DDR 4 (1980), 45-49.
[142] _ _ , Life without T2. Differential-Geometrie Methods in Theoretieal Physies,
Conf. Clausthal-Zellerfeld (FRG), July 1978. Leeture Notes Physics. Berlin-
Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1980.
[143] Dow, A and Watson, S., Skula spaees, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 31 (1990),
27-31.
[144] Dowker, C.H., Mappings of proximity struetures, General Topology and its
Relation to Modem Analysis and Algebra (proe. Sympos., Prague 1961), 139-
141. Aeademie Press, New York; Publ. House, Czeeh. Aead. Sei., Prague 1962.
[145] Dzhajanbajev, D. and Sostak, AP., On a fuzzy uniform strueture, Aeta et Comm.
Univ. Tartu 940 (1992),31-36.
[146] Edalat, A and Heekmann, R, A eomputational model for metrie spaees,
Theoretieal Computer Seience 193 (1998), 53-73.
[147] Engelking, Rand Lutzer, D., Paraeompaetness in ordered spaees, Fund. Math.
94 (1977), 49-58.
[148] Eme, M., Ideal eompletions and eompaetifieations, Mathematik-Arbeitspapiere
Universitt Bremen 48 (1997), 137-156.
[149] Fell, J.M.G., A Hausdorff topology for the closed subsets of a locally eompaet
non-Hausdorff spaee, Proc. Amer. Math. Soe. 13 (1962), 472-476.
[150] Ferrario, N. and KDZi, H.P.A, Bicompleteness of the fine quasi-uniformity,
Math. Proe. Camb. Phil. Soe. 109 (1991), 167-186.
[151] Ferrer, J., On topological spaees with a unique quasi-proximity, Quaestiones
Math. 17 (1994), 479-486.
[152] Ferrer, J. and Gregori, V., Quasi-metrization and eompletion for Pervin's quasi-
uniformity, Stoehastiea 6 (1982), 151-155.
[153] _ _ , A sequentially eompaet non-eompaet quasi-pseudometrie spaee,
Monatsh. Math. 96 (1983), 269-270.
[154] _ _ , A note on R Stoltenberg's eompletion theory of quasi-uniform spaees,
Proe. London Math. Soc. 49 (1984), 36.
[155] _ _ , Completeness and Baire spaees, Math. Chronicle 14 (1985), 39-42.
[156] _ _ , Topological linearly ordered spaees determined by Pervin's quasi-
uniformity, in Papers on General Topology and Applieations, Eighth Summer
Conf. Queens College, 1992, Annals New York Aead. Sei., vol. 728, 1994,
16-21.
[157] Ferrer, J., Gregori, V. and Kelly, C., A short note on pairwise normal spaees,
Kyungpook Math. J. 33 (1993), 199-203.
[158] Ferrer, J., Gregori, V. and Reilly, I.L., Some properties of semi-eontinuous
TIlDetions and quasi-uniform spaees, Mat. Vesn. 47 (1995), 11-18.
[159J Flagg, Re., Completeness in eontinuity spaees, Category Theory 1991, RAG.
Seely (ed.), Amer. Math. Soc., Providenee, RI 1992, pp. 183-199.
[160] _ _ , Algebraie theories of eompaet pospaees, Topology Appl. 77 (1997),
277-290.
[161] _ _ , Quantales and continuity spaces, Algebra Univ. 37 (1997),257-276.

[162] Flagg, R.e. and Koppennan, RD., Fixed points and reflexive domain equations
in categories of continuity spaces, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer
Science, vol. I, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1995. URL: http://www.elsevier.nVlo-
cate/entcs/volume l.html.
[163] _ _ , Tychonoff poset structures and auxiliary relations, in Papers on Gen-
eral Topology and Applications, Ninth Summer Conference at Slippery Rock
University, 1993, Annals New York Acad. Sei. vol. 767, 1995,45-61.
[164] _ _ , Continuity spaces: Reconciling domains and metric spaces, Theoretical
Computer Science 177 (1997), 111-138.
[165] Flagg, Re., Koppennan, Rand Snderhauf, P., Smyth completion as bicom-
pletion, Topology Appl. 91 (1999), 169-180.
[166] Flagg, Re. and Snderhauf, P., The essence of ideal completion in quantitive
fonn, Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.
[167] Flagg, R.C., Snderhauf, P. and Wagner, K., Representation of quantitative
domanis, Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.
[168] Fleischman, W.M., On coverings of linearly ordered spaces, Proc. Washington
State University Conference on General Topology 1970, 52-55.
[169] Fleteher, P., Pairwise unifonn spaces, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 83 (1965), p.
612 (abstract).
[170] _ _ , On totally bounded quasi-unifonn spaces, Arch. Math. (Basel) 21 (1970),
396-401.
[171] _ _ , Note on quasi-unifonn spaces and representable spaces, Colloq. Math.
23 (1971), 263-265.
[172] _ _ , On completeness of quasi-unifonn spaces, Arch. Math. (Basel) 22
(1971), 200-204.
[173] _ _ , A note on metrization of quasi-unifonn spaces, Colloq. Math. 24 (1971),
81-82.
[174] _ _ , Homeomorphism groups with the topology of quasi-unifonn conver-
genee, Arch. Math. (Basel) 22 (1971), 88-93.
[175] Fleteher, P., Frith, 1., Hunsaker, W. and Schauerte, A., The Nachbin quasi-
uniformity of a bi-Stonian space, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 61 (1996),
322-326.
[176] Fleteher, P., Hejcman, J. and Hunsaker, w., A noncompletely regular quiet quasi-
uniformity, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 108 (1990), 1077-1079.
[177] Fleteher, P., Hoyle III, H.B. and Patty, e.w., The comparison of topologies,
Duke Math. J. 36 (1969), 325-331.
[178] Fleteher, P. and Hunsaker, w., Uniformly regular quasi-uniformities, Topology
Appl. 37 (1990), 285-291.
[179] _ _ , Entourage uniformities for frames, Monatsh. Math. 112 (1991), 271-
279.
[180] _ _ , Completeness using pairs of filters, Topology Appl. 44 (1992), 149-155.
[181] _ _ , Symmetry conditions in tenns of open sets, Topology Appl. 45 (1992),
39-47.
[182] _ _ , A note on totally bounded quasi-uniformities, Serdica Math. J. 24
(1998),95-98.
[183] Fletcher, P., Hunsaker, W. and Lindgren, W., Characterizations of frame quasi-
uniformities, Quaestiones Math. 16 (1993), 371-383.
[184] _ _ , Totally bounded frame quasi-uniformities, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol.
34 (1993), 529-537.
[185] _ _ , Frame quasi-uniformities, Monatsh. Math. 117 (1994), 223-236.
[186] Fletcher, P. and Knzi, H.P.A, A topological space without a complete quasi-
uniformity, Proe. Amer. Math. Soe. 90 (1984), 611-615.
[187] _ _ , Extension properties induced by complete quasi-uniformities, Paeifie 1.
Math. 120 (1985), 357-384.
[188] Fletcher, P. and Lindgren, w.F., Transitive quasi-uniformities, 1. Math. Anal.
Appl. 39 (1972), 397-405.
[189] _ _ , Quasi-uniformities with a transitive base, Paeifie 1. Math. 43 (1972),
619-631.
[190] _ _ , Orthocompactness and strong Cech completeness in Moore spaces, Duke
Math. 1. 39 (1972), 753-766 (Correction, ibid. 40 (1973), 959).
[191] _ _ , Locally quasi-uniform spaces with countable bases, Duke Math. J. 41
(1974),231-240.
[192] _ _ , Some unsolved problems conceming countably compact spaces, Roeky
Mountain 1. Math. 5 (1975), 95-106.
[193] _ _ , C-complete quasi-uniform spaces, Areh. Math. (Basel) 30 (1978),175-
180.
[194] _ _ , A construction of the pair completion of a quasi-uniform space, Canad.
Math. Bull. 21 (1978), 53-59.
[195] _ _ , Equinormal quasi-uniformities and quasi-metrics, Glas. Mat. Ser. III 13
(33) (1978), 111-125.
[196] _ _ , A theory of uniformities for generalized ordered spaces, Canad. 1. Math.
31 (1979), 35-44.
[197] _ _ , Quasi-Uniform Spaces, Leeture Notes Pure Appl. Math. 77, Dekker,
New York 1982.
[198] _ _ , Compactifications of totally bounded quasi-uniform spaces, Glasgow
Math. 1. 28 (1986), 31-36.
[199] Fletcher, P. and Liu, P., Topologies compatible with homeomorphism groups,
Paeifie 1. Math. 56 (1975), 77-86.
[200] Fleteher, P., McCoy, RA and Slover, R, On boundedly metacompact and
boundedly paracompact spaces, Proe. Amer. Math. Soe. 25 (1970),335-342.
[201] Fleteher, P. and Naimpally, S.A, On almost complete and almost precompact
quasi-uniform spaces, Czeehoslovak Math. 1. 21(96) (1971), 383-390.
[202] Fora, AA, Strongly zero-dimensional bitopological spaces, 1. Univ. Kuwait
(Sei.) 11 (1984), 181-190.
[203] Fox, R, Letter to S. Salbany, 1979.
[204] _ _ , A short proof of the Junnila quasi-metrization theorem, Proe. Amer.
Math. Soe. 83 (1981), 663-664.
[205] _ _ , Pretransitivity and products of suborderable spaces, Topologyand Order
Struetures, MC Traet Part I, Amsterdam, 142 (1981), 115-118.
[206] _ _ , Solution of the y-space problem, Proe. Amer. Math. Soe. 85 (1982),
606-608.
[207] _ _ , On metrizability and quasi-metrizability, manuscript, 1981/2.

[208] _ _ , Letter to H.P.A. Knzi, 1985.
[209] Fox, Rand Kofner, J., A regular counterexample to the y-space conjecture,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 94 (1985), 502-506.
[210] Francaviglia, S., Lechicki, A and Levi, S., Quasi-uniformization ofhyperspaces
and convergence of nets of semicontinuous multifunctions, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
112 (1985), 347-370.
[211] Frink, AH., Distance functions and the metrization problem, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 43 (1937), 133-142.
[212] Frith, J.L., Structured Frames, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cape Town, 1987.
[213] Frith, J.L. and Hunsaker, w., Completion of quasi-uniform frames, Appl. Categ.
Struct. 7 (1999), 263-272.
[214] Frith, J.L., Hunsaker, W. and Walters-Wayland, J., The Samuel compactification
of a quasi-uniform frame, Topology Proc. 23 (Summer 1998), 115-126.
[215] Ganster, M. and Reilly, I.L., On pairwise paracompactness, J. Austral. Math.
Soc. (Ser. A) 53 (1992), 281-285.
[216] Gantner, T.E. and Steinlage, Re., Characterizations of quasi-uniformities, J.
London Math. Soc. 5 (1972), 48-52.
[217] Garda-Ferreira, S., Romaguera, S. and Sanchis, M., Bounded subsets and
Grothendieck's theorem for bispaces, Houston J. Math. 25 (1999), 267-283.
[218] Gartside, P.M. and Moody, P.J., A note on proto-metrisable spaces, Topology
Appl. 52 (1993), 1-9.
[219] Gerlits, J., Knzi, H.P.A, Losonczi, A and Szentmiklossy, Z., The existence 0/
compatible nontransitive totally bounded quasi-uniformities, Topology Appl.,
to appear.
[220] Gittings, RF., Finite-to-one maps of generalized metric spaces, Pacific J. Math.
59 (1975), 33-41.
[221] Golan, J.S., More topologies on the torsion-theoretic spectrum of a ring,
Periodic. Math. Hung. 21 (1990), 257-260.
[222] Gregori, V., Marin, J. and Romaguera, S., Some remarks on right K -completion
of quasi-uniform spaces, Acta Math. Hung. 88 (2000), 139-146.
[223] Gregori, V. and Romaguera, S., Fixed point theorems for fuzzy mappings in
quasi-metric spaces, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 115 (2000), 477-483.
[224] _ _ , Common fixed point theorems for pairs of fuzzy mappings, Indian 1.
Math. 41 (1999),43-54.
[225] Gruenhage, G., A note on quasi-metrizabiIity, Canad. J. Math. 29 (1977), 360-
366.
[226] _ _ , GeneraIized metric spaces, in Handbook 0/ Set-Theoretic Topology, K.
Kunen and J.E. Vaughan (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam 1984, pp. 423-501.
[227] Gutierrez Garda, J., De Prada Vicente, M.A. and Sostak, AP., Even fuzzy
topologies and related structures, Quaestiones Math. 20 (1997), 327-350.
[228] Gutierrez, A and Romaguera, S., Two-valued functions, non-Archirnedean
quasi-metrics and ultraquasi-gauges, Mat. Vesn. 38 (1986), 225-234.
[229] Gutierrez, A and Romaguera, S., A note on Cauchy sequences in quasi-pseudo-
metric spaces, Glasn. Mat. 21 (1986), 191-200.
[230] Haddad, L., Sur quelques points de topologie generale. Theorie des nasses et
des tramails, Ann. Fac. Sei. Clermont-Ferrand 44, fascicule 7, 1970,3-80.
[231] Halpin, M.N., Transitive quasi-uniform spaces, M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Cape Town,
1974.
[232] HanselI, RW., Borel measurable mappings for nonseparable metric spaces,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 161 (1971), 145-169.
[233] Harder, AM. and Hicks, T.L., Fixed point theory and iteration procedures,
Indian 1. Pure Appl. Math. 19 (1988), 17-26.
[234] Hausdorff, F., Grundzge der Mengenlehre, Leipzig 1914.
[235] Heath, RW., A postscript to a note on quasi-metric spaces, Notices Amer. Math.
Soc. 19 (1972), A-338.
[236] _ _ , A construction of a quasi-metric Souslin space with a point-countable
base, Set-theoretic topology (papers, Inst. Medicine and Math., Ohio Univ.,
Athens,Ohio, 1975-1976),219-224.
[237] _ _ , Some nonmetric, first countable, cancellative topological semigroups
that are generalized metric spaces, Topology Appl. 44 (1992), 167-173.
[238] Heckmann, R, Approximation of metric spaces by partial metric spaces, Appl.
Categ. Struct. 7 (1999), 71-83.
[239] Hejcman, J. and Vilimovsky, J., On a property of pseudometrics and uniformities
near to convexity, Czechoslovak Math. 1. 38(113) (1988), 366--380.
[240] Henriksen, M., Kopperman, R., Mack, J. and Somerset, D.W.B., Joincompact
spaces, continuous lattices, and C* -algebras, Algebra Univ. 38 (1997), 289-323.
[241] Henriksen, M., Kopperman, R, Raybum, M. and Todd, AR., Oxtoby's
pseudocompleteness revisited, Topology Appl. 100 (2000), 119-132.
[242] Herden, G., On a lifting theorem of Nachbin, Mathematical Soeial Seiences 19
(1990), 37--44.
[243] Hicks, TL., Fixed point theorems for quasi-metric spaces, Math. Japonica 33
(1988),231-236.
[244] Hicks, T.L. and Huffman, S.M., A note on locally quasi-uniform spaces, Canad.
Math. Bull. 19 (1976), 501-504.
[245] Hicks, T.L. and Satterwhite, RE., Quasi-pseudometrics over Tikhonov semi-
fields, Math. Japonica 22 (1977), 315-321.
[246] Hicks, T.L. and Sharma, P., Properties of z-spaces, Topology Proc. 4 (1979),
109-113.
[247] Hodel, RE., Spaces defined by sequences of open covers which guarantee that
certain sequences have cluster points, Duke Math. 1. 39 (1977), 253-263.
[248] _ _ , Metrizability of spaces satisfying Nagata's condition, Math. Japonica
47 (1998), 287-293.
[249] _ _ , Neigbhorhood assignments and cardinal functions: a unified approach
to metrization and uniformity, Topology Appl. 90 (1998),31-56.
[250] _ _ , A history of generalized metrizable spaces, in Handbook ofthe History
ofGeneral Topology, C.E. Aull and R Lowen (eds.), vol. 2, Dordrecht, Kluwer
1998,541-576.
[251] Hoffmann, R-E., On the sobrification remainder S X \ X, Pacific 1. Math. 83
(1979), 145-156.
[252] Hogan, D.T., Quotient quasi-uniformities, Math. Chronicle 4 (1976), 108-111.
[253] Hohi, L. and Levi, S., Decomposition properties of hyperspace topologies, Set-
Valued Anal. 5 (1997), 309-321.
[254] Howes, N.R., Modem Analysis and Topology, Springer, Berlin 1995.
[255] Hung, H.H., Shrinkings of open neighbourhoods and a topologieal description
of metrizability, Topology Proc. 22 (Summer 1997), 139-153.
[256] _ _ , Quasi-metrizability, Topology Appl. 83 (1998), 39-43.
[257] Hunsaker, W.N., Extensions of continuous increasing functions, Topology Proc.
5 (1980), 105-110.
[258] Hunsaker, W.N. and Lindgren, w.F., Construction of quasi-uniformities, Math.
Ann. 188 (1970), 39-42.
[259] _ _ , Upper semi-continuous functions and quasi-proximity classes, Bul. Inst.
Politehn. Iai (N.S.) 19(23) (1973) sect. I, 23-30.
[260] Hunsaker, W.N. and Pieado, J., Frames with transitive structures, Appl. Categ.
Struct., to appear.
[261] Hutton, B., Uniformities on fuzzy topologieal spaces, 1. Math. Anal. Appl. 58
(1977), 559-571.
[262] Jachymski, J., A contribution to fixed point theory in quasi-metric spaces, Publ.
Math. Debrecen 43 (1993), 283-288.
[263] Jawhari, E.M., Misane, D. and Pouzet, M., Retracts: Graphs and ordered sets
from the metric point ofview, Contemp. Math. 57 (1986), 175-226.
[264] Jung, A. and Snderhauf, P., Uniform approximation of topological spaces,
Topology Appl. 83 (1998), 23-37.
[265] Junnila, H.J.K., Neighbornets, Pacific J. Math. 76 (1978),83-108.
[266] _ _ , Covering properties and quasi-uniformities oftopological spaces, Ph.D.
Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va.
1978.
[267] Junnila, H.J.K. and Knzi, H.P.A., Ortho-bases and monotonie properties, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 119 (1993), 1335-1345.
[268] _ _ , Stability in quasi-uniform spaces and the inverse problem, Topology
Appl. 49 (1993), 175-189.
[269] _ _ , Characterizations of absolute Fu8-sets, Czechoslovak Math. J. 48(123)
(1998),55-64.
[270] Junnila, HJ.K., Knzi, H.P.A. and Watson, S., On a class of hereditarily para-
compact spaces, Fundam. Prikl. Mat. 4 (1998), 141-154 (Russian); preprint in
Topology Atlas: URL: http://at.yorku.ca/p/a/a/g/09.htm (English).
[271] Junnila, H.J.K., Smith, J.C. and Telegarski, R., Closure preserving covers by
small sets, Topology Appl. 23 (1986), 237-262.
[272] Kada, 0., Suzuki, T. and Takahashi, W., Nonconvex minimization theorems
and fixed point theorems in complete metric spaces, Math. Japonica 44 (1996),
381-391.
[273] Karthikeyan, c., Bicompletion of quasi-bitopologieal near-rings and quasi-
bitopological N -groups, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 30 (1999), 211-220.
[274] Katsaras, A.K., Fuzzy quasi-proximities and fuzzy quasi-uniformities, Fuzzy
Sets Syst. 27 (1988), 335-343.
[275] Katsaras, A.K. and Petalas, C.G., Fuzzy topologies and fuzzy quasi-
uniformities, Radovi Mat. 4 (1988), 15-29.
[276] Keimei, K. and Roth, w., Ordered Cones and Approximation, Lecture Notes
Math., vol. 1517, Springer, Berlin 1992.
[277] Kelly, J.C., Bitopological spaces, Proc. London Math. Soc. 13 (1963), 71-89.
[278] Kent, D.C. and Liu, D.M., Ordered compactifications and families of maps,
Internat. J. Math. Math. Sei. 20 (1997), 105-110.
[279] Kent, D.C. and Richardson, G.D., Ordered probabilistic metric spaces, J.
Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 46 (1989), 88-99.
[280] Kent, D.C. and Richmond, T.A, Ordered compactification of totally ordered
spaces, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sei. 11 (1988), 683-694.
[281] Khanh, P.Q., On general open mapping theorems, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 144
(1989),305-312.
[282] Kim, Y.K., Cauchy completions of quasi-uniform frarnes, Kyungpook Math. J.
38 (1998), 429-437.
[283] Kimmie, Z., Functorial transitive quasi-uniformities and their bicompletion,
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cape Town, August 1995.
[284] Kofner, Ja. A, Ll-metrizable spaces (Russian), Mat. Zametki 13 (1973), 277-
287; (Translation =Math. Notes 13 (1973), 168-174).
[285] Kofner, J., On quasi-metrizability, Topology Proc. 5 (1980), 111-138.
[286] _ _ , Quasi-metrizable spaces, Pacific J. Math. 88 (1980), 81-89.
[287] _ _ , Closed mappings and quasi-metrics, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 80 (1980),
333-336.
[288] _ _ , Transitivity and the y-space conjecture in ordered spaces, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 81 (1981), 629-635.
[289] _ _ , Transitivity and ortho-bases, Canad. J. Math. 33 (1981), 1439-1447.
[290] _ _ , Open compact mappings, Moore spaces and orthocompactness, Rocky
Mountain J. Math. 12 (1982), 107-112.
[291] Kong, T.Y., Kopperman, R. and Meyer, P.R., Which spaces have metric analogs,
General Topology and Applications, Proc. 5th Northeast Conf., New YorkINY
(USA) 1989, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math., vol. 134, 1991, 209-215.
[292] Konstandilaki-Savopoulou, Ch. and Reilly, I.L., 'On Datta's bitopological
paracompactness', Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 12 (1981), 799-803.
[293] Kopperman, R.D., Lengths on semigroups and groups, Semigroup Forum 25
(1982),345-360.
[294] _ _ , All topologies come from generalized metrics, Amer. Math. Monthly 95
(1988), 89-97.
[295] _ _ , Total boundedness and compactness for filter pairs, Ann. Univ. Sei.
Budapest. 33 (1990), 25-30.
[296] _ _ , Which topologies are quasimetrizable? Topology Appl. 52 (1993), 99-
107.
[297] _ _ , Asymmetry and duality in topology, Topology Appl. 66 (1995), 1-39.
[298] Kouphos, Th.K. and Papadopoulos, B.K., Exponentiallaws for function spaces
equipped with the quasi-uniformity ofthe quasi-uniform convergence, Ann. Soc.
Sei. Bruxelles Sero I, 101 (1987), 89-97.
[299] Krishnan, V.S., A note on semiuniform spaces, J. Madras Univ. Sect. B 25
(1955), 123-124.
[300] Knzi, H.P.A., On strongly quasi-metrizable spaces, Arch. Math. (Basel) 41

(1983),57-63.
[301] _ _ , A note on sequentially compact quasi-pseudometric spaces, Monatsh.
Math. 9S (1983), 219-220.
[302] _ _ , A note on Ralph Fox's y-space, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 91 (1984),
467-470.
[303] _ _ , Topological spaces with a unique compatible quasi-proximity, Arch.
Math. (Basel) 43 (1984), 559-561.
[304] Transitivity is neither hereditary nor finitely productive, Topology Appl. 19
(1985), 165-168.
[305] _ _ , The Fell compactification and quasi-uniformities, Topology Proc. 10
(1985),305-328.
[306] _ _ , Generalizations of preorthocompactness, Questions Answers Gen.
Topology 4 (1986), 15-35.
[307] _ _ , Topological spaces with a unique compatible quasi-uniformity, Canad.
Math. Bull. 29 (1986), 40-43.
[308] _ _ , Topological spaces with a coarsest compatible quasi-proximity, Quaes-
tiones Math. 10 (1986),179-196.
[309] _ _ , A note on uniform ordered spaces, 1. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 42
(1987),349-352.
[310] _ _ , Kelley's conjecture and preorthocompactness, Topology Appl. 26 (1987),
13-23.
[311] _ _ , Some remarks on quasi-uniform spaces, Glasgow Math. J. 31 (1989),
309-320.
[312] _ _ , Completely regular ordered spaces, Order 7 (1990), 283-293.
[313] _ _ , A regular space without a uniformly regular quasi-uniformity, Monatsh.
Math. 110 (1990), 115-116.
[314] _ _ , Totally bounded quiet quasi-uniformities, Topology Proc. 1S (1990),
113-115.
[315] _ _ , Functorial admissible quasi-uniformities on topological spaces, Topol-
ogy Appl. 43 (1992), 27-36.
[316] _ _ , Complete quasi-pseudo-metric spaces, Acta Math. Hung. S9 (1992),
121-146.
[317] _ _ , Strongly zero-dimensional bispaces, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) S3
(1992), 327-337.
[318] _ _ , Quasi-uniformities defined by sets of neighborhoods, in Papers on
General Topology Applications, Sixth Summer Conference at Long Island
University, 1990, Annals New York Acad. Sci., vol. 659, 1992, 125-137.
[319] _ _ , Minimal order compactifications and quasi-uniformities, in Recent De-
velopments 0/ General Topology and its Applications, Intem. Conf. in Memory
of F. Hausdorff, Math. Research, vol. 67, Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1992,
181-186.
[320] _ _ , Quasi-uniform spaces - eleven years later, Topology Proc. 18 (1993),
143-171.
[321] _ _ , Fonetions distanees non-symetriques, Semina ire Initiation Cl l'Analyse,

Publ. Math. Univ. Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VI, n 12, 33eme Annee,
(1993/1994), p. 8.
[322] _ _ , Nonsymmetric topology, Bolyai Society in Mathematieal Studies 4,
Topology, Szekszard, 1993, Hungary, (Budapest 1995),303-338.
[323] _ _ , On quasi-uniform eonvergenee and quiet spaees, Questions Answers
Gen. Topology 13 (1995), 87-92.
[324] _ _ , Quasi-uniform isomorphism groups, in Recent Progress in Function
Spaces, G. Di Maio and L. Hohi (eds.), Quademi di matematiea, Dip. Mat. See.
Univ. Napoli, vol. 3, 1998, 187-220.
[325] _ _ , Perfeet preimages having G.s-diagonals of quasi-metrizable spaees,
Indian J. Math. 41 (1999), 33-37.
[326] _ _ , Nontransitive quasi-uniformities, Publ. Math. Debrecen 55 (1999), 161-
167.
[327] _ _ , Remark on a result of Losonezi, Studia Sei. Math. Hung., 36 (2000),
367-370.
[328] _ _ , Preservation of eompleteness under mappings in asymmetrie topology,
Appl. General Topology 1 (2000), 99-114.
[329] Knzi, H.P.A and Losonezi, A, Semilattices of totally bounded quasi-
uniformities, Topology Appl. to appear.
[330] _ _ , On some eardinal funetions related to quasi-uniformities, Houston J.
Math. 26 (2000), 299-313.
[331] Knzi, H.P.A and Lthy, A, Dense subspaees of quasi-uniform spaees, Studia
Sei. Math. Hung. 30 (1995), 289-30l.
[332] Knzi, H.P.A, Marin, J. and Romaguera, S., Quasi-uniformities on topological
semigroups and bicompletion, Semigroup Forum, to appear.
[333] Knzi, H.P.A, Mrsevic, M., Reilly, I.L. and Vamanamurthy, M.K., Convergenee,
preeompaetness and symmetry in quasi-uniform spaees, Math. Japonica 38
(1993),239-253.
[334] _ _ , Prelindelf quasi-pseudo-metrie and quasi-uniform spaees, Mat. Vesn.
46 (1994), 81-87.
[335] Knzi, H.P.A and Perez-Peiialver, M.J., The number of eompatible totally
bounded quasi-uniformities, Acta Math. Hung. 88 (2000), 15-23.
[336] Knzi, H.P.A and Romaguera, S., Some remarks on Doitehinov eompleteness,
Topology Appl. 74 (1996), 61-72.
[337] _ _ , Completeness of the quasi-uniformity of quasi-uniform eonvergenee, in
Papers on General Topology and Applications, Eleventh Summer Conferenee,
Southem Maine, 1995, Annals New York Aead. Sei., vol. 806, 1996,231-237.
[338] _ _ , Spaees of eontinuous funetions and quasi-uniform eonvergenee, Acta
Math. Hung. 75 (1997), 287-298.
[339] Knzi, H.P.A and Romaguera, S., Left K -eompleteness of the Hausdorff quasi-
uniformity, Rostock. Math. Kolloq. 51 (1997), 167-176.
[340] _ _ , Well-quasi-ordering and the Hausdorff quasi-uniformity, Topology Appl.
85 (1998), 207-218.
[341] _ _ , Quasi-metrie spaees, quasi-metrie hyperspaees and uniform local
eompaetness, Ren. Ist. Mat. Univ. Trieste 30 Suppl. (1999), 133-144.
[342] Knzi, H.P.A, Romaguera, S. and Salbany, S., Topological spaces that admit
bicomplete quasi-pseudometrics, Ann. Univ. Sei. Budapest. 37 (1994),185-195.
[343] _ _ , Bispaces admitting only bicomplete or only totally bounded quasi-
metrics, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 1I, to appear; preprint partially in: H.P.A
Knzi and S. Romaguera, On hereditarily compact quasi-pseudometrizable
spaces, in Seminarberichte FernUniversitt Gesamthochschule in Hagen, Fach-
bereich Mathematik, 63(3) (1998), 439-446.
[344] Knzi, H.P.A, Romaguera, S. and Sipacheva, O.v., The Doitchinov completion
of a regular paratopological group, Serdica Math. J 24 (1998), 73-88.
[345] Knzi, H.P.A and Ryser, c., The Bourbaki quasi-uniformity, Topology Proc.
20 (1995), 161-183.
[346] Knzi, H.P.A and Schellekens, M.P., On the Yoneda-completion of a quasimet-
ric space, Theoretical Computer Seience, to appear.
[347] Knzi, H.P.A and Vajner, V., Weighted quasi-metrics, in Papers on General
Topology andApplications, Eighth Summer Conf. Queens College 1992, Annals
New York Acad. Sci., vol. 728,1994,64-77.
[348] Knzi, H.P.A and Wajch, E., Borel classification via quasi-metrics, Topology
Appl. 77 (1997), 183-192.
[349] _ _ , On a-discrete Borel mappings via quasi-metrics, Czechoslovak Math.
J 48(123) (1998), 439-455.
[350] Knzi, H.P.A and Watson, S., A metrizable completely regular ordered space,
Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 35 (1994), 773-778.
[351] _ _ , A nontrivial Tl-space admitting a unique quasi-proximity, Glasgow
Math. J. 38 (1996), 207-213.
[352] _ _ , A quasi-metric space without complete quasi-uniformity, Topology Appl.
70 (1996),175-178.
[353] _ _ , A nontransitive space based on combinatorics, Boll. U.M.1. (8) 2-B
(1999),315-317.
[354] LaI, S. and Singal, M.K., Proximity ordered spaces, J. London Math. Soc. 14
(1976),393-404.
[355] Lambrinos, P.Th., Quasi proximal continuity, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 9 (1973),
89-98.
[356] _ _ , Quasi-uniform characterizations of (weak) boundedness and (weak)
compactness, Annal. Soc. Sei. Bruxelles 90 (1976), 307-316.
[357] _ _ , On precompact (quasi-)uniform structures, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 62
(1977), 365-366.
[358] Lane, E.P., Bitopological spaces and quasi-uniform spaces, Proc. London Math.
Soc. 17 (1967), 241-256.
[359] Lawson, J.D., Order and strongly sober compactifications, in Topology and
Category Theory in Computer Seience, G.M. Reed, AW. Roscoe and R.E
Wachter (eds.), Clarendon Press, Oxford 1991, 179-205.
[360] Lawvere, EW., Metric spaces, generalized logic, and closed categories, Rend.
Sem. Mat. Fis. Milano 43 (1973), 135-166.
[361] Lee, YJ. and Lowen, R., Approach theory in merotopic, Cauchy and conver-
gence spaces, I and TI, Acta Math. Hung. 83 (1999), 189-207; 209-229.
[362] Levine, N. and Stager, W.J., Jr., On the hyper-space of a quasi-uniform space,
Math. 1. Okayama Univ. 15 (1971-72), 101-106.
[363] Lindgren, W.F., Topological spaces with unique quasi-uniform structure, Arch.
Math. (Basel) 22 (1971), 417-419.
[364] _ _ , Topological spaces with a unique compatible quasi-uniformity, Canad.
Math. Bull. 14 (1971), 369-372.
[365] Lindgren, W.F. and Nyikos, P.J., Spaces with bases satisfying certain order and
intersection properties, Pacific 1. Math. 66 (1976), 455-476.
[366] Losonczi, A, The cardinality of the coarsest quasi-proximity class of locally
compact T2-spaces, Topology Proc. 23 (Spring 1998),245-262.
[367] _ _ , Finite quasi-uniform extensions I, 11, Acta Math. Hung. 79 (1998), 85-
116; 82 (1999), 35-55.
[368] _ _ , Special simultaneous quasi-uniform extensions, Acta Math. Hung. 84
(1999), 9-18.
[369] _ _ , On the cardinality of compatible quasi-uniformities, Topology Appl. 103
(2000), 43-54.
[370] _ _ , Topological spaces with a coarsest compatible quasi-uniformity, Quaes-
tiones Math. 23 (2000), 67-75.
[371] _ _ , On the cardinality of 1r(8), Comment. Math. Univ. Carol., to appear.
[372] _ _ , Notes on the coarsest element of1r(8), preprint.
[373] Lowen, E. and Lowen, R., A quasitopos containing CONV and MET as full
subcategories, Internat. 1. Math. Math. Sei. 11 (1988),417-438.
[374] _ _ , Topological quasitopos hulls of categories containing topological and
metric objects, Cah. Topologie Geom. DijJ. Cat. 30 (1989), 213-228.
[375] Lowen-Colebunders, E., Lowen, R and Nauwelaerts, M., The Cartesian closed
hull of the category of approach spaces, Cah. Topologie Geom. DijJ. Cat., to
appear.
[376] Lowen, E., Lowen, R and Verbeeck, C. Exponential objects in the construct
PRAP, Cah. Topologie Geom. DijJ. Cat. 38 (1997), 259-276.
[377] Lowen, R, Kuratowski's measure of non-compactness revisited, Q. J. Math.
Oxf. II, 39 (1988), 235-254.
[378] _ _ , Approach spaces: a common supercategory of TOP and MET, Math.
Nachr. 141 (1989), 183-226.
[379] _ _ , A topological category suited for approximation theory? 1. Approxima-
tion Theory 56 (1989), 108-117.
[380] _ _ , Cantor-connectedness revisited, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 33
(1992),525-532.
[381] _ _ , Approximation of weak convergence, Math. Nachr. 160 (1993), 299-
312.
[382] _ _ , Approach Spaces: The Missing Link in the Topology - Uniformity -
Metric Triad, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford University Press 1997.
[383] Lowen, R. and Robeys, K., Completions of products of metric spaces, Q.1.
Math. Oxf. II 43 (1992),319-338.
[384] _ _ , Products ofmetric spaces, in Recent Developments ofGeneral Topology
and its Applications, Intern. Conf. in Memory of F. Hausdorff, Math. Research,
vol. 67, Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1992,203-211.
NONSYMMETRIC DISTANCES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED TOPOLOOIES 959
[385] _ _ , Compactifications of products of metric spaces and their relations to

Cech-Stone and Smimov compactifications, Topology Appl. SS (1994), 163-
183.
[386] Lowen, R and Sioen, M., The Wijsman and Attouch-Wets topologies on
hyperspaces revisited, Topology Appl. 70 (1996),179-197.
[387] _ _ , A unified functionallook at completion in MET, UNIF and AP, Appl.
Categ. Struet. 8 (2000), 447-461.
[388] _ _ , Proximal hypertopologies revisited, Set-Valued Anal. 6 (1998), 1-19.
[389] _ _ , Weak representations of quantified hyperspace structures, Topology
Appl. 104 (2000), 169-179.
[390] _ _ , Approximation in functional analysis, Results Math. 37 (2000), 345-
372.
[391] _ _ , A Wallman-Shanin-type compactification for approach spaces, Rocky
Mountain J. Math. 30 (2000).
[392] _ _ , A small note on separation in AP, preprint.
[393] Lowen, R, Sioen, M. and Vaughan, Completing quasi-metric spaees - an
Approach approach, preprint.
[394] Lowen, Rand Vaughan, D.J., A non quasi-metric completion for quasi-metric
spaces, Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste 30 Suppl. (1999), 145-163.
[395] Lowen, Rand Verbeeck, c., Local compactness in approach spaces, land 11,
Internat. J. Math. Math. Sei. 21 (1998),429-438, to appear.
[396] Lowen, R. and WindeIs, B., On the quantification of uniform properties,
Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 38 (1997), 749-759.
[397] _ _ , AUnif: a common supercategory of pMET and Unif, Internat. J. Math.
Math. Sei. 21 (1998), 1-18.
[398] _ _ , Quantifying completion, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sei., 23 (2000), 729-
739.
[399] Maes, P., The fuzzy Hausdorff-Bourbaki structures and their relations with the
fuzzy Vietoris structures, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 31 (1989), 67-76.
[400] Mansfield, M.J., Same generalizations of full normality, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soe. 86 (1957), 489-505.
[401] Marciszewski, W. and Pelant, J., Absolute Borel sets and function spaces, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 349 (1997), 3585-3596.
[402] Marin, J. and Romaguera, S., On the bitopological extension of the Bing
metrization theorem, J. Austral Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 44 (1988), 233-241.
[403] _ _ , Pairwise monotonically normal spaces, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol.
32 (1991), 567-579; correction: ibid. 33 (1992), 181.
[404] _ _ , On quasi-uniformly continuous functions and Lebesgue spaces, Publ.
Math. Debrecen 48 (1996), 347-355.
[405] _ _ , A bitopological view of quasi-topological groups, Indian J. Pure Appl.
Math. 27 (1996),393-405.
[406] _ _ , Bicompleting the left quasi-uniformity of a paratopological group, Arch.
Math. (Basel) 70 (1998), 104-110.
[407] Matthews, S.O., Partial metric topology, in Papers on General Topology and
Applications, Eighth Summer Conf. Queens College, 1992, Annals New York
Acad. Sei., vol. 728, 1994, 183-197.
[408] McCartan, S.D., Separation axioms fortopological ordered spaces, Proc. Camb.
Phil. Soc. 64 (1968),965-973.
[409] Michael, E., Topologies on spaces ofsubsets, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 71 (1951),
152-183.
[410] Mooney, D.D. and Richmond, T.A., Cardinality and structure of semilattices
of ordered compactifications, in Papers on General Topology and Applications,
Ninth Summer Conference at Slippery Rock University 1993, Annals New York
Acad. ScL, vol. 767, 1995, 188-193.
[411] Mooney, D.D. and Richmond, T.A., The lattice of ordered compactifications of
a direct sum of totally ordered spaces, Order 15 (1998), 1-19.
[412] Morales, P., Topological contraction principle, Fundamenta Math. 110 (1980),
135-144.
[413] Mrsevic, M., Reilly, IL. and Vamanamurthy, M.K, Lebesgue sets in quasi-
pseudo-metric spaces, Math. Japonica 37 (1992), 189-194.
[414] Mordeshwar, M.G. and Naimpally, S.A., Tennungsaxioms in quasi-uniform
spaces, Nieuw Archiefvoor Wiskunde (3) 14 (1964), 97-101.
[415] _ _ , Quasi-Uniform Topological Spaces, Noordhoff, Groningen 1966.
[416] Mordeshwar, M.G. and Theckedath, KK, Boundedness in a quasi-uniform
space, Canad. Bull. 13 (1970), 367-370.
[417] Nachbin, L., Sor les espaces topologiques ordonnes, C.R. Acad. Sei. Paris 226
(1948), 381-382.
[418] _ _ , Sor les espaces uniformisables ordonnes, C.R. Acad. Sei. Paris 226
(1948), 547.
[419] _ _ , Sor les espaces uniformes ordonnes, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 226 (1948),
774-775.
[420] _ _ , Topology and Order, D. van Nostrand, Princeton 1965.
[421] Nagel, R., (ed.), in W. Arendt et al., One-parameter Semigroups of Positive
Operators, Springer Lecture Notes Math., vol. 1184 Berlin, 1986.
[422] Nailana, KR., Strict complete regularity in the categories of bitopological
spaces and ordered topological spaces, Publ. Math. Debrecen, to appear.
[423] Naimpally, S.A., Function spaces of quasi-uniform spaces, Nederl. Akad. Wet.
Proc. Sero A 68 =Indag. Math. 27 (1966), 768-771.
[424] _ _ , Separation axioms in quasi-uniform spaces, Amer. Math. Month. 74
(1967),283-284.
[425] Nauwelaerts, M., The Cartesian closed topological huH of the category of
(quasi-)uniform spaces (revisited), Rend. Ist. Mat. Univ. Trieste, to appear.
[426] _ _ , Cartesian closed hull for (quasi-)metric spaces (revisited), Comment.
Math. Univ. Carolin. 41 (2000), 559-573.
[427] _ _ , The hulls ofthe category ofuniform approach spaces, preprint.
[428] _ _ , Some Cartesian closed topological constructs of convergence-approach
spaces, preprint.
[429] _ _ , Some Cartesian closed topological constructs in the category of semi-
approach uniform limit spaces, Acta Math. Hung. 88 (2000),59-71.
[430] Nedev, S.l, Generalized-metrizable spaces (Russian), C.R. Acad. Bulgare Sei.
20 (1967), 513-516.
[431] Nielsen, R. and Sloyer, C., Quasi-uniformizability, Math. Ann. 182 (1969), 273-
274.
[432] Niemytzki, v., ber die Axiome des metrischen Raumes, Math. Ann. 104
(1931),666-671.
[433] Norman, L.J., A suffieient condition for quasi-metrizability of a topological
space, Portugal. Math. 26 (1967),207-211.
[434] O'Neill, S.1., Partial metrics, valuations and domain theory, in Papers on Gen-
eral Topology and Applications, Eleventh Summer Conference, Southem Maine,
1995, Annals New York Acad. Sei., vol. 806, 1996,304-315.
[435] Papadopoulos, B.K., Ascoli's theorem in a quiet quasi-uniform space, Panamer-
ican Math. J. (4) 3 (1993), 19-22.
[436] _ _ , Quasi-uniform convergence on function spaces, Questions Answers Gen.
Topology 12 (1994), 121-131.
[437] _ _ , (Quasi)-uniformities on the set of bounded maps, Internat. J. Math.
Math. Sei. 17 (1994), 693-696.
[438] _ _ , A note on the paper "Quasi-uniform convergence on function spaces",
Questions Answers Gen. Topology 13 (1995), 55-56.
[439] _ _ , Boundedness and (quasi-)uniform convergence, Math. Japonica 41
(1995),565-571.
[440] Pareek, C.M., Bitopological spaces and quasi-metric spaces, J Univ. Kuwait
Sei. 6 (1979), 1-7.
[441] Patty, c.w., Bitopological spaces, Duke Math. J. 34 (1967), 387-391.
[442] Pasquale, A., Hypertopologies induced by sc ales offunctional kind, Boll. U.M.1.
(7) 7-B (1993), 431-449.
[443] Perez-Pefialver, M.1. and Romaguera, S., On right K -completeness of the fine
quasi-uniformity, Questions Answers Gen. Topology 14 (1996), 245-249.
[444] _ _ , Weakly Cauchy filters and quasi-uniform completeness, Acta Math.
Hung. 82 (1999), 217-228.
[445] _ _ , Cofinal bicompleteness and quasi-metrizability, Rend. Inst. Mat. Univ.
Trieste 30 Suppl. (1999), 165-172.
[446] Pervin, W.J., Quasi-uniformization of topological spaces, Math. Ann. 147
(1962),316-317.
[447] _ _ , Quasi-proxirnities for topological spaces, Math. Ann. 150 (1963), 325-
326.
[448] Pervin, w.J. and Sieber, J.L., Completeness in quasi-uniform spaces, Math. Ann.
158 (1965), 79-81.
[449] Picado, J., Weil uniformities for frames, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 36
(1995),357-370.
[450] _ _ , Frame quasi-uniformities, Proc. Symposium on Categorical Topology,
University of Cape Town 1994, B. Banaschewski, c.R.A. Gilmour and H.
Herrlich (eds.), Dept. Math., University ofCape Town 1999,161-175.
[451] Pol, R., A perfectly normallocally metrizable non-paracompact space, Fund.
Math. 97 (1977), 37-42.
[452] Popa, E., Completion of quasi-uniform spaces, Math. Ann. 186 (1970), 297-298.
[453] Porter, K.F. Serni-reasonable topologies for homeomorphism groups, Houston
J Math. 17 (1991), 367-373.
[454] _ _ , The open-open topology for funetion spaees, Internat. J. Math. Math.
Sei. 16 (1993),111-116.
[455] _ _ , The regular open-open topology for funetion spaees, Internat. J. Math.
Math. Sei. 19 (1996), 299-302.
[456] _ _ , Some equivalent topologies on homeomorphism groups, Topology Proc.
22 (Summer 1997), 373-383.
[457] Priess-Crampe, S. and Ribenboim, P., Generalized ultrametrie spaees I, 11, Abh.
Math. Sem. Hamburg 66 (1996), 55-73; 67 (1997), 19-31.
[458] Priestley, H.A., Ordered topological spaees and the representation of distributive
lattices, Proc. London Math. Soc. 24 (1972), 507-530.
[459] Raghavan, T.G., On quasi-metrizability, Indian J Pure Appl. Math. 15 (1984),
1084-1089.
[460] Raghavan, T.G. and Reilly,l.L., Metrizability of quasi-metrie spaees, J London
Math. Soc. 15 (1977),169-172.
[461] _ _ , On non-symmetrie topological struetures, Colloquia Math. Soc. Janos
Bolyai, vol. 23, Topology, Budapest (Hungary) 1978, pp. 1005-1014.
[462] _ _ , On the eontinuity of group operations, Indian J Pure Appl. Math. 9
(1978), 747-752.
[463] _ _ , Uniformization of quasi-uniform spaees, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 23
(1981),413-422.
[464] _ _ , A new bitopologieal paraeompaetness, J Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A)
41 (1986), 268-274.
[465] _ _ , Charaeterization of quasi-metrizable bitopologieal spaees, J. Austral.
Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 44 (1988),271-274.
[466] Redfield, R.H., Ordering uniform eompletions ofpartially ordered sets, Canad.
J Math. 26 (1974), 644-664.
[467] _ _ , Uniformly eonvex totally ordered sets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 51 (1975),
289-294.
[468] Reichei, H.-C., Basis properties oftopologies eompatible with (not necessarily
symmetrie) distanee funetions, Topology Appl. 8 (1978),283-289.
[469] Reilly,l.L., On generating quasi-uniformities, Math. Ann. 189 (1970), 317-318.
[470] _ _ , Quasi-gauge spaees, J. London Math. Soc. 6 (1973), 481-487.
[471] _ _ , Zero dimensional bitopological spaees, Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc.
Sero A 76 =Indag. Math. 35 (1973), 127-133.
[472] _ _ , A generalized eontraetion principle, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 10 (1974),
359-363.
[473] _ _ , A note on quasi-metrie spaees, Proc. Japan Acad. 52 (1976), 428-430.
[474] _ _ , A quasi-metric bibliography, The University of Auekland, Dept. Math.
Stat., Report Series No. 269, June 1992, New Zealand.
[475] Reilly, I.L. and Subrahmanyam, P.v., Some fixed point theorems, J Austral.
Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 53 (1992),304-312.
[476] Reilly,l.L., Subrahmanyam, P.V. and Vamanamurthy, M.K., Cauehy sequenees
in quasi-pseudo-metrie spaees, Monatsh. Math. 93 (1982), 127-140.
[477] Reilly,l.L. and Vamanamurthy, M.K., On oriented metrie spaees, Math. Slovaca
34 (1984),299-305.
[478] Reinhold, J., Semilattices of ordered compactifications, Order 14 (1997-1998),

279-294.
[479] Render, H., Nonstandard methods of completing quasi-uniform spaces, Topol-
ogy Appl. 62 (1995), 101-125.
[480] _ _ , Hausdorff completions of quasi-uniform spaces, Czechoslovak Math. J.
46(121) (1996), 309-316.
[481] _ _ , Generalized uniform spaces and applications to function spaces, Studia
Sei. Math. Hung. 34 (1998), 429-443.
[482] Reznichenko, E.A., Extension of functions defined on products of pseudocom-
pact spaces and continuity of the inverse in pseudocompact groups, Topology
Appl. 59 (1994), 233-244.
[483] Rhoades, B.E., Some fixed point theorems in quasi-metric spaces, Demonstr.
Matk. 30 (1997), 301-305.
[484] Ribeiro, H., Sur les espaces a metrique faible, Port. Matk. 4 (1943), 21-40;
Correction a la note "Sur les espaces ametrique faible", ibid. 65-68.
[485] Richardson, G.D., Rl, pairwise compact, and pairwise complete spaces, Canad.
Matk. Bull. 15 (1972),109-113.
[486] Rodriguez-L6pez, J. and Romaguera, S., Reconciling proximal convergence
with uniform convergence in quasi-metric spaces, Houston J Matk., to appear.
[487] Romaguera, S., Two characterizations of quasi-pseudometrizable bitopological
spaces, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 35 (1983), 327-333.
[488] _ _ , On bitopological quasi-pseudometrization, J Austral. Matk. Soc. (Ser.
A) 36 (1984), 126-129.
[489] _ _ , A characterization of strongly quasi-metrizable spaces, Math. Japonica
33 (1988), 583-585.
[490] _ _ , On continuously quasi-metrizable spaces, Matk. Japonica 34 (1989),
417-419.
[491] _ _ , On equinormal quasi-metrics, Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 32 (1989),
193-196.
[492] _ _ , Left K -completeness in quasi-metric spaces, Matk. Nachr. 157 (1992),
15-23.
[493] _ _ , g-bifunctions and quasi-pseudometrization, Math. Japonica 37 (1992),
337-340.
[494] _ _ , On complete Aronszajn quasi-metric spaces and subcompactness, in
Papers on General Topology and Applications, Eighth Summer Conf. Queens
College, 1992, Annals New York Acad. Sei., vol. 728, 1994, 114-121.
[495] _ _ , An example on quasi-uniform convergence and quiet spaces, Questions
Answers Gen. Topology 13 (1995),169-171.
[496] _ _ , On hereditary precompactness and completeness in quasi-uniform
spaces, Acta Matk. Hung. 73 (1996), 159-178.
[497] _ _ , Quasi-metrizability ofthe finest quasi-proximity, Publ. Matk. Debrecen
56 (2000), 145-169.
[498] _ _ , A new class of quasi-uniform spaces, Math. Pannonica (1) 11 (2000),
17-28.
[499] _ _ , Almost 2-fully normal, pairwise paracompact and complete developable
bispaces, Quaestiones Math., to appear.
[500] Romaguera, S. and Ruiz-G6mez, M., Bitopologies and quasi-uniformities on

spaces of continuous functions I, 11, Publ. Math. Debreeen 47 (1995), 81-93
and 50 (1997), 1-15.
[501] Romaguera, S. and Salbany, S., Quasi-metrization and hereditary normality of
compact bitopological spaces, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 31 (1990), 113-
122.
[502] _ _ , On countably compact quasi-pseudometrizable spaces, J. Austral. Math.
Soe. (Ser. A) 49 (1990), 231-240.
[503] _ _ , Quasi-metrizable spaces with a bicomplete structure, Extraeta Math. 7
(1992),99-102.
[504] _ _ , On bicomplete quasi-pseudometrizability, Topology Appl. 50 (1993),
283-289.
[505] _ _ , Extending a Bieomplete Quasi-metrie, Proc. Symposium on Categorical
Topology, University of Cape Town 1994, B. Banaschewski, C.R.A. Gilmour
and H. Herrlich (eds.), Dept. Math., University of Cape Town 1999,215-223.
[506] _ _ , Dieudonne complete bispaces, Studia Sei. Math. Hung. 36 (2000), 407-
421.
[507] Romaguera, S. and Sanchis, M., Semi-Lipschitz functions and best approxima-
tion in quasi-metric spaces, J Approx. Theory 103 (2000),292-301.
[508] Romaguera, S. and Schellekens, M., Quasi-metric properties of complexity
spaces, Topology Appl. 98 (1999), 311-322.
[509] _ _ , Duality and quasi-normability for eomplexity spaees, preprint.
[510] _ _ , The quasi-metric of complexity convergence, Quaestiones Math. 23
(2000), 359-374.
[511] _ _ , Cauchy. filters and strong completeness of quasi-uniform spaces,
Rostoek. Math. Kolloq., to appaer.
[512] _ _ , Norm-weightable Riesz spaees and the dual eomplexity spaee, preprint.
[513] Romaguera, S. and Tarres, J., Dimension of quasi-metrizable spaces and
bicompleteness degree, Extraeta Math. 8 (1993), 39-41.
[514] Rutten, J.J.M.M., Elements of generalized ultrametric domain tpeory, Theoret-
ieal Computer Seienee 170 (1996), 349-381.
[515] _ _ , Weighted colimits and formal balls in generalized metric spaces,
Topology Appl. 89 (1998), 179-202.
[516] Salbany, S., Quasi-uniformities and quasi-pseudometrics, Math. Colloq. Univ.
Cape Town 6 (1970-71), 88-102.
[517] _ _ , Quasi-metrization of bitopological spaces, Areh. Math. (Basel) 23
(1972), 299-306.
[518] _ _ , Bitopologieal Spaees, Compaetifieations and Completions, Math.
Monographs, No. 1, Dept. Math. Univ. Cape Town 1974.
[519] _ _ , A bitopologieal view oftopology and order, Categorical topology (Proc.
Toledo, Ohio, 1983), Heldermann, Berlin, 1984, pp. 481-504.
[520] _ _ , Unique quasi-uniformities, General topology and its relations to modem
analysis and algebra, VI, Proe. 6th Symp., Prague/Czeeh. 1986, Res. Expo.
Math., vol. 16 (1988), pp. 497-508.
[521] _ _ , Injective objects and morphisms, in Categorical Topology and its Rela-
tion to Analysis, Algebra and Combinatorics (Prague, 1988), I. Adamek and S.
MacLane (eds.), World Sci. Publishing, Teaneck, NI 1989,394-409.
[522] _ _ , Linearly ordered topologies and quasi-metrization, in Papers on Gen-
eral Topology and Applications, Ninth Summer Conference at Slippery Rock
University, 1993, Annals New York Acad. Sci., vol. 767, 1995,217-227.
[523] _ _ , On even quasimetrization, Proc. Symposium on Categorical Topology,
University of Cape Town 1994, B. Banaschewski, C.R.A. Gilmour and H.
Herrlich (eds.), Dept. Math., University of Cape Town (1999), 225-236.
[524] Salbany, S. and Todorov, T., Nonstandard and standard compactifications of
ordered topological spaces, Topology Appl. 47 (1992), 35-52.
[525] Samuel, P., Ultrafilters and compactifications of uniform spaces, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 64 (1948), 100-132.
[526] Schauerte, A., Functorial quasi-uniformities over partially ordered spaces,
M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Cape Town, 1988.
[527] Schellekens, M., The Smyth Completion: a Common Foundation for Denota-
tional Semantics and Complexity Analysis: in Proc. MFPS 11, Electronic Notes
in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 1, 1995. URL: http://www.elsevier.nVlo-
cate/entcs/volume l.html
[528] _ _ , Complexity Spaces Revisited, Proceedings of the 8th Prague topological
symposium, Prague, Simon, Petr. (ed.) Czech Republic, 1996, North Bay, ON:
Topology Atlas (1997) URL: http://at.yorku.ca/p/p/a/a/OO.htm
[529] _ _ , On upper weightable spaces, in Papers on General Topology and Ap-
plications, Eleventh Summer Conference, Southem Maine 1995, Annals New
York Acad. Sei., vol. 806, 1996,348-363.
[530] _ _ , Complexity spaces: Lifting and directedness, Topology Proc. 22
(Summer 1997), 403-425.
[531] _ _ , The correspondence between partial metries and semivaluations; M-
spaces: an abstract study of the lifting process; A characterization of partials
matrizability, preprints.
[532] Schwarz, F. and Weck-Schwarz, S., Is every partially ordered space with a com-
pletely regular topology already a completely regular partially ordered space?
Math. Nachr. 161 (1993), 199-201.
[533] Scott, B.M., Toward a product theory for orthocompactness, Studies in topology,
Proc. Cont Univ. North Carolina, Charlotte, N.C. 1974, Academic Press, New
York 1975, pp. 517-537.
[534] _ _ , More about orthocompactness, Topology Proc. 5 (1980), 155-184.
[535] Seyedin, M., Quasi-uniform spaces and topological homeomorphism groups,
Canad. Math. Bull. 17 (1974), 97-98.
[536] _ _ , R3 -quasi-uniform spaces and topological homeomorphism groups, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 52 (1975), 465-468.
[537] _ _ , On quasiuniform convergence, in General Topology and its Relations to
Modem Analysis and Algebra, IV, Proc. Fourth Prague Topological Symposium,
1976, Part B, Prague 1977, 425-429.
[538] Shchepin, E.Y., On topological products, groups, and a new class of spaces more
general than metric spaces, Sov. Math. Dokl. 17 (1976), 152-155.
[539] Shi, E, Pointwise quasi-unifonnities and pseudo-quasi-metrics on completely

distributive lattices (Chinese), Acta Math. Sin. 39 (1996), 701-706.
[540] _ _ , Pointwise quasi-unifonnities on completely distributive lattices, Ad-
vances in Math. 26 (1997), 22-28.
[541] Simmons, H., A couple of tripIes, Topology Appl. 13 (1982), 201-223.
[542] Sioen, M., The Cech-Stone compactification for Hausdorff uniform approach
spaces is ofWallman-Shanin-type, Questions Answers Gen. Topology 16 (1998),
189-211.
[543] _ _ , On the epireflectivity of the Wallman-Shanin-type compactification for
approach spaces, Appl. Categ. Struct. 8 (2000), 607-637.
[544] Sion, M. and Willmott, RC., Hausdorff measures on abstract spaces, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 123 (1966), 275-309.
[545] Sion, M. and Zelmer, G., On quasi-metrizability, Canad. J. Math. 19 (1967),
1243-1249.
[546] Skula, L., On a reflective subcategory of the category of all topological spaces,
[547] Smyth, M.B., Quasi-uniformities: Reconciling domains with metric spaces, in
Mathematical Foundations 0/ Programming Language Semantics, 3rd Work-
shop, Tulane 1987, Lecture Notes Computer Scienee, vol. 298, M. Main et al.
(eds.), Springer, Berlin 1988, 236-253.
[548] _ _ , Totally bounded spaees and eompaet ordered spaees as domains of
eomputation, in Topology and Category Theory in Computer Science, G.M.
Reed, A.W. Roseoe and RE Waehter (eds.), Clarendon Press, Oxford 1991,
207-229.
[549] _ _ , Stable eompaetifieation I, J. uJndon Math. Soc. 45 (1992),321-340.
[550] _ _ , Completeness of quasi-uniform and syntopologieal spaees, J. London
Math. Soc. 49 (1994), 385-400.
[551] Sontag, E., An abstract approach to dissipation, preprint; for a summarized
version see Proe. IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, New Orleans, Dee. 1995,
IEEE Publieations, 1995, pp. 2702-2703.
[552] Sostak, A.P., Fuzzy syntopogeneous struetures, Quaestiones Math. 20 (1997),
431-461.
[553] Steiner, E.E, The relation between quasi-proximities and topological spaees,
Math. Ann. 155 (1964), 194-195.
[554] Stoltenberg, RA., Some properties of quasi-uniform spaees, Proc. London
Math. Soc. 17 (1967), 226-240.
[555] _ _ , Completion for quasi-uniform spaees, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (1967),
864-867.
[556] _ _ , On quasi-metrie spaees, Duke Math. J. 36 (1969), 65-71.
[557] Snderhauf, P., The Smyth-eompletion of a quasi-uniform spaee, in Semantics
0/ Programming Languages and Model Theory, M. Droste and Y. Gurevieh
(eds.), ''Algebra, Logie and Applications", Gordon and Breaeh Sei. Publ., New
York 1993, 189-212.
[558] _ _ , Discrete Approximation 0/ Spaces. A Uniform Approach to Topologi-
cally Structured Datatypes and Their Function Spaces, Dissertation, Darmstadt
1994.
[559] _ _ , Quasi-unifonn completeness in tenns of Cauchy nets, Acta Math. Hung.

69 (1995), 47-54.
[560] _ _ , Constructing a quasi-unifonn function space, Topology Appl. 67 (1995),
1-27.
[561] _ _ , Smyth completeness in tenns of nets: the general case, Quaestiones
Math. 20 (1997), 715-720.
[562] _ _ , Tensor products and powerspaces in quantitative domain theory, Elec-
tronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 6, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1997. URL: http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume6.html
[563] _ _ , Spaces of valuations as quasimetric domains, Electronic Notes in
Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1998. URL:
http://www.elsevier.nlliocate/entcs/volume 13 .html
[564] _ _ , Function spaces for uniformly locally bounded quasi-uniform spaces,
Proc. Symposium on Categorical Topology, University of Cape Town 1994, B.
Banaschewski, C.R.A. Gilmour and H. Herrlich (eds.), Dept. Math., University
of Cape Town 1999,237-247.
[565] Szaz, A., Basic tools and mild continuities in relator spaces, Acta Math. Hung.
50 (1987), 177-201.
[566] van Douwen, E.K., An easier superrigid countable T}-space, Topology Appl. 34
(1990),93-95.
[567] van Douwen, E.K. and Wicke, H.H., Areal, weird topology on the reals, Houston
J. Math. 3 (1977), 141-152.
[568] van Gool, F., Lower semicontinuous functions with values in a continuous
lattice, Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 33 (1992), 505-523.
[569] Vaughan, J.E., A countably compact, first countable, nonnonnal T2-space, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 75 (1979),339-342.
[570] Velicko, N.V, Quasi-uniformly sequential spaces (Russian), CR. Acad. Bulgare
Sci. 25 (1972), 589-591.
[571] Verbeeck, c., The category of pre-approach spaces, Doctoral Thesis, Univer-
siteit Antwerpen, 2000.
[572] Vickers, S.J., Localic completion of quasimetric spaces, Technical Report DoC
9712, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, 1997.
[573] Vitolo, P., A representation theorem for quasi-metric spaces, Topology Appl. 65
(1995), 101-104.
[574] Votaw, c., Uniqueness of compatible quasi-uniforrnities, Canad. Math. Bull. 15
(1972),575-583.
[575] Wang, G., Theory of topological molecular lattices, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 47 (1992),
351-376.
[576] Ward, A.J., A generalization of almost-compactness, with an associated gener-
alization of completeness, Czechoslovak Math. J. 25(100) (1975), 514-530.
[577] Watson, S., The c1assification of metrics and multivariate statistical analysis,
Topology Appl. 99 (1999), 237-261.
[578] Weber, H., Unifonn lattices I: A generalization of topological Riesz spaces
and topological Boolean rings; Unifonn lattices 11: Order continuity and
exhaustivity, Annali Mat. Pura Appl. 160 (1991), 347-370; 164 (1993),
133-158.
[579] Williams, J., Locally uniform spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 168 (1972), 435-
469.
[580] Wilson, W.A., On quasi-metric spaces, Amer. 1. Math. S3 (1931), 675-684.
[581] WindeIs, B., Unifonn Approach Theory, Doctoral Thesis, Universiteit Antwer-
pen, 1997.
[582] _ _ , The Scott approach structure: an extension of the Scott topology for
quantitative domain theory, Acta Math. Hung. 88 (2000), 35-44.
[583] _ _ , On the metrization lemma for uniform spaces, Quaestiones Math., to
appear.
[584] Woods, R.G., Topological extension properties, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 210
(1975), 365-385.
[585] Wu, C. and Wu, J., Fuzzy quasi-uniformities and fuzzy bitopological spaces,
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 46 (1992), 133-137.
[586] Wyler, 0., Compact ordered spaces and prime Wallman compactifications, in
Categorical Topology, Heldermann, Berlin 1984, pp. 618--635.
[587] Yajima, Y., A characterization of submetacompactness in terms of products,
[588] Yang, L., Pointwise quasi-uniformities on completely distributive lattices
(Chinese), 1. Math. Res. Expo. 8 (1988), 187-194.
[589] Zaustinsky, E.M., Spaces with non-symmetric distance, Memoirs Amer. Math.
Soc. 34 (1959).
SUPERCATEGORIES OF TOP AND
THE lNEVITABLE EMERGENCE OF
TOPOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS
E. LOWEN-COLEBUNDERS
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Departement Wiskunde
Pleinlaan 2
1050 Brussels, Belgium
AND
R.LOWEN
Universiteit Antwerpen
Departement Wiskunde en Informatica
Groenenborgerlaan 171
2020 Antwerp, Belgium
Contents
1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 971
1.1 Scope of the work ...................................... , 971
1.2 Notation and terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 972
2 The Abundance of Examples from the Beginning of the 20th Century . . . .. 972
2.1 Early approaches to "topology" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 972
2.2 Examples of nontopological structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 973
3 Generalized Topological Structures Motivated by Examples ............. 974
3.1 Pseudotopological spaces ................................. 974
3.2 Pretopological spaces .................................... 975
3.3 Limit spaces ............................................ 976
3.4 Convergence spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 977
3.5 Moving on ............................................. 977
3.6 Drifting towards uniformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 979
4 The Introduction of Categorical Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 981
4.1 The early days ......................................... , 981
4.2 Unification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 982
5 Topological Constructs ............................................ 984
5.1 The past. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 984
969
C. E. Aull and R. Lowen (eds.), Handbook ofthe History ofGeneral Topology, Volurne 3,969-1026.
2001 Kluwer Acadernic Publishers.
970 EVA LOWEN-COLEBUNDERS AND BOB LOWEN
5.2 ... and the present ....................................... 990

6 The Interplay between Topological Constructs and Examples . . . . . . . . . . .. 994
6.1 Examples revisited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 994
6.2 Topologies and uniformities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 996
6.3 Topologies and metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 996
7 Convenience Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 998
7.1 Cartesian closed topological constructs ..................... 998
7.2 Extensional topological constructs ......................... 1001
7.3 Topological universes .................................... 1001
8 Examples Motivated by Convenience Properties ....................... 1002
8.1 Cartesian closed topological hulls .......................... 1003
8.2 Extensional topological hulls .............................. 1005
8.3 Topological universe hulls ................................ 1006
TOPOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS 971
1. Introduction
1.1. SCOPE OF THE WORK
Before embarking on our journey let us point out what we will not be doing,
thereby stifling unjustified "great expectations" in the budo
To start with, we will of course avoid any duplication of topics treated
in the comprehensive artic1e of Herrlich and Strecker, "Categorical Topology
- its Origins as Exemplified by the Unfolding of the Tbeory of Topological
Refiections and Corefiections Before 1971" which appeared in the first volume
of the "Handbook of the History of General Topology". This is not a great
problem since that paper mainly dealt with subcategories of Top whereas our
work will deal with supercategories. We will also not deal with refiective and
corefiective subcategories and generalizations of these concepts in general, but
only in specific instances for specific categories.
We will also avoid duplication of items which were treated in the paper
by Bentley, Herrlich and Husek, ''The historical Development of Uniform,
Proximal and Neamess Concepts in Topology" which appeared in the second
volume of the "Handbook of the History of General Topology". However we
will sometimes be dealing with the categories which were also treated in that
paper, but from another angle.
We will not deal with special properties of morphisms, sinks, sources or
factorization structures, except in those instances where they are required to
define or explain certain concepts which fit in the topics which we do consider.
We will not treat the category Loc of locales, although of course this is also
an important "almost" supercategory of Top, mainly because there is aseparate
paper by Johnstone in this volume which treats this topic in detail.
Some categories will appear in the text in spite of the fact that they are not
supercategories of Top, such as for instance Chy, Met and Unif, simply because
they too are subcategories of supercategories of Top which are being discussed.
Such categories will not be treated in their own right but only in function of the
other categories.
So, what are we going to do? We will try to give a historical overview
of the interplay between, on the one hand, the numerous supercategories of
Top which have been introduced from the beginning of the 20-th century,
and on the other hand, the theory of topological constructs, which emerged
from the need of unification and systematization. We will pay attention to both
directions of the interplay and in our discussion we will follow the historical
path: we start with the first direction, the one that goes from the examples of
nontopological structures and supercategories of Top to the creation of topolog-
ical constructs. Once topological constructs were introduced, there originated
an important opposite direction in the interplay. We will try to show how the
various theories of supercategories of Top benefitted considerably from the use

of methods from categorical topology. These methods brought C!rder in the vast
collection of examples and produced convenience properties which shed light on
the importance of some of the examples and allowed for the study of canonical
invariance properties.
1.2. NOTATION AND TERMINOLOGY
Notation and terminology has changed over the years; sometimes greatly and
sometimes frequently and sometimes both. We believe that in most cases these
changes were for the better, and hence we will adhere as much as possible to
modem and present-day notation and terminology, certainly for all our defini-
tions and statements of results. We will only refer to, or use, older terminology
whenever this might be required or is interesting for the story.
In all diagrams which involve categories, an r next to an arrow means that the
sma1ler category is bireflectively embedded in the larger one and analogously ac
next to an arrow means that the smaller category is bicoreflectively embedded in
the larger one (see 5.8). An arrow .sIl L - - C(6 stands for an inc1usion functor.
Sometimes an inc1usion functor may also be denoted simply as .sIl - - C(6 We
have not been consistent in the use of arrows and also not in our choices as to
whether smaller or larger categories are depicted on a lower or higher level in
diagrams. Usually such choices were dictated more by, our personal, aesthetical
feeling. It should however always be perfectly clear what is embedded in what.
2. The Abundance of Examples from the Beginning of the 20th Century
2.1. EARLY APPROACHES TO ''TOPOLOGY''
The book by Hausdorff, "Grundzge der Mengenlehre" published in 1914 [161],

and the work of Kuratowski, "Sur l'operation A de l'analysis situs" published
in 1922 [242], are usually referred to as the origin and foundation of Gen-
eral Topology. Nevertheless, already from the beginning of the 20-th century,
around the same time that topology was born, different authors paid attention
to alternative axiomatic systems, expressing similar "topological" ideas. Before
Hausdorff's work of 1914, in 1906, in his thesis, Frechet described a set of
axioms involving limits of sequences. In doing so he introduced the notion
of an L-space. Later, in 1926, Urysohn pursued this idea and proposed an
improved axiomsystem for so called L *-spaces [357]. L *-spaces appeared in
Kuratowski's monograph ''Topologie I" [243] published in 1933. In 1907 Riesz
presented an axiomatic description of derived sets, the structure he suggested
corresponds to the Cech-c1osures we know today (see 2.1). Usually for the first
description of Cech-closures one refers to Cech's book ''Topological Spaces"

and to the 1936-39 seminars on which the book is based. Riesz's closures
were assumed to satisfy some separation condition. In 1935, so even before the
seminars just mentioned, Hausdorff introduced his "Gestufte Rame" [162].
These are Cech-closure spaces fulfilling the Tl separation axiom. In that paper
Hausdorff considers these spaces as a link between topological spaces and L-
spaces, " . .. so dass die gestuften Rume als Bindeglied zwischen L-Rumen und
topologischen Rumen eine kurzen Untersuchung nicht unwert sind, ... ". The
following is the definition of Cech-closure as we know it today.
Definition 2.1. A Cech-closure on a given set X is an operator, cl : 2 x ~ 2 x

fulfilling the following properties:
(CU) cl(0) = 0.
(CI2) VA E 2 x : A C cl(A).
(C13) VA, B E 2 x : cl(A U B) = cl(A) U cl(B).
The pair (X, cl) is called a Cech-closure space. A function f : X ---* Y

between Cech-closure spaces (X, clx) and (Y, cly) is called continuous if for
all A c X : f(clx(A)) C cly(f(A)).
2.2. EXAMPLES OF NONTOPOLOGICAL STRUCTURES
Also, from the early days of Topology, it was clear that several important con-
crete situations simply could not be captured in the setting of topological spaces.
All these early examples, in one way or another, had to do with convergence. Of
course the very early examples were expressed in terms of convergent sequences.
Only later, after Moore and Smith in 1922 [275] had introduced their so-called
Moore-Smith convergence of nets, and after Cartan in 1937 [85] provided the
notion of filter, net and filter versions of these examples became available.
The use of the measure theoretic concept of convergence almost everywhere
dates already from the very beginning of probability and measure theory. This
convergence is nontopological. In 1954 Kowalsky gave a filter description of
this convergence. In the American Mathematical Monthly, in 1966, a proof, of
this by then well known fact, was presented by Ordman [295].
On the set of continuous maps '(X, Y) between topological spaces X and
Y, Hahn in 1921 [157] and Caratheodory in 1929 [83] considered the very
natural notion of continuous convergence of sequences of maps. Again for the
filter version of this convergence, one had to wait until after Cartan's work
of 1937 [85]. A filter version appeared in the work of Bastiani in 1964 [33]
under the name "convergence locale". In 1965 Cook and Fisher [99] proved
that continuous convergence on the collection of continuous maps from one

topological space to another is the coarsest admissible convergence structure.
From the work of Arens [25] it was known that a coarsest admissible topology
need not exist. So Cook and Fisher conc1uded that continuous convergence, in
general, is not topological.
The concept of convergence of sequences of c10sed sets appeared in Haus-
dorff's book which was published in 1914 [161]. A filter version of this concept
was introduced by Choquet in 1948 [89] and a net version by Mr6wka in
1958 [276]. This is another example of a convergence, which, in general, is
not topological.
Order convergence in a lattice was described in terms of nets by Birkhoff
in 1948, see e.g. [51] and by Rennie in 1951 [315]. Ward describes aversion
adapted for filters in 1955 in [363]. Using this description, in 1966, Kent proves
that order convergence in a lattice may fall to be topological [231]. In the sixties
order convergence received a lot of attention from various authors, Mller 1959
[280], De Marr 1965 [111], Mathews 1967 [270].
Other examples appeared later, around the time, or shortly after, that a more
general convergence theory was already founded. These more recent examples
will be listed in the next paragraph, since they did not serve as real motivation
for the construction of general structures.
3. Generalized Topological Structures Motivated by Examples
In this section we give some historical background with respect to generalized

topological structures motivated by the concrete examples mentioned in the
previous section. Once Cartan's notion of a filter was available in 1937 [85], the
axiomatization of convergence evolved from examples of nontopologicallimit
operations. The basic idea was to use the concept of filter convergence itself as
a primitive notion.
3.1. PSEUDOTOPOLOGICAL SPACES
In 1948 Choquet, motivated by the example of filter convergence of c10sed sets,

introduced the notion of pseudotopology under the French name "Pseudotopolo-
gie" in his paper "Convergences" [89]. The primitive notion for this concept is
the convergence of ultrafilters and Choquet also provided an equivalent formu-
lation in terms of arbitrary filters which we repeat below. He refers to this new
notion as being a filter generalization of the L *-convergence of Urysohn [357].
Definition 3.1. A pseudotopological structure on a set X is a relation q between

filters on X and points of X fulfilling the following properties:
(LI) Vx EX: (x, X) E q.
(L2) If (~, x) E q and ~ c eg then (eg, x) E q.
(Ps) If (Oll, x) E q for every ultrafilter Oll finer than a given filter ~ then
(~,x) E q.
The pair (X, q) is called a pseudotopological space and a function j : X -+ Y

between pseudotopological spaces (X, qx) and (Y, qy) is called continuous if
for each filter ~ on X: (~, x) E qx =} (f(~), j(x E qy. The category of
pseudotopological spaces and continuous maps is denoted PsTop.
Choquet used the term "pseudocontinuous" for what these days is simply
called continuous. Furthermore he studied sums, products and quotients of
pseudotopological spaces [89].
3.2. PRETOPOLOGICAL SPACES
In the same paper, Choquet also introduced the notion of a pretopology under
the French name "Pre-topologie", as a pseudotopological structure satisfying
a supplementary axiom, namely that the interseetion of all filters converging
to a given point should also converge to that point. This means that there is
a smallest filter converging to each point. This smallest filter is what is called
the neighborhoodfilter. His equivalent description of a pretopology in terms of
neighborhoodfilters is presented here.
Definition 3.2. A pretopological structure on a set X is given by a collec-

tion of filters "V(x), x E X, called neighborhoodfilters, fulfilling the following
property:
(Pr) VV E "V(x) : x E V.
The pair (X, "V) is called a pretopological space. A function j : X -+ Y

between pretopological spaces (X, "V2f) and (Y, "Vay) is called continuous if
for each x EX: V E "Vy(f(x =} j-l(V) E "Vx(x). The category of
pretopological spaces and continuous maps is denoted PrTop.
The link with the concept ofpseudotopological spaces, see 3.1, is given as
follows. A pretopology can be seen as a pseudotopology by defining (~, x) E q
if "V(x) c ~. Conversely if a pseudotopology fulfils the condition that any
interseetion of convergent filters is again convergent then by defining "V (x ) to
be the interseetion of all filters converging to x one obtains a pretopology. The
notion of continuous map between pretopological spaces then also coincides
with the notion of the same name between pseudotopological spaces.
Choquet also observed that these structures are linked in a direct way to what
he called "Pre-adherences". These coincide with the Cech-c1osures mentioned
earlier, but he does not make explicit reference to the existing notions. Moreover
the correspondence is only established at the level ofthe objects. Choquet further
describes a way of associating a pretopological and a topological modification
with a pseudotopological space. Later in this overview we come back to these
modifications. In his proofs he uses the notion of a grill which was introduced
one year earlier, in 1947, by himself [88]. The interaction between convergence
and topology is the main subject of the paper of Sonner, 1953 [345], which
appeared shortly afterwards.
3.3. LIMIT SPACES
Kowalsky, motivated by the example of convergence almost everywhere, in

1954 [236] introduced a more general notion of convergence, which he called
"Limitierung" and which became known as a limit structure. Fischer took up
the study of "Limesrame" but apparently without knowing about Kowalsky's
paper. In 1959 he presented a long paper "Limesrame" in which basic con-
structions with limit structures are inc1uded. In his development he took special
interest in applications to analysis [132].
Definition 3.3. A limit structure on a set X is a relation q between filters on X

and points of X fulfilling the properties (LI) and (L2) of 3.1 together with the
following weakening of (Ps):
(L3) If (~, x) E q and (~, x) E q then (~n~, x) E q.
The pair (X, q) is called a limit space. A function f : X ~ Y between

limit spaces (X, qx) and (Y, qy) is called continuous if for each filter ~ on
X : (~, x) E q X => Cf (~), f (x E qy. The category of limit spaces and
continuous maps is denoted Lim.
In the early sixties different axiom systems for convergence notions were
investigated, Harbart 1959 [159], and the position of topology in this setting
was further c1arified in papers of Grimeisen, [153], [154], [155] and [156].
Notice that in several papers, notably the paper on convergence by Bentley,
Herrlich and Lowen-Colebunders [41], a limit structure is called a convergence
structure. Actually however, a convergence structure is a slightly more general
structure which we define below.
Together with his coauthor Cook, in 1965, Fischer showed that the theory
of limit spaces captures the example of continuous convergence.
3.4. CONVERGENCE SPACES
In 1964, Kent, in order to capture also order convergence within the theory,
proposed yet another weakening of the axioms, thus defining what are known
as convergence structures. Further weakening of the convergence axioms was
considered by Kent in 1964 [230], and by Ghler in his books of 1977-78,
"Grundstrukturen der Analysis", volume I [148] and volume 11 [149]. In the
book of 1974 by Poppe, "Compactness in General Function Spaces" [299] and
also in the papers by Dolecki and Greco of 1986 [115], [116] convergence
structures without axioms are studied.
Definition 3.4. A convergence structure on a set X is a relation q between filters

on X and points of X fulfilling the properties (LI) and (L2) of 3.1 together with
the following weakening of the property (L3) of 3.3:
(Co) If (~, x) E q then (~n i, x) E q.
The pair (X, q) is called a convergence space and, again, a function f : X ~ Y

between convergence spaces (X, q x) and (Y, qy) is called continuous if for each
filter ~ on X : (~, x) E qx => (f(~), f(x E qy. The category which we
thus obtain is denoted Conv.
3.5. MOVING ON
From that time onwards, convergence theory evolved rapidly in several direc-
tions. A first important direction is compactification theory with contributions
from Wyler in 1968 [372], Richardson in 1970 [316], Ramaley and Wyler in
1970 [311], Richardson and Kent in 1972 [317], Cook in 1973 [98], Cochran
and Trail in 1973 [96], Gazik in 1974 [150], Rao in 1974 and 1975 [313], [314],
Vinod Kumar in 1977 [241] and Herrmann in 1979 [195]. In 1979 Kent and
Richardson wrote a survey paper, "Compactifications of convergence spaces"
[233]. Some of the last open problems were finally solved by Butzmann and
Kneis in their paper of 1986 [79].
A second important direction which convergence theory tumed to is that of
analysis. The application of continuous convergence on c1asses of continuous
functions opened many new research areas. In the context of infinite dimen-
sionallocally convex spaces, Bastiani in 1964 [33] considered the "convergence
locale", i.e. continuous convergence, on spaces of continuous maps, linear
continuous maps and differentiable maps. Bastiani thus succeeds in proving
results parallel to those from the classical finite dimensional locally compact
case with function spaces endowed with the compact-open topology. An Ascoli
theorem is proved for locally convex spaces. A great stimulus for the study of
continuous convergence on function spaces came from the Binz school. Early
material developed in the late sixties by this school appeared in papers of Binz
[45], [46], Keller [226], and Binz and Keller [49]. The main results obtained
by this team are found in the monograph of Binz of 1975 [48]. Application
of continuous convergence also led to other generalized Ascoli theorems as in
the work of Cook and Fischer of 1965 [99] and Poppe of 1965 [298]), Stone
Weierstrass theorems as in the work of Binz of 1970 [47], Feldman of 1971
[131], Butzmann of 1974 [78] and Schroder of 1971 [328] and theory on duality
and reexivity as in the work of Schroder of 1971 [328], Butzmann of 1971 and
1972 [76], [77] and Mller of 1975 [279].
From the very beginning of convergence theory compatibility of conver-
gence structures with group- or vectorspace structures received a lot of attention.
These considerations proved to be very useful for instance for the study of
distributions as in the work of Wloka of 1963 [370].
Around the same period also new examples of concrete nontopological
convergences appeared in relation to analysis. The theory of distributions also
benefitted from the work of Marinescu who introduced a special type of limit
vector spaces, later called Marinescu spaces [266]. Wagner 1966 [361] studied
convergence and Mikusinsky operators.
Quasi-bounded convergence was defined by Frlicher and Bucher in 1966
[143] in relation with differentiation theory. For more details on convergence in
the setting of differentiation we refer to the books by Keller, 1974, [228] and
by Ghler, 1978, [149]. More recent applications in non-linear analysis were
developed by Khrennikov in 1983, [234]. A differentiation theory which was
strongly inuenced by the role of continuous convergence was developed by
Frlicher and Kriegl in the eighties, the main results of which appeared in their
monograph of 1988, ''Linear Spaces and Differentiation Theory" [144] and by
Nel, in the late eighties and early nineties, [290], [292], [293], [294].
In all these aformentioned fields of applications of convergence theory,
compactification theory, analysis, with in particular limit vector spaces with
differentiation theory, the fact that the setting of convergence structures is an
extremely convenient one was the basic motivation for the development of the
general theory. The exact mathematical meaning of these convenience properties
became c1ear later, these will be discussed in Section 7.
Also in more applied fields new examples were studied that had impor-
tant applications. Epi- and hypoconvergence or the more general gamma-
convergence of De Giorgi [151] was introduced in 1977 and has proved to
be useful in many branches of optimization theory. Epi- and hypoconvergence
coincide with closed convergence of the epigraphs and hypographs of the re-
lated functions and their usefulness comes from the fact that together with the
convergence of the functions also the maxima and minima converge.
Finally we come back to the sequential structures that were introduced at the
time when Topology was born. The introduction of L- and L *-spaces by Frechet
and Urysohn was the starting point for what became a very large research area
devoted to sequential convergence developed mainly by the Cech school. The
area continued to grow until today and has many applications in functional
analysis. The structures of L-spaces and of L *-spaces that were the subject of
these investigations, are not generalized topological. Therefore we do not go
into further details here, but we refer to recent survey papers on this topic and
to the paper by Fric in the first volume ofthis handbook [27, pp. 343-356].
More details on convergence theory can for instance be found in the intro-
ductory chapter ofLowen-Colebunders, 1989, [259]. Recently a historical paper
was written by Ghler 1997 [147] and a monograph on convergence structures
in functional analysis is in preparation by Beattie and Butzmann. A very detailed
bibliographicallist with papers on convergence spaces up to 1980 can be found
in the proceedings of the conferences on convergence spaces in Reno 1976 and
Cameron 1980.
3.6. DRIFTING TOWARDS UNIFORM1TY
While outside Topology the vast field of generalized topological structures was
growing rapidly, on a parallel track, attention also focused on uniformlike struc-
tures. Uniform spaces were created by Weil in his work of 1937 [367], proximity
spaces were introduced by Efremovic in 1951 [121], [122], contiguities were
introduced in 1959 by Ivanova and Ivanov [217]. We recall the definition of
proximity structures since this will figure in our diagrams and comparisons later
on. Although proximity structures as we know them today were introduced by
Efremovic, similar structures but with weaker axioms were already studied by
Krishna Murti in 1940 [282], Wallace in 1942 [362] and Szymanski in 1941
[350].
Definition 3.5. A proximity structure on a set X is determined by a relation

on the powerset of X, denoted !:::.. fulfilling the following properties, where ~
stands for the negation of !:::..:
(Pr!) A!:::..B if and only if B !:::..A.
(Pr2) (A U B)!:::..C if and only if A!:::..C or B!:::..C.
(Pr3) If A!:::..B then A t= 0 and B t= 0.

(Pr4) A~B implies that there exists a subset E such that A~E and (X\E)~B.
(Pr5) An B t= 0 implies that A!:::..B.

The pair (X, ) is called a proximity space and a function f : X ---+ Y between
proximity spaces (X, X) and (Y, y) is called a proximity mapping iffor any
subsets A and B of X : Ax B => f (A) y f (B). The category of proximity
spaces and proximity mappings is denoted Prox.
At some stage in the development of generalized uniform spaces the paths of
Uniformity and Topology crossed. Motivated by the applications of convergence
theory in analysis and in particular by the development of the theory of limit
vectorspaces, an appropriate notion of completeness was needed. Kowalsky in
1954, starting with a limit space, gave an axiomatic description for Cauchy filters
compatible with a given "Limitierung". In 1967 Cook and Fischer, [tOO] intro-
duced uniform convergence structures as a generalization of uniform spaces,
thus providing a setting for the study of uniform continuity. Instead of consid-
ering one filter of entourages as Weil did, they gave axioms for a collection of
filters on X x X.
Definition 3.6. A uniform convergence structure on a set X is given by a

collection ;E of filters on X x X such that the following properties are fulfilled
for all filters !!:f and '9 on X x X:
(UC1) A E;E.
(UC2) If!!:f E ;E and !!:f C '9 then '9 E ;E.
(UC3) If!!:f E ;E and '9 E ;E then !!:f n '9 E ;E.

(UC4) If <gi E ::t then <gi-I E ::t.
(UC5) If!!:f E ;E and '9 E ;E then !!:f 0 '9 E ;E where !!:f 0 '9 is the filter generated
by all sets FoG for FE !!:f and G E '9.
The pair (X,;E) is called a uniform convergence space and a function f

X ---+ Y between uniform convergence spaces (X, ;Ex) and (Y, ;Ey) is called
uniformly continuous if for each filter !!:f E ;Ex one has that Cf x f) (!!:f) E ;Ey.
The category of uniform convergence spaces and uniformly continuous maps is
denoted UConv.
Uniform convergence spaces are also called "Cook and Fisher spaces" [19].
There is a good deal of confusion in the literature concerning the names of cer-
tain categories, different authors have especially used "limit" and "convergence"
interchangeably. We williater adapt the above definition and in this work these
new spaces will then be called uniform limit spaces. The above definition was
mentioned for historical reasons only, because it is the concept which we define
later which has predominantly been studied.
In these uniform convergence spaces Cook and Fischer defined Cauchy
filters as those filters !!:f for which !!:f x !!:f belongs to ;E.
Soon after that, in 1968 in his paper [227], Keller formulated "Cauchyness"
as a primitive concept, independent of any structure given in advance, thus
introducing what are known as Cauchy spaces. He proved that his set ofaxioms
is necessary and sufficient for a collection of filters to be the collection of Cauchy
filters in some uniform convergence space.
Definition 3.7. A Cauchy structure on a set X is determined by a collection '(6

of filters on X, called Cauchy filters, fulfilling the following properties:
(Chyl) "Ix EX: x E '(6.
(Chy2) If fIJi E '(6 and fIJi c cg then cg E '(6.
(Chy3) If fIJi E'(6 and cg E'(6 and fIJi and cg have a supremum, then fIJi n cg E '(6.
The pair (X, '(6) is called a Cauchy space. A function f : X --+ Y between
Cauchy spaces (X, '(6x) and (Y, '(6y) is called Cauchy continuous if for each
filter fIJi E '(6 X : f (fIJi) E '(6 y. The category of Cauchy spaces and Cauchy
continuous maps is denoted Chy.
Keller formulates an axiom for limit spaces called axiom P which is a sort
of symmetry condition that allows him to describe every such limit space as a
Cauchy space.
(P) For two points x and y the collections qx and qy of all filters converging
to x and y respectively, coincide whenever they intersect, in other words,
if there exists a filter converging to both x and y then the same filters
converge to x and to y.
The axiom P is stronger than the symmetry condition described in [38].

This axiom appears under the name "reciprocal" in the book "Function c1asses
of Cauchy continuous maps" by Lowen-Colebunders [259] and it is that termi-
nology which we use here. A subcategory consisting of reciprocal spaces will be
indexed with an R. On the other hand every Cauchy space can be considered as
a uniform convergence space. Cauchy spaces proved to be extremely useful in
the theory of completions. In 1970 applications of Cauchy spaces in completion
and compactification theory were described by Ramaley and Wyler in [312] and
[311].
4. The Introduction of Categorical Ideas
4.1. THE EARLY DAYS
In Bourbaki's "Elements de Mathematique: Topologie Generale", [57] the first

edition of which goes back to 1940, the theory of topological and uniform
structures was presented in a systematic way, first the objects, then the mor-
phisms and then the fundamental constructions. In "Chapitre I" which deals
with topology alone this takes almost 30 pages, which is unusual for a topology
book of that time and even for modem books on topology. In "Chapitre 11" on
uniform spaces about 7 pages are spent on fundamental constructions. In both
cases initial and final constructions are comprehensively treated and all special
cases are given separately: subspaces, products and quotients. The parallel
presentation of the two chapters, makes the similarity between the structures
and the fundamental constructions on them apparent. Almost all the ingredients
are there to deduce that both topological spaces and uniform spaces form special
types of categories wherein it is possible to describe arbitrary initial and final
structures.
To fundamental constructions, in particular initial and final structures, a lot
of attention is also paid by the authors of Cech, ''Topological Spaces", [86],
1966. Stability under fundamental constructions is investigated in a general
setting.
4.2. UNIFICATION
Recognizing the similarities also far beyond just topological spaces and uniform
spaces, several attempts have been made to provide a setting to treat topolog-
ical and uniformlike notions at the same time. New systems ofaxioms were
intended to provide simultaneous generalizations of both topologieal, proximal
and uniform ideas thus providing a unifying view.
One such attempt for presenting a unifying theory for topological, uniform
and proximal structures was presented by Czaszar in 1960 in the book "Fonde-
ments de la Topologie Generale" [102]. The common primitive notion which
Czaszar described is based on transitive relations on subsets, which he called
"structures syntopogenes". In the topological case the relation A < B means
that A is contained in the interior of B, in the case of a proximity, A < B means
that A is not near the complement of B, and in the uniform case A < B means
Bis a uniform neighborhood of A. At the same time he captured examples of
generalized uniform structures. After introducing the appropriate morphisms the
author pays a lot of attention to the fundamental constructions in the setting of
syntopogeneous structures. Remark that syntopogeneous structures on the same
underlying set can be equivalent (in the sense that the identity is an isomorphism)
without being equal. This means that this example does not fulfil all the required
axiom for being a "topological construct" as we will see later in chapter 5.
Another attempt at unification was made by Doicinov in 1964 [114]. He
constructed a type of structure, appropriately called a "supertopology", which
is a common generalization of topologies and proximities. In the paper by
Doicinov no attention is paid to categorical considerations. We give a slightly

altered form of the definition of Doicinov in 6.l.
A particularly elegant solution for describing both topological and uniform
concepts was offered by Katetov around 1963-1965 by his introduction of mero-
topic spaces and uniformly continuous maps [223], [224]. The basic idea was to
present an axiomatization of collections of subsets that contain arbitrary small
elements. These collections were called micromeric. The following definition
also appears elsewhere in the second volume of this book in the paper by Bentley,
Herrlich and Husek [28, pp. 577-630].
Definition 4.1. A merotopic structure on a set X is determined by giving a set

.M of collections of subsets of X satisfying the following properties:
(MI) 0 f/. .M.

(M2) If a collection .stl of subsets of X contains a member with less than one
point, then .stl E .M.
(M3) If .stl corefines ~ (i.e., for each A E .stl there exists a B E ~ such that
B C A) and.stl E .M then also ~ E .M.
(M4) If .stl and ~ are collections of subsets of X such that .stl U ~ E .M then
either .stl E .M or ~ E .M.
The pair (X,.M) is called a merotopic space and the members of.M are usually
referred to as micromeric collections. A function f : X ---+ Y between
merotopic spaces (X, .Mx) and (Y, .My) is called uniformly continuous if for
each micromeric collection .stl E .Mx : f(.stl) E .My. The category consisting of
merotopic spaces and continuous maps is denoted Mer.
As it turned out the setting of merotopic spaces is of such generality that
every symmetric convergence [28, pp. 577-630] can be described as a mero-
topic space. Katetov has shown how the embedding is constructed. He used
convergent nets for that purpose. In 1975 Robertson translated Katetov's results
into the setting of filter convergence. Katetov paid a lot of attention to a subc1ass
of objects defined as filtermerotopic spaces, these are merotopic spaces having
a base consisting of filters. He proved that in the setting of filterspaces nice
function spaces exist.
One of the pioneers of using categorical methods in General Topology is
Herrlich. Under the influence of his 1968 lecture notes on ''Topological reflec-
tions and coreflections" Categorical Topology started with the investigation of
special objects and subcategories of the categories Top and Haus. In 1974 at
the same time he published his papers introducing the nearness concept, there
were his contributions on Topological Functors and cartesian c10sed topolog-
ical categories [172], [173], [171]. So his work on nearness spaces in these
introductory papers "A concept of Nearness" and ''Topological Structures" was

already written using categorical terminology. So in fact it should be discussed
in our next paragraphs. However since the work is c10sely related to the theory
of merotopic spaces, we decided to discuss the nearness contributions here. The
nearness concept was based on a generalization of proximities and contiguities
to arbitrary collections of sets. We do not inc1ude the axioms on near collections
here, since they are formulated explicitly in this book in the paper [28, pp. 577-
630]. The strength of the theory lies in the fact that different but equivalent
formulations of nearness spaces are available. As is explained in more detail in
the aforementioned paper by Bentley, Herrlich and Husek [28, pp. 577-630],
equivalent formulations can be described in terms of collections that are small, or
using uniform covers. We inc1ude the formulation using micromeric collections.
Definition 4.2. A neamess structure on a set X is determined by a set .M of

collections of subsets of X satisfying the properties (Ml)-(M4) of 4.1 together
with the following supplementary condition:
(N) For any collection .sd of subsets of X, if sec{ I A E .sd} E .M then

sec.sd E .M, where := {x E X I sec{A, {x}} E .M}.
The pair (X,.M) is called a neamess space. A function f : X ~ Y between

neamess spaces (X, .Mx) and (Y, .My) is called uniformly continuous iffor each
micromeric collection.sd E .Mx : f(.sd) E .My. The category ofneamess spaces
and continuous maps is denoted Near.
s. Topological Constructs
5.1. THEPAST...
All of the above mentioned examples of generalized topological or uniform

spaces and generalized continuous or uniformly continuous maps share some
striking similarities. The objects are defined as couples consisting of a set and
a structure. The morphisms are functions between the underlying sets ''pre-
serving" the structure. There is a corresponding forgetful functor into Set. The
similarity reaches far beyond this point, and in fact involves constructions of
initial and final structures as well. A study of these similarities revealed that these
are due to some common properties of the corresponding forgetful functor into
Set. So to "be topological" is a property of that forgetful functor.
The striking similarities between the examples have led to the definition
of "topological constructs". From the examples a general theory of topological
categories or constructs evolved. It nowadays provides a common framework to
study a multitude of categories.
In the sixties and beginning of the seventies several authors started formal-
izing these ideas.
5.1.1. Husek's S-categories of 1964

In [206] Rusek introduced what he called S-categories. In his paper he says:
"Now we shall define some basic concepts. They all may be illustrated e.g. by
taking for Cf6 the category of topological spaces and for 2t' the category of sets.
Other important examples (the generalized proximity spaces and the generalized
uniform spaces) will be given in my next paper in CMUC 5.2 or 5.3". It actually
appeared in 5.4 [204] and 6.1 [205]. The domain and range of a morphism f is
denoted D f and Rf respectively. A category Cf6 over a category 2t' with respect
to a functor T : Cf6 ----+ 2t' is called an S-category if the following properties are
fulfilled:
1. If cP and 1/1 are Cf6-morphims such that Dcp = D1/I, Rep = R1/I and Tcp = T1/I
then cP = 1/1.
2. For each 2t'-morphism a we have that T -1 (a) t=

0. Moreover if a E
hom2{'(TX, TY) then there exist Cf6-morphisms cP E T- 1 (a) and 1/1 E
T- 1 (a) such that Dcp = X and R1/I = Y.
3. If cP is a Cf6-morphism and Tcp = a 0 then there are Cf6-morphisms CPl E

T- 1 (a) and ({J2 E T- 1 () such that cP = CPl 0 CP2
4. For each 2t'-object A the c1ass T- 1 (A) is a completely ordered set with
respect to the order: X :s Y if there exists cP E hom~ (X, Y) for which
Tcp = idA.
5. If {CPi I i E l} is a nonvoid family of Cf6-morphisms such that TCPi = Tcpj

for all i, j E 1 then there are morphisms
ep E hom~ (sup Depi, sup RCPi) and 1/1 E hom~ (~nf Depi, ~nf RCPi)
iEI iEI lEI lEI
such that Tcp = T1/I = TCPi for all i E 1.
In that same paper Rusek also shows that conditions 4 and 5 can be replaced
by the following condition:
4'. If F is a presheaf in Cf6 and if the inductive and projective limits, ind(T F)
and proj(T F) exist in 2t' then the inductive and projective limits, ind(F)
and proj(F) exist in Cf6 and moreover Tind(F) = ind(T F) and Tproj(F) =
proj(T F).
5.1.2. Antoine's Complete Categories of Structured Sets of 1966

In [22] Antoine introduced his so-called "categories d'ensembles structures". A
category of structured sets is a pair (<:g, T) where<:g is a category and T : <:g ---+
Set is a faithful functor such that:
1. If T X = T Y and if there exist <:g-morphisms q; : X ---+ Y and l/f : Y ---+ X

suchthat Tq; = Tl/f = idTX then X = Y.
2. If X is a <:g-object and F is a set for which there exists a bijection q;

T X ---+ F then there exists a <:g-object Y such that TY = F and there
exists a <:g-morphism f : X ---+ Y such that Tf = q;.
Further in his paper Antoine considers almost exelusively categories of struc-

tured sets which moreover "contain all constant morphisms". Given a category
of structured sets (<:g, T) Antoine then goes on to define what he calls "couple
complet".
3. (<:g, T) is said to be complete if arbitrary set-indexed initial structures exist.
Antoine then coneludes that this last property is equivalent to the existence
of arbitrary set-indexed final structures. However it was later observed that
this equivalence can only be proved if arbitrary elass-indexed initial (or final)
structures are assumed to exist. Apart from this however, Antoine's concept
comes very elose to what today we call topological constructs.
5.1.3. Roberts' Initial Functors of 1968

In the introductory lines of the seetion of his paper [321] wherein Roberts
introduced his initial functors he says: "In this section we describe the concept
of initial structure in category-theoretic terms and so arrive at the concept of
an initial Junctor. The treatment of initial structure sticks closely to the original
conception of Bourbaki, corresponding to the initial structure of Duskin and
Sonner, rather than following Antoine in describing it in terms of the represen-
tation of a suitable Junctor". The definition goes in stages which we simply
enumerate.
1. Given categories <:g and ge and a functor T : <:g ---+ ge two new categories
are defined. First, the category geiT is defined with objects those of<:g and
with morphisms between X and Y the ge-morphisms between T X and TY.
The morphisms of geiT are called T-premorphisms. A T-premorphism a
is called a T -morphism if there exists a <:g-morphism q; such that T q; = a.
Second, the set of T-morphisms determines a subcategory ofgelT which is
denoted <:g IT .
2. Next there follows a definition of indexed c{&-families, indexed 2f-families

relative to T and T -initial indexed c{&-families, and the functor T is called
initial if all indexed 2f-families relative to T Hft to aT-initial indexed C{&-
family. In modern terminology however this simply means that arbitrary
initial structures exist.
Roberts further says: "It should be clear that the indexing is merely a
matter of notational convenience and that in the above definition it is only
the cardinality ofthe index set which is at issue. In deciding whether T is initial
it is enough to consider index sets belonging to a sufficiently large universe" .
5.1.4. "yler's Top Categories of 1970

Wyler introduced his notion in the paper [312] with the intention " .. .to provide
a unijied theory for the structures introduced in Section 3 (limit spaces, uniform
limit spaces and Cauchy spaces) and other generalized topological structures
... ". In the introduction of his paper Wyler also adds: "The duplication ofefforts
in several arguments and results of(the Ph.D. thesis ofRamaley) led the senior
author to develop an axiomatic treatment of the categories of general topology
in [374] and [373]", papers which appeared in 1971. In the introduction of one
of those papers Wyler says: "This flood of categories calls for a general theory
of especes de structures topologique'''.
In [312] a top category is defined as folIows, where C{& is a category with a
functor S : C{& ~ Set.
1. A subfunctor s of the contravariant powerset functor on Set is called a top
structure on C{& if sE is dosed under set intersection for every object E of C{&.
2. Given a top structure s on C{&, a top category C{&S is defined with objects all
pairs (E, ~) where E is a C{&-object and where ~ E sE, and with morphisms
between (E, ~E) and CF, ~F) those C{&-morphisms f : E ~ F such that
~E C {y E SE I (Sf)(y) E ~F}.
In [374] Wyler gives an even more general definition which we will not recall
here.
5.1.5. Brmmer's Initially Complete Categories of 1971

In his 1971 Ph.D. thesis at the University of Cape Town [68] Brmmer defines
what he calls initially complete categories as folIows. Suppose that categories
C{& and 2f together with a faithful functor T : C{& ~ 2f are given.
1. A dass (/j : X ~ Xj)jeJ of C{&-morphisms is called a T-initiality (at

X) if, whenever a dass of C{&-morphisms (hj : Y -+ Xj)jeJ are given
together with an 2f-morphism k : TY ~ T X such that T /j 0 k = T h j for
all j E J, there exists a C{&-morphism m : Y ~ X such that Tm = k.
2. Given a c1ass of'!6-objects (Xj)jeJ and corresponding 9l'-morphisms gj :

C ~ T X j, a '!6-object X is called a solution to the T -initiality problem if
there exists a T-initiality (/j : X ~ Xj)jeJ such that T/j = gj for all
jE J.
3. The category '!6 is said to be T -initially complete if every T -initiality

problem has a solution.
In the introduction to his thesis Brmmer writes: "Initiality constructions so
permeate general topology that they resort more to the folklore than to specijic
items of literature; but one may mention that the concept was formalized by
Bourbaki (1957, [59]), Sonner (1965, [346]) and Taylor (1965, [351]), and that
certain degrees offreedom in the definition have become apparent Cech (1966,
[86]), Husek (1966, [207], 1967, [210], [209]), Wyler (1971, [374]). Relatively
few other papers had initiality as a major concem; such were e.g. Husek (1964,
[206], [204], [205], 1965) Antoine (1966, [24], [22]) and Roberts (1968, [321]).
Considerations of initiality are more or less implicit in the theory of concrete or
structured categories, Isbell (1957, [215]), Semadeni (1963, [338]), Ehresmann
(1964 [125], 1968, [129]), Pultr (1968, [309]), Calenko (1969, [82]) and Wyler
(1971, [374])."
5.1.6. Hoffmann's Topological Functors of 1972

Hoffmann introduced topological functors in his Ph.D. thesis at the University
of Bochum [196]. Let'!6 and 9l' be categories and T : '!6 ~ 9l' a given functor.
A cone in '!6 is a pair (C, A. : C~ ~ F) where E is a category, F : E ~ '!6 a
functor, CI; : E ~ C(6 the constant functor, with constant value id : C ~ C,
and A. a natural transformation. A cone (C, A. : CI; ~ F) is said to be T-co-
identifying if for any other cone (X, 1] : XI; ~ F) and for any 9l'-morphism
* *
g : TX ~ TC such that (idT A.) 0 gI; = idT 1], there exists a unique
'!6-morphism f : X ~ C such that T f = g and A. 0 fI; = 1]. Note that gI; and
fI; stand for the unique natural transformations induced by g respectively f.
Given a functor F : E ~ '!6 and a cone (D, JL : DI; ~ T 0 F) in 9l', then
aT -co-identifying cone (C, A. : C~ ~ F) and an isomorphism h : T C ~ D
*
such that JL 0 h~ = idT A. are said to constitute a T -co-identifying lift.
A functor T : '!6 ~ 9l' is called a topological functor if the following
properties are fulfilled. 11 stands for the universe wherein we work.
1. All T -co-identifying lifts for discrete l1-small categories E exist.
2. The fibres of T are l1-smal1.
Hoffmann starts the introduction of his thesis by saying: "Diese Arbeit ging
aus von der Definition der Initial- und Finaltopologie, wie sie im Werk von
Bourbaki gegeben sind".
5.1.7. Bentley's T-categories oj 1973

Bentley introduced T-categories in bis work [35]. A T-category is a category ~
together with a forgetful functor T to Set, an order :S, operations sup and inf
and a "counterimage operation", for a given morphism j and object S simply
denoted by j-I (S), fulfilling the following properties.
1. ~ is a complete lattice for the order and sup-inf operations.
2. The forgetful functor T is compatible with~.

3. j-I (S) is an object of~ whenever S is an object of~ and j is any function
whose domain is a set and whose range is a subset of T(S). In this case, we
have that T (j-I (S)) is the domain of j.
4. If S E ~ and j is the identity map on T(S), then j-I(S) = S.

5. Given objects R and S in ~ j : R -+ S is a morphism in ~ if and only if
j is a function from T(R) to T(S) and j-I(S) :s R.
6. If R, V and W are sets, if j is a function from R to V and g is a function

from V to W, and if S E ~ is such that T(S) = W, then
(g 0 f)-I(S) = j-I(g-I(S)).
7. If V and W are sets, if j is a function from W into V and if
R = inf{K E ~ I T(K) = W}
and
S = inf{K E ~ I T(K) = V}
Bentley presented these axioms as a solution to the problem which he

succinctly formulates in his paper: "Find a dass oj categories, to be called
T-categories, which satisfy the jollowing conditions:
1. The categories Top, Unif and Prox are T-categories.
2. lf~ is any T-category, then it is possible to establish in the category ~ all

oj the mapping properties and constructions wh ich are shared by the three
categories Top, Unif and Prox".
5.1.8. Herrlich's Topological Categories oj 1974

In 1974, at the same time when introducing the concept of nearness, Herrlich
wrote two very influential papers on topological functors and on cartesian closed
topological categories [172], [170]. His 1974 paper ''Topological Structures"

which appeared in the Mathematical Centre Tracts [173] contains an appendix
wherein he defines what is then called a topological category. In this way the
reader with a more topological background was informed about the basic defi-
nitions and main results on topological categories and reflective or coreflective
subcategories. We start with a concrete category ~ - which implies that the
objects of ~ are pairs, each consisting of a set and a "structure on that set",
and that morphisms of ~ are certain functions between the "underlying" sets
of the objects. The category ~ is then called topological if for any set X, for
any family (Yi, ~i)i EI of objects in ~ and for any family (f;. : X ----+ Yi)i EI of
maps there exists a ~-structure on X which is initial. For the definition of initial
structures see definition 5.2 in the following section. Herrlich starts the appendix
with the following remarks: "Such categories as Top, Unif, Prox, Cont, Near,
P - Near, Q - Near have a large number of properties in common. The most
crucial one, in the sense that it implies most of the others, is the existence of
"initial" (or dually: of "final") structures in the sense of Bourbaki.
Notice the absence of a requirement of uniqueness of the existing initial
structure in the above definition.
A topological category ~ was said to be properly fibred if for any set X
its ~-fibre (i.e. the dass of ~-structures on that set) is a set, if for any one-
element set its ~-fibre too has precisely one element and if equivalent structures
necessarily are equal, precisely, if given objects (X, nand (X, 1']), such that
both id : (X,~) ----+ (X,1']) and id : (X,1']) ----+ (X,~) are morphisms, then
~ = 1'].
For a long time topological constructs were simply called topological cate-
gories. It is probable that the French school did not like the name very much.
In his paper [62] Bourdaud writes: "Despite it is now a classical terminology,
we think that 'topological category' is far from being satisfactory. It is rather
ambiguous when we speak about categories of quasi-topologies which are
... topological. Moreover, the term was already used by Ehresmann to denote
an internal category ofTop". The term indeed survived and is now generally
accepted, except that when dealing with a category "over Set" (see the following
subsection) one now uses the term topological construct.
5.2. . .. AND THE PRESENT
All these various approaches which we encountered above invariably focused

on three main aspects:
1. Adescription of objects as a kind of sets with structure and of morphisms
as certain functions between the sets.
2. The existence of, certain, small or large, initial and final structures.
3. Smallness conditions.
Things finally came to rest with now generally accepted definitions and termi-
nology as they can be found in the book of Adamek, Herrlich and Strecker,
where the three principles above are translated in a simple and precise1y fitting
way.
First we have to say when a category is called a construct and what we mean
by initial lifts.
Definition 5.1. A construct is a pair (<(6,U) where 6 is a category and where U

is a faithful functor from 6 to Set.
Definition 5.2. Given a construct (<(6, U) and a so-called U-structured source

(fi : X ----+ UYi)ieI, where X is a set, the Yi, i E I are 6-objects and the
J;" i E I are functions, the U -structured source is said to have an initial Hft if
there exists a 6-object A such that U A = X and such that (fi : A ----+ Yi)ieI
is initial in the sense that for any 6-object Z and any function g : U Z ----+ X,
g : Z ----+ A is a 6-morphism if and only if all the compositions J;, 0 g : A ----+
Yi, i E I are 6-morphisms.
Definition 5.3. A construct (<(6, U) is called topological provided the forgetful

functor is topological, which by definition means that every U -structured source
has a unique initiallift.
The functor U is usually called the forgetful or underlying functor and it is

often not mentioned explicitly. This however is no problem as it was shown by
Hoffmann in 1975 [198] that any two topological functors from 6 into Set are
naturally isomorphic.
The role of the uniqueness condition in the above definition is nicely c1arified
in the following result, see [6].
Proposition 5.4. lf U : 6 ----+ Set is a junetor sueh that every U -struetured

souree has an initiallijt then the following are equivalent:
1. U is topologieal.
2. (<(6, U) is uniquely transportable.
3. (<(6, U) is amnestie.
Definition 5.5. A topological construct (<(6, U) is said to be well-fibred if all

fibres are small (i.e. are sets) and if the fibre of a set with at most one element
has exactly one element.
Even nowadays different terminology is used, sometimes the term topolog-

ical construct already is meant to inc1ude well-fibredness. It is a fact that all the
constructs which we have encountered thus far - except, for a different reason,
syntopogeneous spaces - are well-fibred topological constructs.
Topological constructs have a wealth of interesting properties, the most
immediate and striking ones of which we enumerate.
Theorem 5.6. If(Cf6, U) is a topological construct then thefollowing properties

hold.
1. In (Cf6, U) all final lifts exist and are unique.
2. For every set X the U -}ibre of X is a complete lattice. The smallest element
is the so-called indiscrete structure and the largest element is the so-called
discrete structure.
3. U has a left-adjoint right inverse which takes any set to the discrete object
"on that set" and it also has a right-adjoint right inverse which takes any
set to the indiscrete object "on that set".
4. (Cf6, U) is complete and cocomplete.
5. In (Cf6, U) every object with a nonempty underlying set is aseparator and

every indiscrete object with an underlying set having at least two points is
a coseparator.
6. U preserves and reJlects mono-sources and epi-sinks.
7. For morphisms in (Cf6, U), being an isomorphism, being initial and bijective
or being final and bijective are equivalent properties.
8. For morphisms in (Cf6, U), being a regular monomorphism, being an ex-

tremal monomorphism or being initial and injective are equivalent proper-
ties.
9. For morphisms in (Cf6, U), being a regular epimorphism, being an extremal

epimorphism or being final and surjective are equivalent properties.
10. (Cf6, U) has as factorization structures the following pairs: (epimorphisms,

extremal mono-sources) and (extremal epimorphisms, mono-sources).
11. The projective objects in (Cf6, U) are precisely the discrete objects.
12. The injective objects in (Cf6, U) are precisely the indiscrete objects with
nonempty underlying sets.
A well-fibred topological construct has a number of supplementary im-

portant properties. Especially for cartesian closedness as we will see later,
well-fibredness is a crucial property.
Theorem 5.7. lf (~, U) is a well-fibred topological construct then the following

properties hold.
1. (~, U) is wellpowered and cowellpowered.
2. In (~, U) constant functions are morphisms.
3. In (~, U) terminal objects are discrete.
All the examples of categories which were introduced in the foregoing

Seetions 3 and 4 are in fact well-fibred topological constructs with obvious
forgetful functors, except for syntopogeneous spaces which is not amnestie.
The amnestie modification though is also a well-fibred topological construct.
Moreover all constructs which we will still encounter in the following seetions
are well-fibred topological. Since many of the topological constructs which we
will deal with are subconstructs of other topological constructs we also quickly
review some characterizations of reective and coreective subconstructs. A first
systematic account of these characterizations was given in the thesis of Mamy of
1973 [268]. Note that by a subconstruct of (~, F) we mean a construct (.'il, G)
such that.'il is embedded as a subcategory of~ via the functor E : .'il ~ ~ and
G = F 0 E. All embeddings of subcategories which we saw earlier are in fact
embeddings as subconstructs via the natural inclusions and forgetful functors.
Theorem 5.8. If ~ is a well-fibred topological construct and .'il is a juli and

isomorphism-closed subconstruct of~ then the following properties hold.
1. .'il is epirejiective in ~ if and only if it is closed under the formation of

subspaces and products in ~.
2. .'il is birejiective in ~ if and only if it is epirejiective in ~ and contains all

indiscrete objects.
3. .'il is quotientrejiective in ~ if and only if it is epirejiective in ~ and closed

under refinements.
4. lf.'il contains an object with a nonempty underlying set then .'il is corejiective
in ~ if and only if it is bicorejiective in ~ if and only if it is closed under
the formation of coproducts and quotients.
6. The Interplay between Topological Constructs and Examples
From the moment that topological constructs were firmly established, a system-
atic investigation of topological constructs and their relationship to each other
became possible.
6.1. EXAMPLES REVISITED
The relation among the various "convergence-type" categories introduced in the

first seetion of our paper is given in the diagram below.
Top ~ PrTop ~ PsTop ~ Lim ~ Conv
The fact that all arrows in the diagram are reflective embeddings was some-
how known from the beginning, although not the categorical aspects and impli-
cations. The reflections were usually called "modifications", and it was known
that if .stl is the reflective subconstruct of ~ then the .stl-modification (or re-
flection) of a ~-structure on a given set was obtained by taking the finest
.stl-structure coarser on that same set: a fact which is implied by reflectivity,
but not conversely!
Also compactification theory, largely in Conv, benefitted from categorical
considerations.
In a paper of 1987 Tozzi and Wyler took a second look at the definition
of supertopologies given by Doicinov in [114]. They noticed that in order to
embed the theory of supertopologies in the framework of topological constructs
the original definition had to be slightly modified. In the paper they consequently
wrote [354] they say: "-Yler had the possibility to discuss this problem with
Doicinov when he was visiting him in the University ojPittsburgh and he agreed
with the proposal". We give here the adapted definition. JF(X)* stands for the
set of all filters on X, inc1uding the degenerate filter ~(X).
Definition 6.1. A supertopology on a set X is determined by a pair (.M., 0)

where .M. is a set of subsets of X, called bounded sets, and 0 : .M. --+ JF(X)* is
a function such that the following properties are fulfilled:
(ST1) .M. contains the empty set and all singletons.
(STI) If A E .M. and B C Athen B E .M..
(ST3) 0(0) = ~(X).
(ST4) If A E .M. and U E O(A) then A C U.

(ST5) If A E .M and U E () (A) then there exists aVE () (A) such that
V E ()(B) for each B E .M for which B C V.
The tripie (X,.M, () is called a supertopological space and a function f

X ~ Y between supertopological spaces (X, .Mx, ()x) and (Y, .My, ()y) is
called continuous if it maps bounded sets in X to bounded sets in Y and if
for any A E .Mx : V E ()y(f(A =? f- 1 (V) E ()x(A). The category of
supertopological spaces and continuous maps is denoted STop.
The above definition is not the original one given by Doicinov. The con-
dition (ST3) had to be added to insure that constant maps are continuous or
that singletons carry a unique structure. The relation among the constructs
of supertopological spaces, topological spaces, proximal spaces and uniform
spaces is given in the diagram below.
Top Prox Unif
~I/
STop
Wyler continued the line of thought of Cook and Fisher and slightly modified
the axioms of uniform convergence structures in 1971 [374]. The purpose for
this change in the axioms is to make sure that nice function spaces exist, and
so it is motivated by categorical observations. We'll come back to that aspect in
the section on convenience properties, and here we include Wyler's definition.
Definition 6.2. A uniform limit structure on a set X is given by a collection :E

of filters on X x X such that for all filters '!:F and '9 on X x X the properties
(UC2)-(UC5) are fulfilled and also the following alteration of (UCl):
(ULl) Vx EX: x x x E :E.

The pair (X,:E) is called a uniform limit space. The category of uniform limit
spaces and continuous maps is a topological construct, denoted ULim.
Notice that in the book "Function classes of Cauchy Continuous Maps"
by Lowen-Colebunders the above structure is called a uniform convergence
structure. The same switch of terminology occurred in several places in the
literature.
The relation among the categories Unif, Lim, Chy and ULim is given in
the following diagram. We need, however, to restrict limit spaces to reciprocal
spaces as it was observed in 3.6.
Fil r ) Chy Unif
ULim
So, modulo the R-property, Chy, ULim and Fil are supereategories of Top
via the embeddings.
TOPR ~ PrToPR ~ LimR
Finally it should be mentioned in this eontext, that also eompletion theory

benefitted eonsiderably from these eategorieal eonsiderations.
6.2. TOPOLOGIES AND UNIFORMITIES
We now eome baek to the topological eonstruet of neamess spaees. Its relation
to the eategories of symmetrie topological, uniform and merotopic spaees is
c1arified in the diagram below. We reeall that a topological spaee is ealled
symmetrie if for any pair of points x, y E X we have that x E y if and only if
y EX. The subeategory of symmetrie topologieal spaees is denoted Tops
Unif
Near
Mer
6.3. TOPOLOGIES AND METRICS
A new topologieal eonstruet was also ereated to solve the bad behaviour of
a forgetful funetor: namely the forgetful funetor from pMet OO to Top which
does not preserve initial structures. pMetOO stands for the topological construct
consisting of extended pseudometric spaces and nonexpansive maps. At the
same time this topological construct turned out to be a remarkable supercategory.
It was introduced by Lowen in 1988-89 [252], [253].
Definition 6.3. An approach structure on a set X is determined by a function

8 : X x 2 x -+ [0,00] satisfying the following properties:
(D1) Vx EX: 8(x, {x}) = 0.
(D2) Vx EX: 8(x, 0) = 00.
(D3) Vx E X, VA, B E 2 x : 8(x, A U B) = 8(x, A) A 8(x, B).
(D4) Vx E X, VA E 2 x , VE E [0,00] : 8(x, A) ~ 8(x, A( + E where

A() := {y E X I 8(y, A) ~ E}.
The pair (X, 8) is called an approach space and the function 8 is called a distance.
A function f : X -+ Y between approach spaces (X, 8x) and (Y, 8y) is called
a contraction if for each x E X and for each A C X : 8y(f(x), f(A ~
8x(x, A). The category of approach spaces and contractions is a topological
construct, denoted Ap.
Probably the most surprising feature of Ap is that it contains both Top
and pMet OO as full and isomorphism-c1osed subconstructs. Moreover there are
no less than 8 equivalent, but conceptually and technically totally different,
structures which define an approach space, as many as for topological spaces
[255]. pMetOO is bicorefiectively embedded in Ap and Top is even birefiectively
and bicorefiectively embedded as indicated in the diagram below.
Top pMetOO
~
Ap
The methods of eategorieal topology that were developed first in the eontext
of Top and its subeonstruets, beeame a useful tool in the study of general-
ized struetures. Isomorphie eategories were deteeted sueh as Mer [224] and
S - Near [173] on the one hand and Fil [224] and Grill [322] on the other
hand.
Embedding topologieal eategories in a eommon supercategory led to a bet-
ter understanding of the interrelation between them. Comparison of canonical
eonstructions became possible.
So while the abundance of examples was the original trigger for the creation
of the theory of topological constructs, the application of the theory that evolved
largely contributed to a better understanding of the existing examples. At the
same time these ideas inspired the creation of new examples, where some arose
as initially c10sed extensions of existing ones [41], [42], [70], [110], [164],
[165], [176], [180], [184], [203], [211], [259], [267], [268], [306], [214].
7. Convenience Properties
Once the similarities between the examples were recognized and formulated in
a categorical setting attention went to the differences and their expression in
categorical terms. Clearly, some of the examples behave better than others. For
instance, in Conv and PsTop nice function spaces exist, namely the hom-sets
of continuous functions endowed with continuous convergence. Similarly FiI
too has ''nice'' function spaces [224]. For well-fibred topological constructs the
existence of "nice" function spaces is equivalent to the Cartesian c10sedness of
the category. In some of the c1assical constructs such as Top, PrTop and Unif
nice function spaces do not exist [25], [186].
7.1. CARTESIAN CLOSED TOPOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS
The lack of natural function spaces in a topological construct which is not carte-
sian c10sed such as e.g. Top, has long been recognized as an awkward situation
for various applications. In 1967 Steenrod published a paper [348], suggesting
to replace Top by the subcategory of all compact1y generated Hausdorff spaces
for use in homotopy theory and topological algebra. In their paper from 1971
Dubuc and Porta show the importance of cartesian c10sedness in the setting of
topological algebra, in particular Gelfand duality theory. In infinite dimensional
differential calculus the advantage of working in a cartesian c10sed setting has
convincingly been demonstrated by several authors. The first papers to go in
that direction were by Bastiani [33], Frlicher and Bucher [143] and Seip [337].
We refer also to the more recent work of Frlicher and Kriegl, see e.g. [142],
[239], [238], wherein they present overwhelming evidence ofthe importance to
have canonical function spaces in their setting. In even more recent work, also
on infinite dimensional calculus, Nel comes to the same findings in a serles of
papers between 1990 and 1998, [291], [294], [274] (with Monadi), [273] (with
Min), [246] (with Lee). Also in the first parts of an as yet unfinished manuscript
"Introduction to Categorical Methods parts I-Irr" [292], [293] Nel pays much
attention to cartesian c10sedness once he embarks on the development of bis
nonnormable linear analysis.
A topological construct ~ is cartesian c10sed if for each ~-object A the

functor A x - has a right adjoint. However, in the case of a well-fibred construct,
it is often more informative to describe a topological construct as being cartesian
closed if it has nice function spaces in the sense of the following definition.
Definition 7.1. A well-fibred topological construct ~ is cartesian c10sed if for

every pair of objects, A, B of ~-objects the set hom(A, B) can de equipped
with the structure of a ~-object, denoted [A, B] which fulfils the following
properties:
(CC1) The evaluation map ev : A x [A, B] ---+ B : (x, f) 1-+ f(x) is a
~-morphism.
(CC2) For each ~-object C and ~-morphism f : A x C ---+ B, the map

f* : C ---+ [A, B] defined by f*(c)(a) := f(a, c) is a ~-morphism.
A x [A,B] ~ B
idAXf*i /t
AxC
None of the topological constructs Top, PrTop, Mer, Near, Ap, pMetOO
or Unif are cartesian c1osed.
The constructs PsTop, Lim, Conv and Chy are cartesian c1osed. For most of
these constructs this positive resuit was not known when they were introduced,
it was only discovered several years later. That PsTop is cartesian c10sed is due
to Machado in his paper from 1973 [263] which is 25 years after its introduction
by Choquet in 1948. That Lim is cartesian closed was observed by Binz in [49],
12 years after the introduction of limit spaces by Kowalsky in 1954. That Conv
is cartesian c10sed was shown by Nel in [287], more than 10 years after Kent
had introduced Conv. The cartesian c10sedness of Chy was shown by Bentley,
Herrlich and Lowen-Colebunders in 1987 in their paper [40], 19 years after the
introduction ofCauchy spaces by Keller in 1968. That ULim is cartesian c10sed
was shown by Lee in her paper [244] of 1976,9 years after the introduction of
uniform convergence spaces by Cook and Fischer in [100] and 5 years after the
modification ofWyler published in his paper [374] of 1971.
In 1974 Edgar introduced a cartesian c10sed supercategory of Top, which he
called the category of L *-spaces [119]. The definition of an L *-space is obtained
by replacing the sequences in the definitions of Frechet and Urysohn by nets. It
is however immediately seen that this category is isomorphic to PsTop where
the axioms are formulated in terms of nets rather than in terms of filters. So this
result can be derived from the one for PsTop.
Other cartesian c10sed topological superconstructs of Top were introduced

in 1988 and 1989 by Lowen and Lowen in respectively [249] and [250]. Here
the motivation was precisely to find larger categorically better behaved super-
categories of Ap and consequently it was known from their introduction that
they were cartesian c1osed.
The first one is the construct of so-called convergence approach spaces,
which is a superconstruct of both Lim and pMetOO , the objects of which hence
really should have been called limit approach spaces.
Definition 7.2. A convergence approach structure on a set X provides any filter

'!J on X with a function A.('!J) : X ~ [0,00] such that the following properties
are fulfilled:
(Cal) "Ix EX: A.(i)(x) = O.
(Ca2) For any pair of filters '!J c '9: 1..('9) ~ A.('!J).
(Ca3) For any pair of filters '!J and'9 : (A.('!J n '9) = maxA.('!J), 1..('9.
The pair (X, 1..) is called a convergence approach space and the function I..
is called a limit operator. A function 1 : X ~ Y between convergence
approach spaces (X,A.x) and (Y,A.y) is called a contraction if for each filter
'!J : A.y(f('!J 0 1 ~ A.x('!J). The category of convergence approach spaces and
contractions is a topological construct, denoted CAp.
Ap is embedded as a full subconstruct of CAp. The relationship between a
distance and a limit operator is given by the formulas: A.('!J)(x) = sUPAesec(~)
/S(x, A) and /S(x, A) = inf{A.('!J)(x) IA E '!J}.
The second one is the construct of so-called pseudo approach spaces which
is a superconstruct of both PsTop and pMetoo . We will come back to this
construct in the following section.
Cartesian c10sed topological constructs have many supplementary nice prop-
erties. We only mention a few ofthem [170].
Theorem 7.3. IfCfb is a cartesian closed topological construct, and A, B, C,

(Ai)iel and (Bi)iel are objects in Cfb then thelollowing properties hold.
1. First exponentiallmy: A BxC ~ (AB)c.
2. Second exponentiallaw: (ni Ai)B ~ ni(Ai B).
3. Third exponentiallaw: AUi Bi ~ ni (ABi).
4. Distributive law: A x Ui Bi ~ Ui(A x Bi).
5. Finite products 01 epimorphisms are epimorphisms.

7.2. EXTENSIONAL TOPOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS
For certain purposes there is another convenience property which is more in-
teresting than cartesian closedness. It was shown by Herrlich, Salicrup and
Vazquez in 1979 [191] that the investigation of connectedness in a topologi-
cal construct benefits from the following property which is independent from
cartesian closedness.
Definition 7.4. A well-fibred topological construct ~ is extensional if partial

morphisms are representable. Precisely, if the following condition is fulfilled.
(ET) Every object (B, ~) can be embedded in a so-called one-point extension

(B#, ~#), where B# = B U {ooB}, ooB f/. B, such that for every object
A, for every subobject C of A, and for every morphism f : C ~ B,
the extension, f# : A ~ B#, defined by f#(A\C) := {ooB} is a
morphism.
None of the constructs Top, Chy, Near, Ap or Unif are extensional [177],
[180], [181].
The constructs PrTop, Lim, Conv and CAp are extensional [180], [181],
[186].
Extensional topological constructs too have nice properties.
Theorem 7.5. lf~ is an extensional topological construct then the following

properties hold.
1. Every object has an injective hull.
2. Final sinks are hereditary.
3. Final episinks (and hence quotients and coproducts) are hereditary.
The last two properties are in fact equivalent to being extensional as was
shown by Herrlich in 1988 [181].
7.3. TOPOLOGICAL UNIVERSES
The topological universes, the definition of wbich follows below, basically first
appeared under the name concrete quasi-topoi. This is a tenn wbich is still often
used today. However in the work ofDubuc of 1979 [117], where this tenn was
introduced, no fibre-smallness was required. Later these constructs were called
strongly topological by Herrlich in his 1983 work [177]. The tenn topological
universe is due to Nel, and it first appeared in bis paper [290] from 1984.
Definition 7.6. A well-fibred topological construct ~ is a topological universe

if it is both cartesian c10sed and extensional.
One of the reasons that topological universes are important and interesting
is given in the following equivalent characterization from Herrlich [180].
Theorem 7.7. A well-fibred topological construct ~ is a topological universe if

and only iffinal episinks are preserved by pullbacks along arbitrary morphisms.
Precisely, ifwhenever (fi : Yi --+ Y)iel is afinal episink, f : X --+ Y, and
hi : Xi --+ Yi are morphisms such that for each i E I, the diagram
Xi
- hi Yi
gi!
f
!/i
X ~
Y
is a pullback, then (gi : Xi --+ X)i el is a final episink.
None of the constructs Top, Chy, Near, Ap or Unif are topological uni-
verses.
The constructs Lim [296], Conv [180], CAp [249], Grill [42], PsTop [375]
are topological universes. Motivated by the fact that Chy is not a topological
universe, Preu in [308] introduced a superconstruct SChy which is a topologial
universe.
8. Examples Motivated by Convenience Properties
If a topological construct fails to have certain convenience properties, then it

is often possible to find a new topological construct in which the first one
is embedded and which does have the required property. The fact that many
familiar topological constructs lack, at least, some of the convenience properties
mentioned in the foregoing section, has led to a vast research on extensions. Of
course it are precisely those extensions which are as small as possible which
are of special interest. Such extensions are called hul1s.
A fundamental paper on cartesian c10sed topological hulls is the paper by
Herrlich and Nel from 1977, [187] where they showed that any construct with
finite products which can be fully embedded in some cartesian c10sed topological
construct can also be embedded in a smallest such construct. This of course
made it possible to envisage the construction of many more cartesian c10sed
topological hulls since quite a few topological constructs were known to be
subconstructs of other, also well known, cartesian c10sed topological constructs.
8.1. CARTESIAN CLOSED TOPOLOGICAL HULLS
Definition 8.1. The cartesian c10sed topological hull of a construct 6 (shortly

denoted by CCTH(<(6, if it exists, is the smallest cartesian c10sed topological
construct ga in which 6 is finally dense. Given a cartesian c10sed topological
construct .stl in which 6 is finally dense, the cartesian c10sed topological hull of
6 is the full subconstruct of .stl with those objects C for which there exists an
initial source (Ji : C -+ [Ai, Bj)i EI, such that Vi EI: Ai, Bi E 6. In short,
the cartesian c10sed topological hull of6 is the initial (or bireflective) hull in.stl
of the power-objects of 6-objects.
One of the first constructed such hulls was the cartesian c10sed topological
hull of Top. This was achieved in aseries of papers by Antoine, Machado and
Bourdaud in the period 1966-1976, [24], [22], [263], [62] and [63]. Antoine
gave the start with his description of the objects of the cartesian c10sed topo-
logical hull as those which are initial for a particular source, but he did not
give an internal description of these objects. Machado made a first step towards
this internal description, especially in the case of Hausdorff spaces. Bourdaud
finally rounded the internal description off with the elegant characterization
given below. The ideas that came out of these papers can not be overestimated,
they were the source for many generalizations and for developing techniques to
find cartesian c10sed hulls of other constructs.
The cartesian c10sed topological hull of Top is the construct EpiTop of so-
called epi-topological spaces (also called Antoine spaces). That means it is the
full subconstruct of PsTop having as objects those spaces (X, q) which satisfy
the two supplementary conditions (EpiTl) and (EpiT2) below. We denote by
c1q the c10sure operator of the Top-bireflection of q. Further, for a filter I?; on
X we denote by Liml?; the set of all points x E X such that (I?;, x) E q and by
I?;* the filter generated by all the sets {x E X I c1q (x) n F i= 0}, F E I?;.
(EpiTl) For any filter c;g; on X : Liml?; is c10sed in the Top-bireflection.

(EpiT2) For any filter I?; on X : Liml?; = Liml?;*.
N ext it was shown by Bourdaud in 1975-76 that the cartesian c10sed topolog-
ical hull of the construct PrTop is the construct PsTop. Also in [63] Bourdaud
proves that the cartesian c10sed topological hull of the construct of all Tychonoff
spaces is exactly the construct of c-embedded convergence spaces [48].
The cartesian c10sed topological hull of Unif was constructed by Adamek
and Reiterman in 1981 in [11]. It is the construct of so-called bomological
uniform spaces, denoted BUnif. First recall that a bomology on a set is a
collection ~ of subsets of X such that all finite subsets are in ~ and such that ~ is
c10sed under the formation of subsets and of finite unions. The elements of ~ are
called bounded sets. Uniformities are characterized by their generating farnilies
ofpseudometrics. Now a bomological uniform space is a tripie (X, 9ll, ~) where
9ll is a uniformity on X and ~ is a bomology on X, satisfying the following
properties:
(BU1) 9ll contains every pseudometric which is uniformly continuous on every

set of~.
(BU2) ~ contains every set M with the property that for each pseudometric
d E 9ll and for each B > 0, there exists a bounded set B such that
d(x, B) < B for all x E M.
A function f : X ----+Y between bomological uniform spaces (X, 9ll x, ~ x)

and (Y, 9lly, ~y) is (for the sake ofthis paper) called a b-uniformly continuous
function if it is uniformly continuous and preserves bounded sets. The cate-
gory of bomological uniform spaces and b~uniformly continuous maps is a
topological construct, denoted BUnif.
The cartesian c10sed topological hull of Met was also constructed by
Adamek and Reiterman in 1990 in [12]. It is the construct of so-called demi-
metric spaces, denoted DMet. Morphisms are always the non-expansive maps.
Demi-metric spaces are sets equipped with a function d : X x X ----+ [0,00]
fulfilling the conditions:
(DM1) For all x, y EX: d(x, x) = 0 and d(x, y) = d(y, x).

(DM2) d is lower semicontinuous with respect to the topology generated by
the metric modification of d.
In the original paper by Adamek and Reiterman a third condition was men-
tioned, but recently, while generalizing the result of Adamek and Reiterman it
was shown by Nauwelaerts that this condition is redundant [286].
In 1992 Bentley and Lowen-Colebunders [43] give adescription of the carte-
sian c10sed topological hull of the construct of completely regular filterspaces.
In 1994 Alderton and Schwarz [19] constructed an alternative description

of the cartesian c10sed topological hull of Unif inside the category of uniform
limit spaces.
In 1999 Lowen-Colebunders, Lowen and Nauwelaerts described the carte-
sian c10sed topological hull of Ap. This hull is the construct EpiAp which
consists of so-called epi-approach spaces. They form a subconstruct of PsAp
and are characterized by the condition (EpiAp) below. First we need some
notations. Given (X, A) E IPsAPI, for any set G, let GP be the set of all
y E X for which there exists x E G such that <5~(x, {y}) ~ p, where).. denotes
the Ap-coreection of A. One then obtains a pseudo-quasi-metric on the set
of all filters on X by defining dx('?:F, C) := inf{p 2: 0 I CP C ~}, where
CP := {GP I G E C}. The supplementary condition which a pseudo approach
space has to fulfill in order to be in the cartesian c10sed hull of Ap now is
(EpiA) A: (lF(X), 5"dx) x (X, 5"~) ~ ([0,00], 5"r) is a continuous map,
where lF(X) stands for the set of all filters on X and where 5"r stands for the
topology on [0, 00] generated by all half-open intervals extending to 00.
8.2. EXTENSIONAL TOPOLOGICAL HULLS
Next we look at extensional topological hulls as defined by Herrlich in 1987

[180].
Definition 8.2. The extensional topological hull of a construct 6 (shortly de-

noted by ETH(<(6, if it exists, is defined as the smallest extensional topological
construct 00 in which ~ is finally dense. Given an extensional topological
construct .stl in which 6 is finally dense, the extensional topological hull of
6 is the full subconstruct of .stl with those objects C for which there exists an
initial source (fi : C ~ Ar, )iEl, such that Vi EI: Ai E 6. In short, the
extensional topological hull of 6 is the initial (or bireective) hull in .stl of the
one-point extensions of 6-objects.
It was shown by Machado in 1973 that Top [263] is finally dense in PrTop
and by Bourdaud in 1975 [62] that the one-point extension of the Sierpinski
space is initially dense in PrTop. In 1988 Herrlich deduced from this that
PrTop (introduced by Choquet in 1948) is the extensional topological hull of
Top [181].
In 1989 Lowen-Colebunders and Lowen described the extensional topolog-
ical hull of Ap. It is the construct PrAp of pre-approach spaces, Le. the full
subconstruct of CAp with those objects for which the limit operator fulfils the
following strengthening of (Ca3).
In 1993 the extensional topological hull of the construct Chy was described
by Alderton and Schwarz in [18].
8.3. TOPOLOGICAL UNIVERSE HULLS
Finally we look at topological universe hulls as introduced by Wyler [375] and

Adamek [2].
Definition 8.3. The topological universe hull of a construct ~ (shortly denoted

by TUH(~, if it exists, is the smallest topological universe ~ in which ~ is
finally dense. Given a topological universe s4 in which ~ is finally dense, the
topological universe hull of ~ is the full subconstruct of s4 with those objects
C for which there exists an initial source (fi : C --* [Ai, BfDi EI, such that
Vi EI: Ai, Bi E~. In short, the topological universe hull of ~ is the initial (or
bireective) hull in s4 of the power-objects of type [A, B#] for A, B E I~I.
The topological universe hull of a construct can be obtained by a two-step

process. First one makes the extensional topological hull and then one makes
the cartesian c10sed topological hull, precisely:
TUH(~) = CCTH(ETH(~
This result is due to Schwarz [334]. It was observed by Schwarz in 1989 that
the order of taking hulls on the right-hand side can not be interchanged [334].
In general ETH(CCTH(~ is strict1y smaller than CCTH(ETH(~ and need
not be cartesian c1osed.
The relation among the various hulls of a topological construct ~ (provided
they exist) is given in the following diagram, see the paper by Schwarz [334].
TUH(~) = CCTH(ETH(~
----------- ETH(CCTH(~
ETH(~)
~I CCTH(~)
~/ ~
-The topological universe hull of Top was determined by Wyler in 1976

[375]. It turned out to be the construct PsTop of pseudotopological spaces in-
troduced by Choquet in 1948. Also in 1976 Bourdaud proved that PsTop is also
the cartesian c10sed topo10gical hull of PrTop, and hence also the topo10gical
universe hull of PrTop [63].
The relationship among the various hulls of Top is depicted in the following
diagram.
TUH(Top) ~ PsTop @ CCTH(PrTop)

[(1) HYler. 1976] [(2) Bourdaud. 1976]
r r
PrTop = ETH(Top) EpiTop = CCTH(Top)

[Herrlich. 1988] [Antoine. 1966
Machado.1973.
Bourdaud. 1975]
r
Top
The topo10gical universe hull of the construct pMetOO was characterized

by Herrlich in [181] as the construct of distance spaces. In 1989 Lowen-
Co1ebunders and Lowen described the topo10gical universe hull of Ap. It is
given by the full subconstruct of CAp consisting of those objects for which the
limit operator fulfi1s the following strengthening of (Ca3).
(PsA) For any filter CJF on X : )"(CJF) = sup{),,(CU) I CUultra, CJF c CU}.
This subconstruct is called PsAp, and its objects are called pseudo-approach
spaces.
The relationship among the various hulls of Ap is depicted in the following
diagram.
PsAp = TUH(Ap) = CCTH(PrAp)

[Lowen, Lowen, 1989]
r r
PrAp = ETH(Ap) EpiAp = CCTH(Ap)

[Lowen, [Lowen, Lowen,
Lowen, 1989] Nauwelaerts, 1999]
r r
Ap
The topological universe hull of the construct STop of supertopological

spaces was determined in 1989 by Wyler [377].1t is what he called the construct
\lISTop. The objects of \lISTop are tripIes (X,.M, q) where, as for supertopo-
logical spaces X is a set and .M is a collection of bounded sets on X. Instead
of having a "neighborhood system" for bounded sets however, now we have
a relation q from filters on X to bounded sets fulfilling the conditions below.
Note that we again allow the degenerate filter, Le the relation q is a subset of
IF(X)* x .M.
(\lISTl) For any A E.M : qA.

(\IIST2) If '?J' is a filter on X then '?J'q0 if and on1y if'?J' is the degenerate
filter.
(\IIST3) If A E .M and '?J' is a filter on X such that for every ultrafilter Oll
finerthan '?J': OllqA then '?J'qA.
A function f : X ~ Y between \IISTop-spaces (X, .Mx, qx) and (Y, .My,

qy) is said to be continuous if it maps bounded sets to bounded sets and if for
any filter '?J' and any set ME.M: '?J'qXM implies that f('?J')qy f(M).
The topological universe hull of Unif was determined by Adamek and
Reiterman in 1987 [11] and 1992 [13]. The 1992 paper contains a correction
to a faulty description in the 1987 paper, which was due to the unallowed
interchange of the operations of taking the cartesian c10sed topological hull
and the extensional topological hull as we pointed out in the beginning of this
section.
The topological universe hull of Unif is given by the construct of so-called

saturated filters of uniformities and it is denoted SF. First one has to consider the
topological construct SUnif of semi-uniform spaces (the same as the definition
of uniform spaces but without the "open-kerne!" condition) and uniformly con-
tinuous maps (the same as the definition in the case of uniform spaces). Given
a set X, a filter of semi-uniform spaces on X is a collection A of semi-uniform
spaces (Y, "1/') such that Y C X for all (Y, "1/') E A, and such that the following
properties are fulfilled where (Y, "1/') < (Y', "1/") means that Y C Y' and the
canonical inc1usion (Y, "1/') ~ (Y', "1/") is uniformly continuous.
(1) If (Y, "1/') E A and (Y', "1/") < (Y, "1/') then (Y', "1/") E A.
(2) For any two spaces (Y, "1/'), (Y', "1/") in A there exists aspace (y II , "1/'")
in A such that both (Y, "1/') < (Y", "1/'") and (Y', "1/") < (Y", "1/'").
(3) For each x E X there exists aspace (Y, "1/') E A such that x E Y.
Now if we consider two sets X and X' both equipped with a filter of semi-
uniform spaces A and A' respectively, then a map ! : X ~ X' is a morphism
if for each (Y, "1/') E A there exists a (Y', "1/") E A' such that ! (Y) C Y'
and such that !IY : (Y, "1/') ~ (Y', "1/") is uniformly continuous. These objects
together with these morphisms defines a topological construct which we will not
designate since we now immediately consider a subconstruct. A semi-uniformity
is called simple if it is generated by a single entourage of the diagonal. A filter of
semi-uniformities is called simple if it has a basis of simple semi-uniformities.
This means, (X, A) is simple if for each (Y, "1/') E A there exists a simple
semi-uniform space (Y', "1/") E A such that (Y, "1/') < (Y', "1/"). Finally a filter
of semi-uniformities is called saturated if it is an intersection of simple filters
of semi-uniformities. The full subconstruct of the aforementioned topological
construct with objects the saturated filters of semi-uniformities is the topological
universe hull SF of Unif.
In the following table we give the present day situation concerning the
various hulls of the "basic" topological constructs which we have introduced in
the foregoing sections. An equality sign in a column means that the construct of
that row equals its respective hull, i.e. is already respectively cartesian c1osed,
extensional or a topological universe. If only a reference is given this means
that the hull has been described but that as yet no name has been given to
it. The first block contains genuine supercategories and the second block "al-
most" supercategories of Top. The third block contains subconstructs of various
supercategories of Top.
IConstruct " CCfH ETH TUH
Top EpiTop [62] PrTop [181] PsTop [375]
PrTop PsTop [63] = [180] PsTop
Ap EpiAp [260] PrAp [250] PsAp [250]
Prap PsAp [250] = [250] PsAp [250]
STop ? ? \fISTop [377]
Near ? ? ?
Mer ? = [180] ?
Chy = [40] [18] ?
ULim = [244] ? ?
Unif BUnif [10] ? SF [11]
Prox (*) ? ?
pMetOO DMet [12] Dist [181] Dist [181]
(*) Without providing an intrinsic characterization of the objects the cartesian

c10sed topological hull of Prox was described in [289] as being the coreflective
hull of Prox in Unif.
References
[1] Adamek, J., Theory 0/ Mathematical Structures, Reidel 1983.

[2] _ _ , Classification of concrete categories, Houston 1. Matk. 12 (1986), 305-
326.
[3] Adamek, J. and Herrlich, H., Cartesian closed categories, quasitopoi and
topological universes, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 27 (1986), 235-257.
[4] Adamek, J., Herrlich, H. and Strecker, G.E., Least and largest initial comple-
tions, Comment. Matk. Univ. Carolinae 20 (1979), 43-77.
[5] _ _ , The structure of initial completions, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff. Categ. 20
(1979), 333-352.
[6] _ _ , Abstract and Concrete Categories, John Wiley 1990.
[7] Adamek, J. and Koubek, V., What to embed into a cartesian closed topological
category, Comment. Matk. Univ. Carolinae 18 (1977), 817-821.
[8] _ _ , Cartesian closed functor-structured categories, Comment. Math. Univ.

Carolinae 21 (1980), 573-589.
[9] _ _ , Cartesian closed initial completions, Topology Appl. 11 (1980), 1-16.
[10] Adamek, J. and Reiterman, J., Cartesian closed huH of the category of uniform
[11] _ _ , The quasitopos huH of the category of uniform spaces, Topology Appl.
27 (1987), 97-104.
[12] _ _ , Cartesian closed huH for metric spaces, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae
31 (1990), 1-6.
[13] _ _ , The quasitopos huH of the category of uniform spaces - a correction,
Topology Appl. 48 (1992), 179-184.
[14] Adamek, J., Reiterman, J. and Schwartz, F., On universaHy topological huHs
and quasitopos huHs, Houston 1. Math. 17 (1991), 375-383.
[15] Adamek, J., Reiterman, J. and Strecker, G.E., Realization of cartesian closed
topological hulls, Manuscripta Math. 53 (1981), 1-33.
[16] Adamek, 1. and Strecker, G.E., Construction of cartesian closed topological
huHs, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 22 (1981), 235-254.
[17] Alderton, LW., Cartesian closedness and the Mac Neille completion of an
initiaHy structured category, Quaest. Math. 8 (1985), 63-78.
[18] Alderton, I.W. and Schwarz, F., The extensional topological huH ofthe category
of Cauchy spaces, Questions Answers Gen. Topoi. 11 (1993), 193-198.
[19] _ _ , Cartesian closed extensions of the category of uniform spaces, Topology
Appl. 75 (1994), 95-109.
[20] Alderton, I.W., Schwarz, F. and Weck-Schwarz, S., On the construction of the
extensional topological huH, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff. Categ. 35 (1994), 165-
174.
[21] Aleksandrov, P.S. and Urysohn, P., Une condition necessaire et suffisante pour
qu'une classe (:E) soit une classe (~), Compt. Rendus Aead. Sei. Paris 177
(1923), 1274-1277.
[22] Antoine, P., Etude elementaire des categories d'ensembles structures I, Bull.
Soe. Math. Belgique 18 (1966), 142-164.
[23] _ _ , Etude elementaire des categories d'ensembles structures 11, Bull. Soe.
Math. Belgique 18 (1966), 387-414.
[24] _ _ , Extension minimale de la categorie des espaces topologiques, C. R.
Aead. Sei. Paris 262 (1966), 1389-1392.
[25] Arens, R.F., A topology for spaces of transformations, Ann. Math. 47 (1946),
480-495.
[26] Arhangel'skii, A.Y. and Wiegandt, R., Connectedness and disconnectedness in
topology, Topology Appl. 5 (1975), 9-33.
[27] Aull, C.E. and Lowen, R. (eds.), Handbook ofthe History ofGeneral Topology,
vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997.
[28] _ _ , (eds.), Handbook of the History of General Topology, vol. 2. Kluwer
Academic Publishers 1998.
[29] Balachandran, 1., On the lattice of convergence topologies, J. Madras University
28 (1958), 129-146.
[30] Banaschewski, B., Aremark on extensions of Hausdorff spaces, Gen. Top. Appl.
4 (1974), 283-284.
[31] _ _ , Essential extensions of To spaces, Gen. Top. Appl. 7 (1977),233-246.
[32] Banaschewski, B. and Bruns, G., Categorical characterization of the MacNeille
completion, Ann. 0/ Math. 18 (1967), 369-377.
[33] Bastiani, A, Applications differentiables et varietes differentiable de dimension
infinie,1. Analyse Math. 13 (1964), 1-114.
[34] Beattie, R and Butzmann, H.-P., Convergence Structures in Functional Analysis,
manuscript for a book, 2000.
[35] Bentley, H.L., T -categories and some representation theorems, Portug. Math.
32 (1973), 201-222.
[36] Bentley, H.L. and Herrlich, H., Extensions of topological spaces, in Proc.
Memphis Top. ConJ, 1976, 129-184.
[37] _ _ , Completion as reflection, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 19 (1978),
541-568.
[38] Bentley, H.L., Herrlich, H. and Husek, M., The Historical Development 0/
Uniform, Proximal and Neamess Concepts in Topology, Kluwer Academic
Publishers 1998,577-630.
[39] Bentley, H.L., Herrlich, H. and Lowen, R, Improving constructions in topology,
in Category Theory at Work, Heldermann Verlag 1991, 3-20.
[40] Bentley, H.L., Herrlich, H. and Lowen-Colebunders, E., The category of Cauchy
spaces is cartesian c1osed, Topology Appl. 27 (1987), 105-112.
[41] _ _ , Convergence,1. Pure Appl. Algebra 68 (1990),27-45.
[42] Bentley, H.L., Herrlich, H. and Robertson, W.A, Convenient categories for
topologists, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 17 (1976) 207-227.
[43] Bentley, H.L. and Lowen-Colebunders, E., On the cartesian c10sed hull of the
category of completely regular filter spaces, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff. Categ. 33
(1992),345-360.
[44] Bentley, H.L. and Naimpally, S.A, Wallmann Tl-compactifications as epireflec-
tions, Gen. Top. Appl. 4 (1974), 29-41.
[45] Binz, E., Ein Differentierbarkeitsbegriff in limitierten Vektorrumen, Comment.
Math. Helvetica 41 (1966), 137-156.
[46] _ _ , Bemerkungen zulimitierten Funktionenalgebren, Math. Ann. 175 (1968),
169-184.
[47] _ _ , Notes on a characterization offunction algebras, Math. Ann. 186 (1970),
314-326.
[48] _ _ , Continuous convergence on C(X), vol. 469, Lecture Notes Math.
Springer Verlag 1975.
[49] Binz, E. and Keller, H.H., Kunktionenrume in der Kategorie der Limesrume,
no. 383 in Sero AI. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fennicae, 1966.
[50] Birkhoff, G., Moore-Smith convergence in general topology, Ann. 0/ Math. 38
(1937),39-56.
[51] _ _ , Lattice Theory, vol. XXV, Americam mathematical Society Colloquium
Publications. AMS 1967.
[52] Booth, P. and Tillotson, J., Monoidal c1osed, cartesian c10sed and convenient
categories of topological spaces, Pacific 1. Math. 88 (1980), 35-53.
[53] Brger, R., Connectivity spaces and component categories, Heldermann Verlag
1984, 71-89.
[54] Bourbaki, N., Topologie Generale, chapter 9, Utilisation des nombres reels en
topologie generale, Hermann, Paris 1958.
[55] _ _ , Topologie Generale, chapter 3, Groupes topologiques, 4. Nombres reels.
Hermann, Paris 1960.
[56] _ _ , Topologie Generale, chapter 5, Groupes a un parametre, 6, Espaces
numeriques et espaces projectifs, 7, Les groupes additifs ~n, 8, N ombres
complexes. Hermann, Paris 1963.
[57] _ _ , Topologie Generale, chapter 1, Structures topologiques, 2, Structures
uniformes, Hermann, Paris 1965.
[58] _ _ , Topologie Generale, chapter 10, Espaces fonctionnels. Hermann, Paris
1967.
[59] _ _ , Theorie des Ensembles, Hermann, Paris 1970.
[60] Bourdaud, G., Structures d' Antoine associees aux semi-topologies et aux
topologies, Compt. Rendus Aead. Sei. Paris 279 (1974), 591-594.
[61] _ _ , Deux characterizations des c-espaces, Compt. Rendus Aead. Sei. Paris
281 (1975), 313-316.
[62] _ _ , Espaces d' Antoine et semi-espaces d' Antoine, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff.
Categ. 16 (1975), 107-134.
[63] _ _ , Some cartesian c10sed topological categories of convergence spaces,
Leeture Notes Math. 540 (1976), 93-108.
[64] Brace, J.W., The topology of almost uniform convergence, Pae. J Math. 9
(1959),643-652.
[65] Brandenburg, H. and Husek, M., Aremark on cartesian c1osedness, in Category
Theory, Proe. Gummersbaeh Con! 1981, Springer-Verlag 1982,33-38.
[66] Brock, P. and Kent, D.C., Approach spaces, limit tower spaces and probabilistic
convergence spaces, Applied Categ. Struet. 5 (1997), 99-110.
[67] _ _ , On convergence approach spaces, Applied Categ. Struct. 6 (1998), 117-
125.
[68] Brmmer, G.c.L., A eategorieal study of initiality in uniform topology, Ph.D.
thesis, University of Cape Town, 1971.
[69] _ _ , Topological functors and structure functors, Lecture Notes Math. 540
(1976), 109-135.
[70] _ _ , Topological categories, Topology Appl. 18 (1984), 27-41.
[71] Brmmer, G.c.L. and Giuli, E., A categorical concept of completion of objects,
Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 33 (1992),131-147.
[72] Brmmer, G.c.L. and Hoffmann, R.-E., An external characterization of
topological functors, Leeture Notes Math. 540 (1976), 136-151.
[73] Bruns, G., Die struktur der univerzweigten punktalen raumtypen, Math.
Japoniea 4 (1957), 123-132.
[74] Bruns, G. and Schrnidt, J., Die puntalen typen topologischer rume, Math.
Japoniea 4 (1957),133-177.
[75] Burroni, A., T-categories, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff. Categ. 12 (1971), 215-321.
[76] Butzmann, H.-P, Dualitten in 't6 c (X), Ph.D. thesis, University of Mannheim,
1971.
[77] _ _ , ber die c-Reftexivitt von 'tlc(X). Commentarii Math. Helvet. 47

(1972),92-101.
[78] _ _ , Der Satz von Stone-Weierstrass in 'tlc(X) und seine Anwendungen
auf die Darstellungstheorie von Limesalgebren, Habilitaion University of
Mannheim 1974.
[79] Butzmann, H.-P, and Kneis, G., Cech-stone compactifications of pseudotopo-
logical spaces, Math. Nachrichten 128 (1986) 259-264.
[80] Cagliari, E, Disconnectednesses cogenerated by Hausdorff spaces, Cahiers Top.
Geom. DiJJ. Categ. 29 (1985), 3-8.
[81] Cagliari, E and Cicchese, M., Disconnectednesses and closure operators, Rend.
Cire. Mat. Palermo 11 (1985), 15-23.
[82] Calenko, M.S., Functors between structured categories, Mat. Sb. 80 (1969),
533-552; Russian, Engl. transl. Math. USSR Sbornik 9, 497-513.
[83] Caratheodory, C., Stetige Konvergenz und nonnale Familien von Funktionen,
Math. Ann. 101 (1929), 515-533.
[84] Cartan, H., Filtres et ultrafiltres, Compt. Rend. 205 (1937), 777-779.
[85] _ _ , Theorie des filtres, Compt. Rend. 205 (1937), 595-598.
[86] Cech, E., Topological Spaces, Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy
of Sciences, Interscience, John Wiley 1966.
[87] Chittenden, E.W., On the equivalence of ecart and voisinage, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 18 (1917),161-166.
[88] Choquet, G., Convergences, Ann. Univ. de Grenoble 23 (1947), 57-112.
[89] _ _ , Convergences, Ann. Univ. Grenoble, Sect. Math. Phys. 23 (1948), 57-
112.
[90] Cincura, J., Closed structures on categories of topological spaces, Topology
Appl. 20 (1985), 179-189.
[91] _ _ , Cartesian closed coreftective subcategories of the category of topological
spaces, Topology Appl. 41 (1991),205-212.
[92] Clementino, M.M., Hausdorff separation in categories, Applied Categ. Struct. 1
(1993), 285-296.
[93] _ _ , On categorical notions of compact objects, Applied Categ. Struct. 4
(1996), 15-29.
[94] Clementino, M.M., Giuli, E. and Tholen, W., Topology in categories: compact-
ness, Portugal. Math. 53 (1996), 397-433.
[95] Clementino, M.M. and Tholen, W., Separated and connected maps, Applied
Categ. Struct. 6 (1998), 373-401.
[96] Cochran, A.C. and Trail, R.B., Regularity and complete regularity for con-
vergence spaces, in Proc. VPI Topology Conference, Springer Verlag 1973,
64-70.
[97] Cogosvili, G.S., On convergence spaces, Math. Sb. 9 (1941), 377-381, Russian,
German summary.
[98] Cook, C.H., Compact pseudo-convergence, Math. Ann. 202 (1973), 193-202.
[99] Cook, H.C. and Fisher, H.R., On equicontinuity and continuous convergence,
Math. Ann. 159 (1965), 94-104.
[100] _ _ , Uniform convergence structures, Math. Ann. 173 (1967), 290-306.
[101] Csaszar, A, Erweiterubg, Kompaktifizierung und Vervollstndigung syntopo-

gener Rume, in Proceedings Symposium Berlin 1967 on Extension Theory 01
Topological Structures, 1960,51-54.
[102] _ _ , Fondements de la Topologie Generale, Gauthiers-Villars, Paris 1960.
[103] _ _ , Proximities, screens, merotopies, uniforrnities I, Acta. Math. Hung. 49
(1987),459-479.
[104] _ _ , Proximities, screens, merotopies, uniforrnities 11, Acta. Math. Hung. 50
(1987),97-109.
[105] _ _ , Proximities, screens, merotopies, uniforrnities III, Acta. Math. Hung. 51
(1988),23-33.
[106] _ _ , Proximities, screens, merotopies, uniforrnities IV, Acta. Math. Hung. 51
(1988),151-164.
[107] Day, BJ., Arefleetion theorem for closed eategories, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 2
(1972), 1-11.
[108] _ _ , Limit spaees and closed span eategories, Lecture Notes Math. 420
(1974),65-74.
[109] Day, BJ. and Kelly, G.M., On topological quotient maps preserved by pullbaeks
and produets, Proc. Camb. Phi!. Soc. 67 (1970), 553-558.
[110] Deak, J., A eommon topologieal supereategory for merotopies and syntopoge-
nous struetures, Colloq. Math. 55 (1993), 177-190.
[111] DeMarr, R.E., Order eonvergenee and topologieal eonvergenee, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 16 (1965), 588-590.
[112] Diers, Y., Categories of algebraic sets, Applied Categ. Struct. 4 (1996), 329-341.
[113] Dikranjan, D. and Giuli, E., Closure operators, Topology Appl. 27 (1987), 129-
143.
[1l4] Doicinov, D., A unified theory of topologieal, proximal and uniform spaees,
Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 156 (1964),21-24.
[115] Doleeki, S. and Greeo, G.H., Cyrtologies of eonvergenee I, Math. Nachrichten
126 (1986), 327-348.
[116] _ _ , Cyrtologies of convergence 11: sequential convergenee, Math.
Nachrichten 127 (1986), 317-334.
[117] Dubue, E.J., Conerete quasitopoi, Lecture Notes Math. 753 (1979), 239-254.
[118] Dubue, E.J. and Porta, H., Convenient eategories of topological algebras and
their duality theory, 1. Pure Appl. Algebra 1 (1971), 281-316.
[119] Edgar, GA, A eartesian closed eategory for topology, Gen. Top. Appl. 6 (1976),
65-72.
[120] Efremovic, V.A, Nonequimorphism of the Euclidean and Lobacevski spaees
(Russian). Uspekhi Mat. Nauk (4) 2 (1949), 178-179.
[121] _ _ , Infinitesimal spaees (Russian), Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 76 (1951a.),
341-343.
[122] _ _ , Infinitesimal spaees (Russian), Mat. Sb. (6) 4 (1951b), 203-204.
[123] _ _ , The geometry of proximity (Russian), Mat. Sb. 31 (1952), 189-200.
[124] Efremovic, V.A and Svare, AS., A new definition of uniform spaees, Metriza-
tion of proximity spaees (Russian), Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 89 (1953),
393-396.
[125] Ehresmann, C., Struetures quotient, Comment. Math. Helv. 38 (1964), 219-283.
[126] _ _ , Categories topologiques I, lndag. Math. 28 (1966), 133-146.

[127] _ _ , Categories topologiques 11, lndag. Math. 28 (1966), 147-160.
[128] _ _ , Categories topologiques III, lndag. Matk. 28 (1966), 161-175.
[129] _ _ , Categories structurees generalisees, Cahiers Top. Geom. Diff. Categ. 10
(1968), 139-167.
[130] Fay, T.H., Brmmer, G.C.L. and Hardie, K.A, A characterization oftopological
functors, Math. Coll. Univ. Cape Town 12 (1979),85-93.
[131] Feldman, W.A, Topological spaces and their assoeiated convergence function
algebras, Ph.D. thesis, Queen's University Kingston, 1971.
[132] Fischer, H.R., Limesrume, Math. Ann. 137 (1959), 269-303.
[133] Frechet, M., Sur quelques points du calcul fonctionel, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo
22 (1906), 1-74.
[134] _ _ , Sur les classes V normales, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1913),320-324.
[135] _ _ , Relations entre les notions de limite et de distance, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 19 (1918), 53-65.
[136] _ _ , Sur la notion de voisinage dans les ensembles abstraits, Bull. Sei. Math.
42 (1918), 138-156.
[137] _ _ , Sur les ensembles abstraits, Annales Seientifiques de I'Ecole Normale
Superieure 38 (1921),314-388.
[138] Frechet, M., Prolongement des fonctionelles continues sur un ensemble abstrait,
Bull. Sei. Matk. 48 (1924), 171-183.
[139] _ _ , Les Espaces Abstraits, Gauthier-Villars, Paris 1928.
[140] Fric, R. and Koutnik, v., Sequential structures, Abh. Akad. Wiss. DDR 4 (1980),
37-56.
[141] Frlicher, A, Kompakt erzeugte Rume und limesrume, Matk. Zeitschr. 129
(1972), 57-63.
[142] _ _ , Cartesian closed categories and analysis of smooth maps, in Categories
in Continuum Physics, vol. 1174, Lecture Notes Math., 1986.
[143] Frlicher, A and Bucher, W., Calculus in vectorspaces without norm, vol. 30,
Lecture Notes Math. Springer Verlag 1966.
[144] Frlicher, A and Kriegl, A, Linear Spaces and Diffemetiation Theory, John
Wileyand Sons 1988.
[145] Ghler, W., A topological approach to structure theory, Math. Nachrichten 100
(1981), 93-144.
[146] _ _ , Generalized convergence groups, Math. Nachrichten 150 (1991), 219-
261.
[147] _ _ , Convergence structures-historical remarks and the monadic approach,
Bremen Mathematik Arbeitspapiere 48 (1997),171-193.
[148] _ _ , Grundstrukturen der Analysis, voll, Akademie Verlag Berlin 77.
[149] _ _ , Grundstrukturen der Analysis, vol l/, Akademie Verlag Berlin 78.
[150] Gazik, R.J., Regularity of Richardson's compactification, Canad. J. Math. 6
(1974), 1289-1293.
[151] De Giorgi, E., y-convergenza e g-convergenza, Boll. Uno Mat. ltal. 5 (1977),
213-220.
[152] Greve, G., General construction of monoidal c10sed structures in topological,

uniform and nearness spaces, in Category Theory, Proc. Gummersbach Conf
1981, Springer-Verlag 1982, 100--114.
[153] Grimeisen, G., Gefilterte summation von filtern und iterierte grenzprozesse I,
Math. Ann. 141 (1960), 318-342.
[154] _ _ , Gefilterte summation von filtern und iterierte grenzprozesse 11, Math.
Ann. 144 (1961), 386-417.
[155] _ _ , Zur stufenhebung bei topologischen rumen, Math. Ann. 147 (1962),
223-231.
[156] _ _ , Das produkt topologischer rume in einer theorie der limesrume, Math.
Z. 82 (1963), 361-378.
[157] Hahn, H., Theorie der reellen Funktionen, Berlin 1921.
[158] Hajek, D.W. and Mysior, A., On non-simplicity of topological categories,
Lecture Notes Math. 719 (1979), 84-93.
[159] Harbarth, K., ber die quivalenz verschiedener axiomsysteme fr limesrume,
Math. Nachr. 17 (1959), 261-272.
[160] Harvey, I.M., To-separation in topological categories, Quaest. Math. 2 (1977),
177-190.
[161] Hausdorff, F., Grundzge der Mengenlehre, Verlag von Veit & Comp., Leipzig
1914.
[162] _ _ , Gestufte Rume, Fund. Math. 25 (1935), 486-502.
[163] Hedrlin, Z., Pultr, A. and Trnkova, v., Concerning a categorical approach to
topological and algebraic theories, in Proceedings 2nd Prague TopoI. Symp.,
1966,176-181.
[164] Heldermann, N.C., Aremark on the embedding of RoTop into the category of
nearness spaces, Colloq. Math. 1980,607-623.
[165] _ _ , Coreflections induced by fine functors in topological categories, Quaest.
Math. 5 (1982), 119-133.
[166] Helmberg, G., On convergence c1asses of sets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 13 (1962),
918-92l.
[167] Herrlich, H., E-kompakte rume, Math. Zeitschr. 96 (1967),228-255.
[168] _ _ , Topologische Reflexionen und Coreflexionen, Springer Lect. Notes Math.
vol. 78. Springer Verlag 1968.
[169] _ _ , Categorical topology, Gen. Top. Appl. 1 (1971), 1-15.
[170] _ _ , Cartesian c10sed topological categories, Math. Coll. Univ. Cape Town 9
(1974), 1-16.
[171] _ _ , A concept ofnearness, Gen. Top. Appl. 4 (1974),191-212.
[172] _ _ , Topological functors, General Topology Appl. 4 (1974), 125-142.
[173] _ _ , Topological structures, Math. Centre Tracts Amsterdam 52 (1974), 59-
122.
[174] _ _ , Initial completions, Math. Zeitschrift 150 (1976),101-110.
[175] _ _ , Initial and final completions, Lecture Notes Math. 719 (1979),137-149.
[176] _ _ , Categorical topology 1971-1981, in Proc. Fifth Prague Topoi. Sympos.
1981, Heldermann Verlag 1982,279-383.
[177] _ _ , Are there convenient subcategories of TOP? Topology Appl. 15 (1983),
263-271.
[178] _ _ , Universal topology, in Categorical Topology, Proc. Cont Toledo 1983,

Heldermann Verlag 1984, 223-281.
[179] _ _ , Topologie I: Topologiscke Rume, Heldermann Verlag 1986.
[180] _ _ , Topological improvements of categories of structured sets, Topology
Appl. 27 (1987),145-155.
[181] _ _ , Hereditary topological constructs, in General topology and its relations
to modem analysis and algebra VI, Heldermann Verlag 1988, 249-262.
[182] _ _ , On the representability of partial morphisms in Top and in related
constructs, Lecture Notes Matk. 1348 (1988), 144-153.
[183] Herrlich, H. and Binz, E. (eds.), Categorical Topology, vol. 540, Lecture Notes
Matk. Springer Verlag 1975.
[184] Herrlich, H. and Husek, M., Categorical topology, in Recent Progress in General
Topology. Elsevier Publishing Co. 1992.369-403.
[185] _ _ Some open categorical problems in TOP. Applied Categ. Struct. 1
(1993). 1-19.
[186] Herrlich. H . Lowen-Colebunders. E. and Schwarz. F.. Improving Top: PrTop
and PsTop. in Category Theory at Work. Heldermann Verlag 1991,21-34.
[187] Herrlich. H. and Nel, L.D . Cartesian closed topological hulls. Proc. Amer. Matk.
Soc. 62 (1977), 215-222.
[188] Herrlich. H. and Pietro. C. (eds.). The Complete Work 0/ Graciela Salicrup.
Sociedad Matematica Mexicana 1988.
[189] Herrlich. H. and Preu. G. (eds.). Categorical Topology. vol. 719. Lecture Notes
Matk. Springer Verlag 1979.
[190] Herrlich. H. and Rajagopalan. M . The quasicategory of quasispaces is
illegitimate. Ann. 0/ Matk. 40 (1983), 364-366.
[191] Herrlich. H . Salicrup, G. and Vazquez, R., Light factorization structures,
Quaest. Math. 3 (1979). 189-213.
[192] Herrlich, H. and Strecker, G.E., Coreflective subcategories, Trans. Amer. Matk.
Soc. 157 (1971). 205-226.
[193] _ _ Coreflective subcategories in general topology. Fund. Matk. 73 (1972).
199-218.
[194] Herrlich, H. and Zhang, D . Categorical properties ofprobabilistic convergence
spaces, Applied Categ. Struct. 6 (1998). 495-513.
[195] Herrmann, R.A., A nonstandard approach to pseudotopological compactifica-
tions. Notices Amer. Matk. Soc. 26 (1979), A121.
[196] Hoffmann, R.-E . Die kategorielle Auffassung der Initial- und Finaltopologie.
Ph.D. thesis, Universitt Bochum. 1972.
[197] _ _ (~ .M)-universally topological functors, Habilitationsschrift. University
of Dsseldorf 1974.
[198] _ _ Topological functors and factorization, Arck. Matk. 26 (1975). 1-7.
[199] _ _ Note on universal topological completions. Cakiers Top. Geom. DijJ.
Categ. 20 (1979).199-216.
[200] Hogbe-Nlend. H., Theorie des bomologies. vol. 213. Lecture Notes in Matk.
Springer Verlag 1971.
[201] Hong, S.S . Limit operators and reflective subcategories. Lecture Notes Matk.
378 (1974), 219-227.
[202] Hong, Y.H., On initially structured functors, J. Korean Math. Soc. 14 (1978),
159-165.
[203] Hunsaker, W.H. and Sharma, P.L., Proximity spaces and topological functors,
[204] Husek, M., Generalized proximity and uniform spaces I, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolinae 5 (1964), 247-266.
[205] _ _ , Generalized proximity and uniform spaces 11, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolinae 6 (1964), 119-139.
[206] _ _ , S-categories, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 5 (1964), 37-46.
[207] _ _ , Categoricalmethods in topology, inProc. Symp. Gen. Top. Appl. Prague,
1966, 190-194.
[208] _ _ , Remarks on reflections, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 7 (1966),
249-259.
[209] _ _ , Categorial connections between generalized proximity spaces and com-
pactifications, in Proceedings Symposium Berlin 1967 on Extension Theory of
Topological Structures, 1967, 127-132.
[210] _ _ , Construction of special functors and its applications, Comment. Math.
Univ. CaroUnae 8 (1967), 555-566.
[211] _ _ , Lattices of reflections and coreflections in continuous structures, Lect.
Notes Math., Springer 540 (1976), 404-424.
[212] _ _ , History and development of Hausdorff's work in extension in metric
spaces, Recent Development ofGen. Top. and its Appl., Intern. Con! in memory
ofF. Hausdorff(J868-1942}, BerUn 1992, Akademie Verlag 1992, 160-169.
[213] Husek, M. and Pumpln, D., Disconnectedness, Quaest. Math. 13 (1990), 449-
459.
[214] Husek, M. and Tozzi, A., Generalized reflective cum coreflective classes in Top
and Unif, Applied Categ. Struct. 4 (1996), 57-68.
[215] Isbell, J.R., Some remarks conceming categories and subspaces, Canad. 1. Math.
9 (1957), 563-577.
[216] _ _ , Uniform Spaces, AMS Providence, RI, 1964.
[217] Ivanova, V.M. and Ivanov, A.A., Contiguity spaces and bicompact extensions,
Isvestia Akad. Nauk. SSSR 23 (1959), 613-634.
[218] Kannan, V., Reflexive cum coreflexive subcategories in topology, Math. Ann.
195 (1972), 1972.
[219] Katetov, M., Measures in fully normal spaces, Fund. Math. 38 (1951), 73-84.
[220] _ _ , On real-valued functions in topological spaces, Fund. Math. 38 (1951),
85-91.
[221] _ _ , On two results from general topology (Czech), Cas. pest. mat. 82 (1957),
367.
[222] _ _ , ber die Berhrungsrume, Wiss. Zeitschrift Humboldt Univ. Berlin,
Math. Reihe 9 (1959), 685-691.
[223] _ _ , Allgemeine Stetigkeits strukturen, in Proc. Int. Congr. Math. Stockholm,
1963,473-479.
[224] _ _ , On continuity structures and spaces ofmappings, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolinae 6 (1965), 257-278.
[225] _ _ , Convergence structures, in General Topology and its Relations to Mod-

em Analysis and Algebra II, Proceedings of the 2nd Prague TopoI. Sympos.
1966, Academic Press 1967, 207-216.
[226] Keller, H., Rume stetiger multilinearer Abbildungen als Limesrume, Math.
Ann. 159 (1965),259-270.
[227] _ _ , Die Limes-uniformisierbarkeit der Limesrame, Math. Ann. 176 (1968),
334-341.
[228] _ _ , Differential calculus in 10caUy convex spaces vol. 417, Lecture Notes
Math. Springer Verlag 1974.
[229] Kennison, J.F., Reftective functors in general topology and elsewhere, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 118 (1965), 303-315.
[230] Kent, D.C., Convergence functions and their related topologies, Fund. Math. 54
(1964), 125-133.
[231] _ _ , On the order topology in a lattice, Illinois J. Math. 10 (1966), 588-590.
[232] _ _ , Convergence quotient maps, Fund. Math. 65 (1969),187-205.
[233] Kent, D.C. and Richardson, O.D., Compactifications of convergence spaces,
Intern. 1. Math. Math. Sei. 2 (1979), 345-368.
[234] Khrennikov, AU., Some applications of Keller's convergence structure to the
nonlinear functional analysis, Proc. Int. Cont Convergence Structures and
Applic. II, 1983, 113-117.
[235] Kowalsky, H.J., Beitrge zur topologischen algebra, Math. Nachrichten 11
(1954), 143-185.
[236] _ _ , Limesrume und Komplettierung, Math. Nachrichten 12 (1954), 301-
340.
[237] _ _ , Topologische Rume, Birkhuser Verlag 1961.
[238] Kriegl, A, A cartesian closed extension of the category of smooth Banach
spaces, Heldermann Verlag 1984, 323-336.
[239] _ _ , Eine kartesisch abgeschlossene Kategorie glatter Abbildungen zwischen
beliebigen lokalkonvexen Vektorrumen, Monatsh. Math. 95 (1983), 287-309.
[240] Kucera, L. and Pultr, A, On a mechanism of defining morphisms in concrete
categories, Cahiers Top. Geom. DijJ. Categ. 13 (1972), 397-410.
[241] Kumar, Vinod, On the largest Hausdorff compactification of a Hausdorff
convergence space, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 16 (1977), 189-197.
[242] Kuratowski, C., Sur l'operation A de l'analysis situs, Fund. Math. 3 (1922),
182-199.
[243] _ _ , Topologie, Warsaw 1933.
[244] Lee, R., The category of uniform convergence spaces is cartesian closed, Bull.
Austral. Math. Soc. 15 (1976), 461-465.
[245] Rosalyn Lee, S, Function Spaces in the Category of Uniform Convergence
Spaces, Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon 1978.
[246] Lee, S.J. and Nel, L.D., Foundational isomorphisms in continuous differentia-
tion theory, Applied Categ. Struct. 6 (1998), 127-135.
[247J Lord, H., Facorizations and Disconnectedness, Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1992,
197-202.
[248] _ _ , Factorization, diagonal separation and disconnectedness, Topology Appl.
47 (1992), 83-96.
TOPOLOGICAL CONSmUCTS 1021
[249] Lowen, E. and Lowen, R, A quasitopos containing CONV and MET as full
subcategories, Intern. J Math. Math. Sei. 11 (1988),417-438.
[250] _ _ , Topological quasitopos hulls of categories containing topological and
metric objects, Cahiers Top. Geom. Dijf. Categ. 30 (1989), 213-228.
[251] Lowen, E., Lowen, R. and Verbeeck, c., Exponential objects in the construct
PRAP, Cahiers Top. Geom. Dijf. Categ. 38 (1997), 259-276.
[252] Lowen, R, Kuratowski's measure of noncompactness revisited, Quarterly J.
Math. Ox/ord 39 (1988), 235-254.
[253] Lowen, R, Approach Spaces: a common supercategory of TOP and MET,
Math. Nachrichten 141 (1989), 183-226.
[254] _ _ , Cantor-connectedness revisited, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 33
(1992),525-532.
[255] _ _ , Approach Spaces: the Missing Link in the Topology-UniJormity-Metric
Triad, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford University Press 1997.
[256] Lowen, R and Robeys, K., Compactifications of products of metric spaces and
their relation to Smirnov and Cech-Stone compactifications, Topology Appl. SS
(1994), 163-183.
[257] Lowen,R and Sioen, M., A smaIl note on separation in AP. to appear.
[258] Lowen-Colebunders, E., Uniformizable Cauchy spaces, Intern. J. Math. Math.
Sei. 5 (1982), 513-527.
[259] _ _ , Function Classes 0/ Cauchy Continuous Maps, Marcel Dekker, New
York 1989.
[260] Lowen-Colebunders, E., Lowen, R and Nauwelaerts, M., The cartesian c10sed
hull of the category of approach spaces, Cahiers. Top. G60m. Diff. Categ., to
appear.
[261] Lowen-Colebunders, E. and Sonck, G., Exponential objects and cartesian
c10sedness in the construct Prtop, Applied Categ. Struct. 1 (1993), 345-360.
[262] _ _ , On the largest coreflective cartesian c10sed subconstruct of Prtop,
Applied Categ. Struct. 4 (1996), 69-79.
[263] Machado, A., Espaces d' Antoine et pseudo-topologies, Cahiers Top. Geom.
Dijf. Categ. 14 (1973), 309-327.
[264] Malan, S.W., Relational structures, Ph.D. thesis, Rand Afrikaans Univ. Johan-
nesburg 1976.
[265] Marinescu, G., Topologische und pseudotopologische Vektorrume, Ed. Acad.
Rep. Pop. Romine 1959.
[266] _ _ , Espaces Vectoriels Pseudotopologiques et Theorie des Distributions,
Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften 1963.
[267] Marny, T., On epireflective subcategories of topological categories, Topology
Appl. 10 (1970),175-181.
[268] _ _ , Rechts-Bikategoriestrukturen in toplogischen Kategorien, Ph.D. thesis,
Free University Berlin, 1973.
[269] _ _ , Limit-metrizability of limit spaces and uniform limit spaces, Lecture
Notes Math. 719 (1979), 234-242.
[270] Mathews, J.C. and Anderson, RE, A comparison of two modes of order
convergence, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (1967), 100-104.
[271] Menu, J. and Pultr, A., On categories determined by Poset- and Set-valued
functors, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 15 (1974), 665-678.
[272] _ _ , Simply (co)reflective subcategories of the categories determined by
Poset-valued functors, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 16 (1975),161-172.
[273] Min, K.C. and Nel, L.D., Newton's method and Frobenius-Dieudonne theorem
in nennormable analysis, Applied Categ. Struet. 5 (1997),205-216.
[274] Monadi, A. and Nel, L.D., Holomorphy in convergence spaces, Applied Categ.
Struct. 1 (1993), 233-245.
[275] Moore, E.H. and Smith, H.L., A general theory of limits, Amer. J. Math. 44
(1922), 102-121.
[276] Mr6wka, S., On the convergence of nets of sets, Fund. Math. 45 (1958), 237-
246.
[277] Mrowka, S. and Pervin, W. On uniform connectedness, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
15 (1964), 446-449.
[278] Mller, B., Uber den c-Dual eines Limesvektorrumes, Ph.D. thesis, University
of Mannheim 1972.
[279] _ _ , Dualittstheorie fr vektorunderverbnde von ~c (x), Math. Nachrichten
69 (1975), 273-284.
[280] Mller, G., Allgemeine Konvergenzbegriffe im topologischen Vereinen und
Verbnden, Math. Ann. 139 (1959), 76-86.
[281] Mulvey, C., A categorical characterization of compactness, J. London Math.
Soc. 17 (1978), 429-436.
[282] Krishna Murti, S.B., A set ofaxioms for topological algebra, J. Indian Math.
Soc. 4 (1940), 116-119.
[283] Naimpally, S.A. and Warrack, B.D., Proximity spaces, Cambridge University
Press 1970.
[284] Nakagawa, R., Natural relations, separations and connections, Questions
Answers Gen. Topoi. 3 (1985), 28-46.
[285] _ _ , Categorical topology. In K. Morita and J. Nagata: (eds.), Topics in
General Topology, North Holland 1989, 563-623.
[286] Nauwelaerts, M., Cartesian closed hull of (quasi-)metric spaces revisited, to
appear.
[287] Nel, L.D., Initially structured categories and cartesian closedness, Canadian J.
Math. 27 (1975), 1361-1377.
[288] _ _ , Cartesian closed topological categories, Lecture Notes Math. 540 (1976),
439-451.
[289] _ _ , Cartesian closed coreflective hulls, Quaest. Math. 2 (1977), 269-283.
[290] _ _ , Topological universes and smooth Gelfand-Naimark duality, Contem-
porary Math. 30 (1984), 244-276.
[291] _ _ , Infinite dimensional calculus allowing nonconvex domains with empty
interior, Monatsh. Math. 110 (1990), 145-166.
[292] _ _ , Introduction to categorical methods I and II, Carleton-Ottawa Mathe-
matical Lecture Notes Series 11, Carleton University 1991.
[293] _ _ , Introduction to categorical methods III, Carleton-Ottawa Mathematical
Lecture Notes Series 12, Carleton University 1991.
[294] _ _ , Differential calculus founded on an isomorphism, Applied Categ. Struct.

1 (1993), 51-57.
[295] Ordman, E.T., Convergence almost everywhere is not topological, Amer. Math.
Monthly 73 (1966), 1966.
[296] Penon, J., Quasi-topos, C. R. Acad. Sei. Paris, Sero A 276 (1973), 237-240.
[297] _ _ , Sur les quasi-topos, Cahiers Top. Geom. DifJ. Categ. 18 (1977),181-218.
[298] Poppe, H., Stetige Konvergenz und der Satz von Ascoli und Arzela, Math.
Nachrichten 30 (1965), 87-122.
[299] _ _ , Compactness in general function spaces, Deutscher Verlag der Wis-
senschaften, Berlin 1974.
[300] Porst, H.-E., Characterizations of MacNeille completions and topological
functors, Bulletin Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (1978), 201-210.
[301] Preu, G., Trennung und Zusammenhang, Monatshefte fr Mathematik 74
(1970),70-87.
[302] _ _ , Allgemeine Topologie, Hochschultext, Springer-Verlag 1972.
[303] _ _ , Relative connectednesses and disconnectednesses in topological cate-
gories, Quaest. Math. 2 (1977), 297-306.
[304] _ _ , Connection properties in topological categories and related topics,
Lecture Notes Math. 719 (1979), 293-307.
[305] _ _ , Connectednesses and disconnectednesses in S-near, in Categorical As-
pects ojTopology and Analysis, Proc. Ottawa Conf 1980, Springer-Verlag 1982,
275-292.
[306] _ _ , Theory ojTopological Structures. Reidel, Dordrecht 1988.
[307] _ _ , Point Separation Axioms, Monotopological Categories and MacNeille
Completions, Heldermann Verlag Berlin 1991,47-55.
[308] _ _ , Semiuiform limit spaces and semi-Cauchy spaces, in G. Preu W. Gh-
ler, H. Herrlich (eds.), Recent Developments oj General Topology and its
Applications, Akademie Verlag 1992,268-278.
[309] Puhr, A., On full embeddings of concrete categories with respect to forgetful
functors, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 9 (1968), 281-305.
[310] Puhr, A. and Tozzi, A., Separation axioms and frame representations of some
topological facts, Applied Categ. Struct. 2 (1994), 107-118.
[311] Ramaley, J.F. and Wyler, 0., Cauchy spaces: regular completions and compact-
ifications, Math. Ann. 187 (1970), 187-199.
[312] _ _ , Cauchy spaces: structure and uniformization theorems, Math. Ann. 187
(1970), 175-186.
[313] Rao, C.J.M., On smallest compactification for convergence spaces, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 44 (1974), 225-230.
[314] _ _ , On largest Hausdorff compactification for convergence spaces, Bull.
Austral. Math. Soc. 12 (1975), 73-79.
[315] Rennie, B.C., Lattices, Proc. Lond. Math, Soc. 52 (1951), 386-400.
[316] Richardson, G.D., A stone-eech compactification for limit spaces, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 25 (1970), 403-404.
[317] Richardson, G.D. and Kent, D.C., Regular compactifications of convergence
spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 31 (1972), 571-573.
[318] Richter, G., More on exponential objects in categories ofpretopological spaces,

Applied Categ. Struct. 5 (1997),309-319.
[319] Riesz, F., Die Genesis des Raumbegriffs, Math. Naturwiss. Berichte Ungarn 24
(1906), 309-353.
[320] _ _ , Stetigkeitsbegriff und abstrakte Mengenlehre, Atti dei IV Congresso
Intern. Matem., Roma 1908, 11, Roma 1909, 18-24.
[321] Roberts, J.E., A characterization of initial functors, J. Algebra 8 (1968), 181-
193.
[322] Robertson, W., Convergence as a nearness concept, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Ottawa at Carleton, 1975.
[323] Rosicky, J., Model theoretic approach to topological functors I, 6th Winter
School Abstract Anal.
[324] _ _ , Model theoretic approach to topological functors 11, 7th Winter School
Abstract Anal.
[325] Rosinger, E., Pseudotopological structures, Acad. R. P. Romine Stud. Cerc. Mat.
14 (1963),223-251. Romanian, Russian and French summaries.
[326] Salicrup, G. and Vazquez, R., Categorias de conexion, Anales d'lnstituto de
Mathematicas, 12 (1972), 47-87. English translation in "The Complete Work
of Graciela Salicrup", edited by H. Herrlich and C. Prieto, Sociedad Matematica
Mexicana, 1988.
[327] _ _ , Connection and disconnection, Lecture Notes Math. 719 (1978), 326-
244.
[328] Schroder, M., Continuous convergence in a Gelfand theory for topological
algebras, Ph.D. thesis, Queen's University Kingston, 1971.
[329] _ _ , Solid convergence spaces, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 8 (1973), 443-459.
[330] Schwarz, F., Cartesian closedness, exponentiality, and final hulls in pseudotopo-
logical spaces, Quaest. Math. 5 (1982), 289-304.
[331] _ _ , Exponential objects in categories of (pre)topological spaces and their
natural function spaces. C. R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sei. Canada, IV, 6 (1982),
321-326.
[332] _ _ , Powers and exponential objects in initially structured categories and
applications to categories of limit spaces, Quaest. Math. 6 (1983), 227-254.
[333] _ _ , Hereditary topological categories and topological universes, Quaest.
Math. 10 (1986), 197-216.
[334] _ _ , Description of the topological universe hull, Lect. Notes in Comp. Sci.
393 (1989), 325-332.
[335] Schwarz, F. and Weck, S., Internal description of hulls: a unifying approach, in
Category theory at work. Heldermann Verlag 1991.
[336] Schwarz, F. and Weck-Schwarz, S., On hereditary and product-stable quotient
maps, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 33 (1992), 345-352.
[337] Seip, u., Differential calculus and cartesian closedness, in Categorical Topol-
ogy, vol. 540, Lecture Notes Math., Springer Verlag 1975,578-604.
[338] Semadeni, Z., Projectivity, injectivity and duality, Rozprawy Mat., 1963, p. 35.
[339] Smirnov, J.M., On proximity spaces in the sense ofV. A. Efremovic (Russian).
Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 84 (1952a), 895-898.
[340] _ _ , On proximity spaces (Russian), Mat. Sb. 31 (1952b), 543-574.
[341] _ _ , On completeness of proximity spaces (Russian), Doklady Akad. Nauk

SSSR 88 (1953a), 761-764.
[342] _ _ , On completeness of of uniform and proximity spaces (Russian), Doklady
Akad. Nauk SSSR 91 (1953b), 1281-1284.
[343] _ _ , On completeness of proximity spaces (Russian), Trudy Mosk. Mat.
Obscestva 3 (1954), 271-306.
[344] _ _ , On completeness of proximity spaces, 11 (Russian), Trudy Mosk. Mat.
Obscestva 4 (1955), 421-438.
[345] Sonner, H., Die Polaritt zwischen topologischen rumen und limesrume, Ann.
of Math. 4 (1953), 461-469.
[346] Sonner, J., Canonical categories, in Proc. Conf La Jolla 1965 on Categorical
Algebra, 1965,272-294.
[347] Spanier, E., Quasi-topologies, Duke Math. J 30 (1963), 1-14.
[348] Steenrod, N.E., A convenient category of topological spaces, Michigan Math.
J 14 (1967), 133-152.
[349] Strecker, G.E., On cartesian closed topological hulls, in Categorical Topology,
Heldermann Verlag 1984.
[350] Szymanski, P., La notion des ensembles separes comme terme primitif de la
topologie, Math. Timisoara 17 (1941), 65-84.
[351] Taylor, J.c., Weak families of maps, Canad. Math. Bull. 8 (1965), 771-781.
[352] Tholen, W, Reftective subcategories, Topology Appl. 27 (1987), 201-212.
[353] Titcomb, T., Fibers ofrelatively topologicalfunctors, Ph.D. thesis, Kansas State
University, 1980.
[354] Tozzi, A. and Wyler, 0., On categories of supertopological spaces, Acta Univ.
Carolinae Math. et Phys. 28 (1987), 137-149.
[355] Urysohn, P., ber die Mchtigkeit der zusammenhngenden mengen, Math.
Ann. 94 (1925), 309-315.
[356] _ _ , Zum metrisationproblem, Math. Ann. 94 (1925), 262-295.
[357] _ _ , Sur les classes L de M. Frechet, Ens. Math. 25 (1926), 77-83.
[358] Vaino, R, On Connectedness in Limit Space Theory, Akademie Verlag Berlin
1984, 227-232.
[359] Vilfmovsky, J., Generations of coreftections in categories, Comment. Math.
Univ. Carolinae, 14 (1973), 305-323.
[360] Vogt, RM., Convenient categories of topological spaces for homotopy theory,
Archiv Math. 22 (1971), 545-555.
[361] Wagner, E., On the convergence structure ofMikusinski operators, Studia Math.
27 (1966), 39-48.
[362] Wallace, A.D., Separation spaces, Annals of Math. 42 (1942), 687-697.
[363] Ward, A.J., On relations between certain intrinsic topologies in partially ordered
sets, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 51 (1955),254-261.
[364] Weck-Schwarz, S., Cartesian closed topological and monotopological hulls: A
comparison, Topology Appl. 38 (1991), 263-274.
[365] _ _ , To-objects and separated objects in topological categories, Quaest.
Math. 14 (1991), 315-325.
[366] Weil, A., Les recouvrements des espaces topologiques: espaces complets,
espaces bicompacts. Compt. Rendus Acad. Sei. Paris 202 (1936), 1002-1005.
[367] _ _ , Sur les espaces a structure unifonne et sur la topologie generale, Actual.
Sei. Ind., 1937, p. 551.
[368] Wischnewsky, M.B., Initialkategorien, Ph.D. thesis, University of Munchen,
1972.
[369] _ _ , Aspects of universal algebra in initialstructure categories, Cahiers Top.
Geom. Diff. Categ. 14 (1974), 1-27.
[370] Wloka, J., Limesrurne und distributionen, Math. Ann. 152 (1963), 351~09.
[371] Wolff, H., On the external characterization oftopological functors, Manuscripta
Math. 22 (1977), 63-76.
[372] Wyler, 0., The Stone-Cech cornpactification for limit spaces, Notices Amer.
Math. Soc. 15 (1968), 169.
[373] _ _ , On the categories of general topology and topological algebra, Arch.
Math. 22 (1971), 7-17.
[374] _ _ , Top categories and categorical topology, General Topology Appl. 1
(1971), 17-28.
[375] _ _ , Are there topoi in topology? in Categorical Topology, E. Binz and
H. Herrlich (eds.), Springer Verlag 1976,699-719.
[376] _ _ , Function spaces in topological categories, Lecture Notes Math. 719
(1979), 411~20.
[377] _ _ , On convergence of filters and ultrafilters to subsets, in Categorical meth-
ods in computer seience, H. Ehrig, H. Herrlich, H.J. Kreowski, and G. Preu
(eds.), Springer Verlag 1989, 340-350.
[378] _ _ , Lecture Notes on Topoi and Quasitopoi, World Scientific 1991.
TOPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS
MICHAEL G. TKACHENKO
Universidad Aut6noma Metropolitana
Mexico
Contents
0.1 Introduction and notation ................................. 1029

1 Basic Properties of Topological Groups. Principal Operations ............ 1030
1.1 Axioms of separation. Pseudonorms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1031
1.2 Metrizability of topological groups.
Convergence properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1034
1.3 Subgroups and quotient groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1036
1.4 Locally compact groups. Connectedness
and zero-dimensionality .................................. 1041
1.5 Cartesian products ....................................... 1044
1.6 Complete topological groups.
Completions ............................................ 1050
1.7 Semidirect product of topological groups .................... 1057
2 Locally Compact Topological Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1059
2.1 Structure of locally compact groups
and Hilbert's fifth problem ................................ 1059
2.2 Haar measure and representations
of locally compact groups ................................ 1061
2.3 Pontryagin-van Kampen duality theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1063
2.4 Classes oflocally compact groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1066
2.5 Spaces and lattices of closed subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1069
3 Classes of Topological Groups. Embeddings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1070
3.1 Metrizable groups and their products ....................... 1071
3.2 Groups of countable pseudocharacter ....................... 1073
3.3 The construction of Hartman and Mycielski ................. 1074
3.4 Universal groups ........................................ 1075
4 Cardinal Invariants of Topological Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1077
4.1 Basic inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1077
4.2 Cardinal inequalities for compact and locally compact groups .. 1083
4.3 Dyadicity of subsets of topological groups .................. 1086
1027
c. E. Aull anti R. Lcwen (eds.), Handbook ofthe History ofGeneral Topology, Volume 3, 1027-1144.
1028 MICHAEL G. TKACHENKO
5 Free Topological Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1091

5.1 Definition and basic properties ............................ 1092
5.2 Direct limit property and completeness ..................... 1094
5.3 Special properties of free groups ........................... 1098
5.4 Subgroups of free topological groups ....................... 1101
5.5 M-equivalent spaces ..................................... 1103
5.6 Free topological groups relative to classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1108
6 Dimension Theory of Topological Groups .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1109
6.1 Coincidence of dimensions for locally compact and pseudocom-
pact groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1110
6.2 Groups with non-coinciding dimensions.
Special classes oftopological groups .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1112
6.3 Embeddings into topological groups
preserving dimension .................................... 1115
6.4 Dimensions of free topological groups ...................... 1116
7 Miscellaneous.................................................... 1118
7.1 Minimal and totally minimal groups ........................ 1118
7.2 Continuity of algebraic operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1119
7.3 R-factorizable groups .................................... 1120
7.4 Resolvable groups ....................................... 1121
7.5 Suitable sets for topological groups ........................ 1122
TOPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS 1029
0.1. INTRODUCTION AND NOTATION
Our aim is to give a relatively concise description of the state-of-the-art in

the theory of topological groups up to the moment. The paper we present is
addressed primarily to the General Topology-inclined reader, and this partly
explains the choice of the title. The second reason for speaking of topological
features of topological groups is that we focus oUf attention on topological
ideas and methods in the area and almost completely omit the very rich and
profound algebraic part of the theory of locally compact groups (except for a
brief discussion in Sections 2.4 and 2.5). Neither do we have any intention of
presenting material concerning the representation theory of (locally) compact
groups - the book [We4] by Weil and Section 5 of [Pon4] by Pontryagin are
recommended in this respect.
The theory of topological groups arose as an attempt to join two branches of
mathematics: Group Theory and Topology. This unification was the result of a
strong influence of Lie groups and various kinds of transformation groups. The
basic notion of this theory, a topologieal group, is an abstract group endowed
with a topology which makes the multiplication and inverse operations con-
tinuous. In the early thirties of the 20th century, the mathematical community
had accepted the concept of a topological group and the first expositions of the
subject appeared in [Haa], [Pon2], [FreI], [WeIl
The generality of the concept of a topological group made it applicable in
almost all parts of mathematics, from functional analysis to computer science. It
is not surprising that the second chapter ofthe bookAbstraet Harmonie Analysis
I by Hewitt and Ross [HR] was devoted to the general theory of topological
groups. This still serves as an excellent introduction to the subject. Another
useful source of information on topological groups is the book Continuous
Groups by Pontryagin [Pon4], especially Chapter III. The reader who wishes
to leam more about locally compact topological groups is warmly advised to
read Chapters X-XII of Halmos' book Measure Theory [Hal] which contain a
nice, self-contained proof of the existence and uniqueness of the Haar measure
on a locally compact group. An exposition of Pontryagin-van Kampen duality
theory on a topological basis, which does not depend on the Peter-Weyl theorem
on representations of compact groups, is given by Dikranjan, Stoyanov and
Prodanov in [DPS]. The book also contains rich material on minimal topological
groups, inc1uding a complete proof of the fact that every minimal Abelian group
is totally bounded.
By no means do we pretend to give an exhaustive survey on topological
groups, this would triple the length of the artic1e. Instead, we have selected
several topics and we try to present the most significant results in each of them
from the very beginning up to now. It was not possible to find out the authorship
of each result we refer to; we apologize for any possible errors and omissions.
The reader will find interesting eomplementary material on topologieal

groups and open problems in the survey articles [Com2], [Com3], [Com4] and
[Com5] by W. Comfort. These expositions give a good idea of what topolog-
ieal group theory is about and how all this works; the stress there is plaeed
on ideas and proofs appear only oeeasionally. We also wann1y reeommend
Arhangel'skii's artieles [Arh7] and [Arh8] which are more research orientated
and reflect the initial period of topological group studies by a group of mathe-
maticians elose to Arhangel'skii, primarily his (former) students. A useful and
informative source of information on free topological groups from the universal
arrows point ofview is Pestov's artiele [peI7]. Finally, the recent book [HM7]
by Hofmann and Morris provides a systematic development of the theory of
eompact topologie al groups, ineluding subtle algebraic and topological structure
theorems.
This artiele would not have been written without the help of many col-
leagues. I am grateful to W. Comfort, D. Dikranjan, S. Hemandez, O. Okunev,
V. Pestov, R. Wilson, and V. Uspenskij for suggestions and comments. My
special thanks are to Igor Protasov whose notes were used when preparing
Section 2, and to Dmitri Shakhmatov whose unpublished "Universal Preprint"
(or "Comprehensive Guide") I was the first to read and use. I am also grateful
to my students, especially to Yolanda Torres Falc6n, for carefully reading the
manuseript.
Notation. The symbols Z, Q, lR and 'lI' denote, respectively, the integers, ratio-
nals, reals, and the cirele with their usual algebraic operations and topology. As
usual, N is used for non-negative integers. The minimal subgroup of a group G
eontaining a subset A of Gis denoted by (A). The subgroup of G generated by
an element x E Gis (x).
We identify cardinals with the corresponding ordinals, but keep (J) for the first
infinite ordinal and ~o for the first infinite cardinal. The power of the continuum
is denoted by c, so that c = 2~o. The topological terminology we use is standard
and almost coincides with that of Engelking [Eng]. The only difference is that
we denote the tightness and the Lindelf number of aspace X by t(X) and
L(X), respectively.
1. Basic Properties of TopologicaI Groups. Principal Operations
Here we discuss the tools needed for working with topological groups, that is, the
main operations that enable us, on the one hand, to construct more complicated
groups starting with relatively simple ones, and, on the other, to reduce the
study of general groups to simpler ones, decomposing them somehow into a
combination of well-known groups.
By atopologicalgroup, wemean a tripie (G, .,5"), where G is theunderlying

set, the central dot stands for the group multiplication in G and 5" is the topology
on G making continuous both the group multiplication (x, y) t-+ X Y and the
inverse operation x t-+ x-I. The continuity of the group multiplication and the
inverse is equivalent to the condition that the mapping (x, y) t-+ X . y-I of G 2
to G be continuous. This definition of a topological group goes back to F. Leja
[Lej], who expressed the "simple" relation between the group operations and
the group topology in the form we use now. From now on, the words group
topology will always mean a topology compatible with the group operations.
The definition just given says nothing about the axioms of separation the
group topology 5" should satisfy. Thus, every group (G, .) with the indiscrete
topology 5" is a topological group. We assume, however, that the group topolo-
gies satisfy the TI-axiom of separation or, equivalently, that the identity eG of a
topological group (G, ., 5") is c10sed in G. This assumption by no means reduces
the generality of the theory of topological groups, as every experienced reader
knows. On the other hand, we assume no countability axioms for topological
groups. Early researches (see Pontryagin [Pon2], Freudenthal [FreI] and Haar
[Haa]) usually restricted themselves to considering groups with only a countable
base. A. Weil in [We3] and [We4] did some thorough work on purging the theory
of unnecessary countability conditions.
1.1. AXIOMS OF SEPARATION. PSEUDONORMS
It is natural to expect that the compatibility of the group operations and the
topology of a topological group should result in better topological properties of
the underlying space. This is probably the main idea of all specialists working
in the area and having a topologie al bias. The first very simple result justifying
this expectation is that all group topologies are regular [We3], [Da2], [pon4].
Indeed, every topological group G is a homogeneous space due to the fact
that all translations ta : G ~ G defined by ta(x) = a . x for a, x E G, are
homeomorphisms of G. So we have only to verify the regularity of G at the
identity eGo Since eG . eG = eG and the group operations are continuous, for
every open neighborhood U of eG there exists an open neighborhood V of eG
such that V-I = V (V is symmetric) and V . V ~ U. It is c1ear that the open
sets V and V . F are disjoint, where F = G \ U. Thus, the c10sure of V is
contained in U, and hence G is regular at the identity.
Note that we have just used the abbreviation G for a topological group
instead of the rigorous (G, ., 5"). We will always do this in the sequel if it is
c1ear what the group operation and the group topology on Gare. If the group
operation is commutative, we also use the plus sign.
The regularity of topological groups is probably not a very surprising fact.
But it is really surprising that all topological groups are completely regular;
this important result was proved by L. S. Pontryagin (see [We3] or [Pon4])

fairly soon after the regularity of topological groups was established. There are
different (more or less equivalent) ways of deducing this fact, but we believe
the best one makes use of the notion of a pseudonorm on a topological group
introduced by A. A. Markov [Mar2] in 1945.
Let N be a non-negative real-valued function on a group G with identity eGo
We say that N is a pseudonorm on G if it satisfies the following three conditions,
for all x, y E G:
1. N(eG) = 0;
2. N(x- 1 ) = N(x);
3. N(x . y) ~ N(x) + N(y).

In the same artic1e [Mar2], Markov proves the following fundamental result:
Theorem 1.1. Given a sequence tUn : n E N} of open neighborhoods of

identity eG of a topoZogicaZ group G, there exists a continuous pseudonorm N
on G such that
{x E G: N(x) < 2- n } ~ Un foreach nE N.
As a corollary, we obtain the following simplified version of Theorem 1.1:
Corollary 1.2. For every open neighborhood U of the identity eG of a topo-

Zogical group G, there exists a continuous pseudonorm N on G such that
{x E G : N(x) < I} ~ U.
The complete regularity of topological groups is now immediate. Indeed, let

F be a c10sed set in a topological group G, and x E G \ F. Since translations
of G are homeomorphisms, we can assume without loss of generality that x is
the identity eG of G. Consider the open neighborhood U = G \ F of eG and
define a continuous pseudonorm Non G satisfying {x E G : N(x) < I} ~ U.
Then N(x) = N(eG) = 0 and N(y) 2: 1 for each y E F.
The use of continuous pseudonorms on topological groups is very fruitful;
the reader can find numerous applications of them in the literature (see [We3],
[We4], [Gr2], [Gr3], [Ban], [BiMo], [MoNi], [PeI], [pell], [Rai], [Shl], [SiTk],
[Tkl], [Usp3], to mention a few). We mention one more fact here: the topol-
ogy of a topological group G is generated by the family of all Zeft invariant
continuous pseudometrics. Indeed, if N is a continuous pseudonorm on G, then
the function dN on G 2 defined by dN(X, y) =N(x- 1 y) is a continuous
left invariant pseudometric on G, that is, dN(a . x, a . y) = dN(X, y) for
all a, x, y E G. Note that the continuous pseudometric QN on G defined by
y) = N (x . y-l) is right invariant. A construction of left invariant con-

Q N (x,
tinuous pseudometrics on topological groups was given in 1936 by S. Kakutani
[KakI].
The next step in the development of the theory of topological groups is

c10sely related to the problem of whether every topological group is anormal
topological space, quite a natural one if we remember that topological groups
are completely regular. As far as we know, the first "honest" example of a non-
normal topological group was given by M. H. Stone [Sto] in 1948. This group
is ZWj, the Cartesian product of (VI copies of the discrete group of integers Z.
In fact, Stone considered the space NWj, the Cartesian product of (VI copies of
the non-negative integers with discrete topology. However, the spaces N and
Z are obviously homeomorphic, so a simple substitution of N by Z solves the
problem of normality of topological groups in the negative.
It is not easy to prove that ZWj contains two c10sed disjoint subsets Fl and
F2 which cannot be separated by disjoint open neighborhoods; the proof given
by Stone requires the fact that every continuous real-valued function on ZWj
depends on, at most, countably many coordinates. Furthermore, the group ZW\
is quite large, its cardinality is 2Wj . So, are most topological groups normal or
not? Are there "smali" non-normal topological groups?
The reader will probably be satisfied with the following somewhat inexact
answer: there are as many non-normal topological groups as non-normal com-
pletely regular spaces (Pestov [PeI4] embeds the category ofTikhonov spaces as
a subcategory to the category of Hausdorff topological groups, and this explains
the foregoing phrase). The reason for that is certainly not obvious: it turns out
that every completely regular space X can be embedded as a closed subspace
into a corresponding topological group, say F(X). It was A. A. Markov [MarI]
who, in 1941, gave the first construction of such an embedding. The whole con-
struction is quite complicated, the original complete exposition takes about fifty
pages (see [Mar2]). The topological group F(X) corresponding to aspace X
was called by Markov thefree topological group over X. The wordfree appears
in the name of the group F (X) due to the fact that Markov's construction makes
X to be the set of free algebraic generators of the group F(X), so that F(X) is
algebraically a free group over X. In spite of the algebraic "simplicity" of F (X),
the topological nature of this group is fairly complicated and its investigation is
still far from complete. A detailed discussion of free topological groups will be
given in Section 5.
Another surprising result on normality of topological groups was obtained

by Trigos-Arrieta [TrI]: every uncountable Abelian group admits a non-normal
Hausdorff group topology.
1.2. METRIZABILITY OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS.

CONVERGENCEPROPERTffiS
Here we consider the metrization problem for topological groups. It is dear

that every metrizable topological space X is first countable, that is, there is a
countable local base at each point x EX. There are, however, many examples
of non-metrizab1e first countable spaces, for example, the Niemytzki plane or
the Sorgenfrey line. In contrast with the general theory of topological spaces,
the metrization problem has a very natural solution in the dass of topological
groups.
Theorem 1.3. A topological group G is metrizable if and only if it has a

countable base at the identity. Furthermore, every metrizable topological group
admits a left invariant metric.
In fact, the above theorem was proved in 1936 by Kakutani [KakI] and
Birkhoff [Bir] , fifteen years before the Bing-N agata-Smirnov criterion of metriz-
ability of regular topological spaces was obtained. The book [Pon4] by Pontrya-
gin also contains an argument that implies Theorem 1.3. This theorem is based
on Theorem 1.1 and is in fact its easy corollary. Indeed, let {Un : n E N} be
a base of a topological group G at the identity eGo According to Theorem 1.1,
one can define a continuous pseudonorm Non G such that {x E G : N(x) <
2- n } ~ Un for each n E N. It is dear that N(x) > 0 for each x i= eG, and
hence the function d defined by d(x, y) = N(x-1y) for all x, y E Gis a left
invariant metric generating the topology of G.
Another interesting feature of topological groups is that convergence prop-
erties in this dass are significantly better than in general topological spaces.
Every first-countable space X is Fn!chet (that is, if a point x EX belongs to the
dosure of a subset A of X, then x is a limit of a convergent sequence lying in A).
One cannot generalize Theorem 1.3 by showing that a Fn!chet topological group
is metrizable: the b-product K of uncountably many copies of the cirde group
1[' (with the topology induced from the Cartesian product) is a non-metrizable
Fn!chet topological group. The Frechet property of the group K follows from
the general result proved by N. Noble [Nob] in 1970: any b-product of first-
countable spaces is Frechet. It is worth mentioning that the group K is countably
compact but not compact, an observation made by Pontryagin [Pon4] in 1939.
We still have not seen any difference in the convergence properties of topo-
logical spaces on the one side and topological groups on the other. Nyikos
[Nyi] was the first to note that difference. Let us say that X is an cx4-space (or
(4 - FU)-space in the terminology of [Arh5]) if, for every point x E X and
any countable family {Sn: n E N} of sequences converging to x, one can find
a sequence S converging to x which meets infinitely many sequences Sn. Note
that the sequentialfan Sw (obtained as the quotient space ofthe disjoint sum of
a countably infinite family of convergent sequences via identifying limit points
of all these sequences) is normal Frechet, but not an a4-space. Surprisingly,
this is impossible in topological groups: from a result of Nyikos, every Frechet
topological group is an a4 -space.
To formulate another result of Nyikos [Nyi] , let us recall that aspace X
is called sequential if every subset A of X containing the limits of all con-
vergent sequences lying in A is dosed in X. The dass of sequential spaces
is considerably wider than the dass of Frechet spaces, but Nyikos proves that
every sequential topological group with the a4-property is Frechet. Again, an
analogous result is not valid for topological spaces: there exist normal sequential
a4-spaces which are not Frechet, for example the Arens space S2 (see [Are] or
[NST, p. 205]).
Let us turn back to the metrizability of topological groups. Theorem 1.3 is,
without any doubt, a perfect solution to the metrization problem. Surprisingly,
the condition ofbeing first countable in that theorem can be weakened! Aspace
X is called weakly first countable if it is possible to assign to each point x E X
a sequence {B(n, x) : n E N} of subsets of X containing x in such a way that
B(n + 1, x) S; B(n, x) for each n E N, and so that a subset U of X is open
if and only if, for each x E U, there exists n such that B(n, x) S; U. We just
recall here that all first countable spaces, as well as the symmetrizable spaces,
are weakly first countable. (Some additional information on the properties of
weakly first countable spaces can be found in [Siw].) The following unexpected
result also belongs to Nyikos [Nyi].
Theorem 1.4. A weakly first countable topological group is metrizable.
Another interesting generalization of Theorem 1.3 was obtained in 1990

by Arhangel'skii [ArhI2] in the course of a more detailed consideration of
convergence properties in topological groups. It is well known that sequential
spaces are exactly the quotient images of metrizable spaces. As we have seen, the
sequentiality condition is too weak to imply metrizability of topological groups
(even Frechet topological groups need not be metrizable). Arhangel'skii's idea
was to consider the dass of bisequential spaces as a proper subdass of sequential
spaces. One can characterize the bisequential spaces as biquotient images of first
countable spaces [Mic]. A self-contained definition of bisequential spaces is as
folIows. A family cg of nonempty subsets of X is afilter base in X if, for any
A, B E cg, there exists C E cg with C S; A n B. A filter base cg converges
to a point x E X if every neighborhood of x contains some element of cg. A
space X is called bisequential if, for every filter base cg in X and any point
x E n{E : E E cg}, there exists a countable filter base cg;; converging to x such
that E n F =1= 0 whenever E E cg and F E cg;;. It is known [Arh5] that every
bisequential space is Frechet and has the Cl4 -property, but bisequentiality by no
means implies metrizability (even for countable regular spaces). On the other
hand, bisequentiality is stronger than both the Frechet-Urysohn property and
the Cl4-property as the following theorem of [Arh12] shows:
Theorem 1.5. Every bisequential topological group is metrizable.
The reader can find further generalizations of Theorem 1.5 in the article
[NST] by Nogura, Shakhmatov, and Tanaka, where much information about the
relations between various kinds of convergence properties in topological spaces
and groups is given. Two difficult consistency results ab out topological groups
satisfying Cl2 and Cl3 convergence conditions (see [Arh5] for the definition) have
been proved in [Sh8].
1.3. SUBGROUPS AND QUOTIENT GROUPS
One of the most important things in any branch of mathematics is to know how
"new" and complicated objects can be constructed from a few well-known and
simple objects. Here we discuss two (of four or five) main ways of constructing
new topological groups: the operations of taking subgroups and quotient groups.
Given a sub set H of a topological group G, we call H a topological subgroup
of G if H is a subgroup of the group G and carries the topology inherited from
G. Thus, a topological subgroup H of G is not necessarily a closed sub set of G,
but H inherits both the algebraic structure and topology from G. The rationals
Q form a subgroup of the additive group IR of the reals, and if IR has the interval
topology, then the induced topology of Q is also interval. The set Z of integers
is a subgroup of the topological groups IR and Q, and Z inherits the discrete
topology from these groups. Why do the topologies on Z induced by IR and Q
coincide? In fact, the operation of taking a topological subgroup is transitive:
if H is a topological subgroup of a group G and K is a topological subgroup
of H, then the topology of K induced by H coincides with the topology of K
induced direct1y by G. This simple fact is very useful and enables us to use
the word "subgroup" instead of "topological subgroup" if there is no danger
of ambiguity. The fact, to some extent surprising, is that every open subgroup
of a topological group G is closed in G. This result is specific for topological
groups, but one can prove it in a few lines as folIows.
Let H be an open subgroup of G and let x E G be a cluster point of H.
Since H is open, x . H is a neighborhood of x and, hence, the set x . H meets
H. Thus, x . hl = h2 for some hl, h2 E H, whence x = h2 h i l EH.
It is also useful to know how open subgroups of a given group G can arise.
A general way to construct them is to take a symmetric open neighborhood U
of identity in G and consider the union H = U~l U n . An easy verification

shows that H is an open subgroup of G.
All the facts mentioned here appear in almost every more or less complete
source on topological groups written in the thirties (see [Lej], [Dai], [FreI],
[Kami]).
Once the notion of a topological subgroup has been defined, we can formu-
late the following problems.
Problem 1.6. What topologieal properties do subgroups (closed subgroups) of
topologieal groups inherit?
Problem 1.7. For a "good" class<fh of topologieal groups, give an internal

eharaeterization ofthe groups whieh are topologieally isomorphie to subgroups
of the groups in <fh.
The answer to Problem 1.6 is almost always the same as in the general
case of topological spaces: if (dosed) subspaces of completely regular spaces
inherit a topological property c;P, then the same is true for (dosed) subgroups
of topological groups, and vice-versa (the direct implication is trivial, but the
inverse one is less obvious). There are quite a few non-trivial exceptions of this
empirical rule, and some additional conditions on subgroups are needed in those
exceptional cases.
Problem 1.7 is considerably more difficult than Problem 1.6. For example,
there is no satisfactory characterization of subgroups of Lindelf topological
groups (see [Arh8, Problem 14]). On the other hand, subgroups of compact
topological groups were characterized in 1937 by A. Weil [We3] as totally
bounded (or preeompaet) groups, that is, the topological groups which can be
covered by finitely many translates of any neighborhood of the identity. We thus
have the following result.
Theorem 1.8. Every subgroup of a eompaet topologieal group is totally bound-

ed and, eonversely, every totally bounded group is topologieally isomorphie to
a subgroup of a eompaet group.
Let us turn to Problem 1.7. It is easy to see that every subgroup H of a

Lindelf topological group G has the following property:
(*) For any neighborhood U of the identity in H, there exists a countable
set K S;; G such that K . U = G.
Topological groups satisfying (*) were studied by Guran [Gul] within the
context of Problem 1.7. These groups were called 'Ko-bounded. The dass of
'Ko-bounded groups is remarkable in many respects. For example, this dass is
a variety of topological groups (for more details, see Seetion 3.1). However,
there are many 'Ko-bounded groups that cannot be embedded as subgroups into
Lindelf topological groups, one of them is lRW \. This was noted by I. Guran,
cited in [Arh8].
It is wortb mentioning that the subgroups of a-compact groups are exactly
the a-preeompaet groups, that is, topological groups representable as a union of
countably many preeompaet subsets. We call a subset A of a topological group
G preeompaet if, for every neighborhood U of the identity in G, there exists a
finite set K ~ G such that A ~ (K . U) n (U . K). It is also important to note that
the latter c1ass is narrower than the c1ass of subgroups of Lindelf topological
groups (see Section 3.1). Indeed, the a-product H ofuncountably many copies
of the discrete group Z2 endowed with the ~o-box topology considered by
Comfort [ComI] is a Lindelf topological group in which every Gs-subset is
open. Therefore, H is closed in every topological group which contains H as
a topological subgroup. Since H is not a-compact, it cannot be embedded into
any a -compact group. Sections 2 and 3 contain more information about Problem
1.7.
Many interesting problems in the theory of topological groups concern
quotient groups. Given a topological group G and a c10sed normal subgroup H
of G, we consider the (algebraic) quotient group GI H and the corresponding
quotient homomorphism rr: G ~ GI H. The quotient topology in GI H is
defined by dec1aring the homomorphism rr open and continuous. The latter
means that open sets in GI H are exactly the images of open sets in G. One can
easily verify that GI H with the quotient topology is a topological group. The
definition of quotient topological groups goes back to the early thirties (see van
Dantzig [DaI], and also R. Baer and F. Levi [BaLeD. Open homomorphisms
play an important rle in that definition. The following theorem, stated explicitly
by Freudenthal [FreI], c1arifies this rle.
Theorem 1.9. Let rr: G ~ G* be a eontinuous open homomorphism onto a

topologieal group G* with identity e*. Then the kernel H ofthe homomorphism
rr is a closed normal subgroup ofG, and G* is topologieally isomorphie to the
quotient group GIH. This isomorphism ({J is given by theformula ({J(rr(x =
x H, xE G.
The construction of quotient groups naturally raises the following questions.
Problem 1.10. Let (j) be a topologieal property. lf G is a topologieal group

with (j) and H is a closed normal subgroup of G, will the quotient group GI H
have (j)?
Problem 1.11. Let H be a closed normal subgroup of a topologieal group G

and suppose that both Hand GI H have a topologieal property (j). Does the
group G have (j) ?
Let us first discuss results conceming Problem 1.10. Since the quotient
homomorphism 1r: G --+ G / H is open, it is c1ear that the answer to this prob-
lem is affirmative for every property CZJl which is preserved by open continuous
mappings. So, we can immediately conc1ude that the properties ofbeing first (or
second) countable, locally compact, locally connected, sequential, the Frechet
property, and many others are preserved when taking quotient groups. Note that
first countability is equivalent to metrizability for topo10gical groups (Theorem
1.3), so a quotient group of a metrizable topological group is also metrizable. It
is worth mentioning that an open continuous image of a metrizable space need
not be metrizable. This makes the above result particularly interesting.
Problem 1.11 seems more difficult, though some results are immediate.
For example, if anormal subgroup H of G and the quotient group G / H are
separable, then G is also separable. A similar result for connectedness was
proved by Chevalley [Che]. The first non-trivial theorem in this direction is
due to Freudenthal [Fre 1]: If both groups H and G / H are compact, then G is
also compact. A similar assertion for local compactness appeared in the book
of Montgomery and Zippin [MoZ2] twenty years later, though the proof of the
fact was not complicated.
Some efforts are required to show that the answer to Problem 1.11 is
affirmative for metrizability. This was done by Vilenkin [Vii] in 1948 (for
the proof, see Section 10 of [Gr2] or 5.38(e) of [HRD. Furthermore, if H and
G / H are second countable, then G is also second countable. The best way to
deduce this fact is to combine the above preservation results for metrizability
and separability.
One of the latest positive results conceming Problem 1.11 involves pseudo-
compact groups. Aspace X is pseudocompact if every continuous real-valued
function on X is bounded. It is c1ear that a11 compact and countably compact
spaces are pseudocompact, but the c1ass of pseudocompact spaces is consider-
ably wider than both c1asses just mentioned. We shall discuss the properties of
pseudocompact topological groups in Section 1.5, but this is a good place to
mention the following result proved in 1988 by Comfort and Robertson [CRob].
Theorem 1.12. If the groups Hand G / H are hoth pseudocompact, then the
group G is also pseudocompact.
This theorem implies, in particular, that the product of two pseudocompact

topological groups is pseudocompact. The latter remarkable fact was proved
in 1966 by Comfort and Ross [CRos]. It gives us the first topological prop-
erty productive in the c1ass of topological groups which is not productive in
topological spaces, as an example of Novak [Nov] shows. Actually, the result
proved in [CRos] is considerably more general, see Section 1.5 for details.
Several generalizations of Theorem 1.12 and the Comfort-Ross theorem about
the productivity of pseudocompactness in topological groups to junctionally

bounded and C-compact sets were given in [Tk9], [TkIO], [HeSa] and [HST].
After this series of positive results, one might hope that other well-known
properties like a -compactness, being Lindelf or the existence of a countable
network, behave in just the same way with respect to the extension operation.
However, this is not the case. The following elegant construction by Uspenskij
[Usp4] simultaneously destroys these expectations for the three properties. Since
Uspenskij's construction is very short, we reproduce it here.
Example 1.13. There exist an Abelian topological group G and a countable
c10sed subgroup H of G such that the quotient group G / H is topologieally
isomorphie to the group lR, but G contains a c10sed discrete subspace of the
cardinality c.
To start, let T be areal topologieal linear space which is separable and
contains a c10sed discrete subspace of cardinality c. For example, one can take
T to be the set of all upper semicontinuous real-valued functions on the unit
interval [0, 1] endowed with the topology of pointwise convergence. Clearly,
ITI = c. Note that the linear spaces T and R have the same algebraic dimension
cover the field (Q, so they are algebraically isomorphie as Abelian groups. Let
ep: T ~ R be an isomorphism and F = {(x,ep(x) : x E T} ~ T x lR be
the graph of ep. Consider a countable subgroup H of T x {O} ~ T x R which
is dense in T x {O} and put G = H + F. Then G is a dense subgroup of the
topologieal group T x Rand H = G n (T x {On is a countable c10sed subgroup
of G. The quotient group G / H is topologically isomorphic to lR (apply Lemma
1.3 of [Gral]). Since the projection T x lR ~ T maps G onto T, the group G
also contains a c10sed discrete subspace of cardinality c. This implies that the
group G and its c10sed subgroup H are as required.
It is not difficult to verify that if a c10sed subgroup H of a topologie al group
G is second countable and the quotient space G / H has a countable network,
then G also has a countable network. Uspenskij [Usp4] attributes this result to
M. Choban.
Another non-trivial negative result concems almost metrizable topologie al
groups introduced by Pasynkov [pas3]. An easy way to define almost metrizable
groups is to state plainly that they are topological groups containing a non-empty
compact subset of countable character. An equivalent definition: a topologieal
group G is almost metrizable if it contains a compact subgroup K such that the
quotient space G / K is metrizable. It was an open problem [Ch03] whether the
c1ass of almost metrizable groups is c10sed under extensions, that is, whether
the answer to Problem 1.11 is affirmative or not. From a result of Pestov [Pe8],
there exist a topologieal group G and a c10sed metrizable subgroup H of G
such that the quotient group G / H is compact, but G is not almost metrizable.
This gives a strongly negative answer to the problem of [Ch03].
The reader will find many results about quotient groups in Seetions 2-6.
1.4. LOCALLY COMPACT GROUPS. CONNECTEDNESS

AND ZERO-DIMENSIONALITY
A topological group G is called locally compact if there exists a neighborhood

of the identity in G with the compact dosure. The homogeneity of topological
groups implies that every locally compact group is a locally compact space.
The dass of locally compact groups is very large: every group with the dis-
crete topology is obviously locally compact. Nevertheless, local compactness
improves interactions between algebraic and topological properties of groups to
such an extent that locally compact groups are now being studied as aseparate
specific dass of topological groups. The reader will find some information
on locally compact topologie al groups (induding Pontryagin-van Kampen's
duality theory) in Seetion 2. Our aim here is just to present some basic facts
about locally compact groups and mention special features of these groups
related to connectedness and zero-dimensionality.
The first results about loeally compaet groups go back to the early thirties
[Dai], [Da2], [Kaml] , [Pon2]. They were obtained on the way to solving
Hilbert's fifth problem (see Seetion 2.1). One of the main steps was to find
out what the groups with no small subgroups (NSS groups for short) are. Recall
that an NSS group is a topologie al group Gwhich has a neighborhood U of
the identity eG such that (x) \ U =1= 0 for each x E G \ {eG}. We combine two
important results on subgroups of locally compact and compact groups in the
following theorem.
Theorem 1.14. Let G be a locally compact topological group and U be a

dopen neighborhood ofthe identity in G. Then U contains an open subgroup
H ofG.lfthe group G is compact, then U contains an open normal subgroup
HofG.
The above theorem implies that a 10ca1ly compact NSS group does not
contain dopen non-void sets and, hence, is connected. Let G be an arbitrary
locally compact connected group and suppose that U is a symmetrie open
neighborhood of the identity in G. Since H = U~l U n is a dopen subgroup of
G (see Seetion 1.3) and G is connected, we must have H = G. This equality
means that every open neighborhood of the identity generates the group G.
Note that the condusion does not require local compactness of G. On the other
hand, if every open (symmetrie) neighborhood ofthe identity in G generates the
group G, then G is connected. This follows immediately from Theorem 1.14.
The condition of local compactness cannot be omitted: the group Q of rationals
with the interval topology is generated by every open neighborhood of zero, but
Q is not connected.
It is also interesting to note the difference in the conc1usion ofTheorem 1.14
when the group G is compact: an open subgroup H of G contained in a c10pen
neighborhood of the identity can even be chosen to be normal (in the algebraic
sense). Can one prove the same assertion for locally compact (in groups? Making
use of the semidirect product of topological groups, Montgomery and Zippin
[MoZ2] constructed a locally compact zero-dimensional group of countable
weight which has no compact open subgroups. This gives a strongly negative
answer to our question. The term zero-dimensional space will always mean that
the space has a base of c10pen sets.
Let us say that aspace X is hereditarily disconnected if all non-void con-
nected subsets of X are singletons. Every zero-dimensional space is hereditarily
disconnected, but not vice-versa, as an example of Erds shows (see Exam-
pIe 6.2.19 of [Eng]). These notions, however, coincide for Hausdorff locally
compact spaces: every hereditarily disconnected locally compact space is zero-
dimensional (this follows from Corollary 6.2.10 of [Eng]). Summarizing, we
can reformulate Theorem 1.14 as follows:
Theorem 1.15. Every hereditarily disconnected locally compact group has a

base at the identity consisting 0/ open subgroups.
Again, local compactness is essential in Theorem 1.15: the group in Erds 's
example is second countable and hereditarily disconnected, but not zero-dimen-
sional. Several wide c1asses of topological groups in which hereditary discon-
nectedness implies zero-dimensionality were recently found by Dikranjan [Dil],
[Di2]. For example, countably compact groups form such a c1ass.
Let us also mention some facts about the component of a topological group
G, Le., the maximal connected subset of G that contains its identity. First, the
component C of an arbitrary topological group G is a c10sed normal subgroup
of G, the result due to Schreier [Schr]. If the group G is locally compact, then
the component C is the intersection of all open subgroups of G. The quotient
group G / C is hereditarily disconnected for every topological group G, and if
G is locally compact, then G / C is zero-dimensional. The assumption of local
connectedness of Ginthe last result cannot be dropped as Erds's example
shows.
Let us now consider quotients of zero-dimensional topological groups. First,
quotient groups of zero-dimensional groups need not be zero-dimensional. A
relatively simple example of this kind can be obtained by means of the following
slight modification of the construction given by Cartan and Dieudonne [CaDi].
We do not pretend to originality, but the arrangement of details in the example
below seems to be new to some extent.
TOPOLOGICAL FEATIJRES OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS 1043
Example 1.16. The group of reals lR with the usual topology is the quotient
group of a second countable zero-dimensional Abelian topological group.
Indeed, let B = {x a : a < c} be a Harnel base for lR over Q and let Ba =

B \ {xo}, BI = B \ {x}}. Denote by Gi the subgroup of:IR generated by the set
Bi , i = 0, 1. Then Go + GI = lR and the groups Go and GI with the topologies
inherited from lR are zero-dimensional because Go nXI . Q = {O} = GI nxo Q.
Therefore, the product group G = Go X GI is also zero-dimensional. Define
the homomorphism cp: G -+ lR by cp(x, y) = x + y for all x EGO, Y E GI.
It is dear that cp is continuous and cp(G) = IR.. Making use of the fact that the
subgroup oflR generated by B \ {xo, x}} is dense in lR, one can verify that cp is an
open homomorphism. Let H be the kernel of cp. By Theorem 1.9, the quotient
group G / H is topologically isomorphie to the connected group IR..
Clearly, the group G just defined is not locally compact. Hewitt and Ross
(see [HR, 5.40 (t)]) represented the group:IR as a quotient group of a hereditarily
disconnected metrizable group, but this is a bit weaker than Exarnple 1.16 gives.
Suppose now that G is a locally compact zero-dimensional group. By The-
orem 1.15, G has a base at the identity consisting of open compact subgroups.
Since an open homomorphism of G to a topologieal group K takes these sub-
groups to dopen subgroups of K, we get the foIlowing result known from the
mid-thirties:
Theorem 1.17. Let H be a closed normal subgroup of a locally compact zero-

dimensional group G. Then the quotient group G / H is zero-dimensional.
Some work has been done to find other dasses ~ of topological groups with
the property that quotients of zero-dimensional groups from ~ are also zero-
dimensional. It tums out that pseudocompact groups have this property; more
generally, the dass of locally pseudocompact groups is as required [Tkl1]. This
result generalizes Theorem 1.17. The reader will find more details on the subject
in Section 6.
In fact, Exarnple 1.16 is notexceptional: Arhangel'skil [Arh2, p. 139] proved
that every second countable topological group can be represented as a quotient
group of a second-countable zero-dimensional topologieal group. The following
result also proved by Arhangel'skil (see [Arh9] or Section 7 of [Arh8]) shows
even more:
Theorem 1.18. Every topological group is a quotient group of a zero-dimen-

sional topological group.
Thus, the absence of local compactness can produce some fairly strange
effects. The proof ofTheorem 1.18 given in [Arh9] as weIl as its weaker form
for second countable groups are based on the use of free topological groups.
The c1ass of locally compact groups is interesting in many other respects. Let
us mention two more results each of which leads to unexpected generalizations.
It is known that topological groups need not be normal spaces. However, all
locally compact groups are paracompact and, hence, normal. (W. Comfort on
page 1161 of [Com2] attributes this result to E. Michael.) The reason for this is
quite simple: every locally compact group contains an open (J' -compact subgroup
generated by a compact neighborhood of identity. This result was extended to
locally Cech-complete topological groups by Brown [Bro].
The second fact is even simpler: if a subgroup H of a topological group G
is locally compact, then H is c10sed in G. Sometimes the topological groups
c10sed in every "enveloping" topological group are called absolutely closed (see
[Ale]). From the fifties, the groups satisfying this condition have borne the name
eomplete. We shall deal with complete topological groups and completions in
Section 1.6.
The facts presented in this section form a base from which a more profound
study oflocally compact groups starts. Pontryagin-van Kampen's duality theory,
for example, requires some "elementary" results on the structure of finite-
dimensionallocally compact Abelian groups (see Section 2 for details) and
certain (still "elementary") reduction to compact groups. To give the first idea
of the technique elaborated by Pontryagin and van Kampen in the thirties, we
mention one more fact here. Let us say that a topological group G is monothetie
if G contains a dense cyclic subgroup. As far as we know, the following result
should be attributed to Weil [We4].
Theorem 1.19. A loeally eompaet monothetie group is topologieally isomor-

phie to the diserete group 0/ integers Z or is eompaet.
1.5. CARTESIAN PRODUCTS
In Section 1.3 we discussed two ways of constructing "new" topological groups:

taking subgroups and quotient groups. The third main operation is the direct
product of topological groups. Combining the three constructions (with some
modifications), one can obtain almost all examples oftopological groups known
to date.
Let {Ga: a E A} be an arbitrary family of topological groups. Consider
the Cartesian product G = naEA Ga of the groups Ga with coordinatewise
multiplication and the usual product topology whose base consists of open
sets depending on at most finitely many coordinates. The choice of the group
multiplication and topology makes G a topological group which is usually
referred to as the direet produet of the topological groups Ga. This general
construction first appeared in [We4] and since then it has been one of the main
tools in the theory of topological groups. Direct products of a finite number of

factors have been used with ease since the early thirties and Pontryagin [Pon2]
pays special attention to finite and countable direct products.
It can probably be helpful to realize from the very beginning that direct
products make the theory of topological groups somewhat different from the
theory of completely regular spaces. Indeed, every completely regular space X
is homeomorphic to a subspace of the Tikhonov cube rr for a sufficiently big
cardinal rand, hence, X can be topologically embedded into the topological
group 1['t'. However, the naive question of whether every topological group is
topologically isomorphic to a subgroup of 1['t' for some r has the immediate an-
swer 00. The explanation is easy: the group 1['t' is compact and all its subgroups
are totally bounded; this makes it impossible to embed the discrete group of
integers Z into 1['t' as a topological subgroup.
In Sections 1.3 and 1.4, we saw that the presence of local compactness
or pseudocompactness improves many algebraic and topological properties of
topological groups. In particular, different topological properties can coincide
in (some classes of) topological groups. The first attempt to find coinciding
properties in topological groups was probably the question of whether every
countably compact topological group is compact. A counterexample to this
conjecture was given by Pontryagin (see Chapter 3 of [Pon4]), who defined a
special subgroup of an uncountable power of the circle group 1[' known as the
'L.-product. To our knowledge, that was the first time the construction of the
'L.-product appeared.
Recall that a product X = naeA X a of spaces X a is O'-compact (locally
compact) iff all factors are O'-compact (locally compact) and all but finitely
many of them are compact (see Theorem 3.3.13 of [Eng] for the case of local
compactness). In particular, the direct product G = naeA Ga of uncountably
many 0' -compact topological groups is seldom 0' -compact. The product group
G, nevertheless, contains a dense 0' -compact subgroup. The best way to see this
is to consider the subgroup H of G known as the O'-product of the groups Ga.
The subgroup H consists of all elements x of G for which the set supp(x) =
{a E A : 7ra (x) =1= ea } is finite, where 7ra stands for the projection G ~ Ga
and ea is the identity of Ga. It is immediate that H is a subgroup of G and the
density of H in G follows from the definition of the product topology. A standard
argument shows that H with the topology inherited from G is 0' -compact.
Let us mention several simple but frequently used facts about direct products
of topological groups. Suppose that Ha is a (normal) subgroup of Ga for each
a E A. Then the product n aeA Ha is a (normal) subgroup of the product group
G = naeA Ga. A similar fact is valid for products of closed subgroups. If Ca is
the component of Ga, then naeA Ca is the component of G. The following role
is particularly useful: if Ha is a closed normal subgroup of Ga for each a E A
and H = naeA Ha, then the quotient group GIH is topologically isomorphic
to the direct product naeA Gal Ha. All these results appeared in [We4].
The question about normality of topological groups goes back to the mid-
thirties. Again, the direct product operation was used in [Sto] to construct a
non-normal topological group. Let us take, after Stone, all factors equal to the
simplest non-compact group: the discrete group of integers Z. It turns out that
the product group ZWI is not normal (see also Section 1.1). Note that the group
ZWI is separable by the Hewitt-Marczewski-Pondiczery theorem, so a separable
topological group need not be normal.
Another question concems normal separable topological groups. There are
many separable normal spaces which are not Lindelf. For aperiod of time,
however, there was a suspicion that anormal separable topological group had to
be Lindelf. In 1976, Hajnal and Jubasz [HaJu] used the Continuum Hypothesis
(CH) to construct a hereditarily separable, hereditarily normal topological group
which was not Lindelf. Their group was a dense subgroup of the product group
Z(2)Wl, where Z(2) = {O, I} is the discrete two-element group. This result
answered the question negatively, but under CH. Nine years later, in 1985, Hart
and van Mill [HvM2] gave a counterexample in ZFC, without any extra axioms.
Their construction involves free topological groups instead of products.
One of the most interesting and difficult problems conceming direct products
is the (finite) productivity of topological properties in the dass of topological
groups. The main idea is to find topological properties which may fall to be
productive in general, but which, in the presence of the topological group
structure on factors, become productive. We have to confess that the quest for
such properties has not been very fruitful. Up to now, the only known productive
property specific for topological groups is pseudocompactness, a truly amazing
result. The theorem about the productivity of pseudocompactness was proved
by Comfort and Ross in [CRos] almost forty years after the definition of a
topological group had been given. Its formulation (but not its proof) is easy:
Theorem 1.20. A direct product naeA Ga of an arbitrary family of pseudo-

compact topological groups Ga is pseudocompact.
The proof of Theorem 1.20 given in [CRos] is highly interesting. First,

Comfort and Ross show that every pseudocompact topological group is totally
bounded (see Section 1.3). By Theorem 1.8, every totally bounded group G
can be identified by means of a topological isomorphism with a subgroup of
some compact group G. Taking the dosure of the corresponding subgroup,
say Gagain, we can assume that G is dense in G. Then the key step folIows:
the dense subgroup G of the compact group G is pseudocompact if and only
if G intersects all non-empty Gs-sets in G (or briefly, G is ~o-dense in G).
Finally, let {Ga: CX E A} be a family of pseudocompact groups. Then, for every
Ci E A, the group G ex is ~o-dense in the compact topological group Gex Since

the property of being ~o-dense is productive, the group nexEA G ex is ~o-dense
in the compact group nexEA Gex The above characterization ofpseudocompact
groups immediately implies that the group OexEA G ex is pseudocompact.
Several attempts have been made to explain topologically why pseudo-
compactness is productive in topological groups. Probably the first successful
generallzation of Theorem 1.20 to topological spaces is due to Chigogidze
[Chii]:
Theorem 1.21. A product of K-metrizable pseudocompact spaces is pseudo-

compact (and K-metrizable).
The notion of K-metrizability was introduced in 1976 by Scepin in [Scel],

where he proved that every locally compact topological group is K-metrizable
(see also Theorem 19 of [Sce2]) and that dense subsets of K-metrizable spaces
inherit this property. Thus, every tota11y bounded (and, hence, pseudocompact)
topological group G is K-metrizable because such a group can be embedded as
a dense subgroup in the compact topological group G. Summarizing, the result
of Chigogidze implies Theorem 1.20.
To some extent, Chigogidze's approach to the proof of Theorem 1.21 was
similar to that of Comfort and Ross. The main fact proved in [Chil] is that
the Cech-Stone compactification of a pseudocompact K-metrizable space is
also K-metrizable, and then pseudocompactness of the product of K-metrizable
pseudocompact spaces follows if one makes use of the ~o-density argument.
Theorem 1.21 implies (by itself or in combination with other facts) several
results obtained by different authors on the way of generallzing the Comfort-
Ross theorem. To formulate some of them, we consider a family {Gex : Ci E A}
of arbitrary topological groups (the Hausdorff requirement stands).
Proposition 1.22. Let X ex be a subspace of Gex for all Ci E A.
1. lf X ex is pseudocompact and regular-closed in G ex for each Ci E A, then

nexEA X ex is pseudocompact.
2. lf Xex is pseudocompact and a retract of G ex for each Ci E A, then nexEA Xex

is pseudocompact.
3. lf Xex is pseudocompact and a GlJ-subset of G ex for each Ci E A, then

nexEA X ex is pseudocompact.
The first statement ofProposition 1.22 is due to Trigos-Arrieta [Tr2]. To deduce

it, denote by Hex the subgroup of G ex generated by X ex . Then Hex is locally
pseudocompact and, hence, the completion Hex of Hex is a locally compact group.
By a result of Scepin, the group Ha is K-metrizab1e, which in turn implies that

its dense subgroup Ha is also K-metrizable. Finally, the regular-c1osed subspace
X a of Ha inherits this property and Chigogidze's theorem applies.
The second and third statements of the above proposition were proved by
Uspenskij [Uspll]. An important contribution made by Uspenskij was the
fact that the Cech-Stone compactification of either a pseudocompact retract
or a pseudocompact G8-subset of any topological group is a Dugundji com-
pact space. By a result of Scepin [Scel], every Dugundji compact space is
K-metrizable, and again Chigogidze's theorem applies.
The c1ass of K-metrizable spaces, however, has quite a complicated internal
topological characterization, and this fact enforced the search for a distinct
approach to generalizations of the Comfort-Ross theorem. Another idea to
investigate the reason for the productivity of pseudocompactness in topolog-
ical groups was proposed in 1988 by Tkacenko [Tk9]. A "relative" version of
pseudocompactness known asfunctional boundedness was considered. A sub set
Y of aspace X is calledfunctionally bountled in X if every continuous function
/: X --+ IR takes Y to a bounded subset oflR. It is c1ear that a completely regular
space is pseudocompact if and only if it is functionally bounded in itself, so we
can say that pseudocompactness is an "absolute" topological property. >From
the definition it follows that if Y ~ Z ~ X and Z is pseudocompact, then Y
is functionally bounded in X. There are, however, more complicated examples
of functionally bounded subsets: infinite c10sed discrete sub sets of completely
regular spaces can be functionally bounded. A product of two functionally
bounded subsets YI and Y2 of Xl and X2, respectively, need not be functionally
bounded in X I X X 2 similarly to the fact that the product of two pseudocompact
spaces may fail to be pseudocompact. The following result of [Tk9] shows that
this is not the case in topological groups: functional boundedness is "relatively"
productive.
Theorem 1.23. For every a E A, let X a be a functionally bounded subset 0/

a topological group Ga. Then the product naEA X a isfunctionally bounded in
naEA Ga.
To deduce the Comfort-Ross theorem, one can simply take in Theorem 1.23
every X a to be equal to Ga. Furthermore, a topological property oftopological
groups responsible for the productivity of functional boundedness is given in
[Tk9]. It turns out that every topological group has an w-directed lattice of
continuous open mappings onto Dieudonne-complete spaces, and the existence
of such lattices for factors makes the functional boundedness stable under the
product operation. An alternative proof of Theorem 1.23 was given in 1992 by
Husek [Hush] via a factorization of continuous functions defined on subsets of
Cartesian products.
One more relative property productive in topological groups was found by

Hemandez and Sanchis [HeSa] in 1993. Following Buchwalter [Buch], we call a
subset Y of aspace X hyperbounded (or C -compact in the modem terminology)
if the image 1 (Y) is compact for any continuous function 1: X ~ R It
is immediate that a pseudocompact subset of X is hyperbounded in X and
every hyperbounded subset of X is functionally bounded in X (hut not vice-
versa). Hemandez and Sanchis showed that a functionally bounded subset Y
of a topological group G is hyperbounded in G if and only if Y is ~o-dense
in cle Y, where G is the completion of the group G (see Section 1.6). This
characterization of hyperbounded sub sets of topological groups combined with
Theorem 1.23 proves the following result (see [HeSa]):
Theorem 1.24. Let Ya be a hyperbounded subset 01 a topological group Ga 10r

every a E A, where A is an arbitrary index set. Then DaeA Ya is hyperbounded
in DaeA Ga.
The reader can find in [HST] a detailed discussion of relations between

various types of boundedness in spaces and in topological groups as well as
further progress related to Theorems 1.20, 1.23 and 1.24.
Let us turn to non-preservation results for products of topological groups.
After the productivity of pseudocompactness in topological groups had been
established, it was natural to exploit the same problem for countable compact-
ness. Since countable compactness is intermediate between the two productive
properties, compactness and pseudocompactness, much effort had been done
in the "positive" direction before 1980, when van Douwen [vDo] published
an example of two countably compact topological groups whose product was
not countably compact. His construction essentially depends on the use of
Martin's Axiom (MA), and though there has been some progress in refining
van Douwen's construction (see [Mal3], [HvMl], [TomI]), we still do not know
if such an example exists in ZFC.
Another generalization of compactness, the Lindelf property, is not pro-
ductive in topological groups either. This observation belongs to van Douwen
and M. Choban independently (in both cases, it was unpublished). In the survey
artic1e [Com2], van Douwen's construction is described as follows. Let X and Y
be completely regular spaces such that X n and y n are Lindelf for each n E N,
but X x Y is not Lindelf. Such spaces were constructed by Przymusmski [Przl]
in 1980 without the use of extra set-theoretic axioms. Every Lindelf space is
real-compact and, hence, it can be embedded as a c10sed subspace into R T for
some cardinal t'. Thus, we can identify X and Y with closed subspaces of jRT
Consider the subgroups G and H of RT generated by X and Y, respectively.
Since all finite powers of X and Y are Linde1f, the groups G and H will be
Lindelf as well. It remains to note that X is c10sed in G and Y is c10sed in H,
so G x H contains the c10sed non-Lindelf subspace X x Y. It seems, however,

that there is no example of a Lindelf topological group G whose square is not
Lindelf (see Problem 1 of [Arh8]).
We can continue the list of non-productive topological properties in topo-
logical groups adding normality, (countable) tightness, (countable) cellularity,
Frechet-Urysohn property, sequentiality, etc. The reader can find almost all
counterexamples in the artic1e [Mal3] by Malykhin, but the corresponding con-
structions of Malykhin's are based on the use of forcing arguments or extra
axioms such as CH or MA. The only exception to that is countable tightness.
As is mentioned in [Mal3] , one can consider the spaces G = Cp(X) and
G = Cp(Y) of continuous real-valued functions on X and Y endowed with the
topology of pointwise convergence, where X and Y are the spaces constructed
by Przymusmski. Then G and H have the natural structure of Hausdorff topo-
logical groups and t(G) = t(H) = ~o by the Arhangel'skii-Pytkeev theorem
(see Theorem 4.1.2 of [Arh3]), and the same theorem applied to the free sum
X ES Y implies that the tightness of the product G x H = Cp(X ES Y) is
uncountable. Todorcevic [Tod] gives a stronger example of two (J -compact
Frechet-Urysohn topological groups G and H such that the product group
G x H has uncountable tightness. His construction does not depend on any
extra axioms, thus adding the Frechet-Urysohn property and sequentiality to the
list of "absolutely" non-productive properties. Recently, Okunev [Ok3] made an
improvement in TodorceviC's construction by choosing one of the factors G, H
to be countable. More precisely, there are a (J -compact, separable topological
group G and a countable group H such that the tightness of G is countable, but
t(G x H) = c.
Another ZFC construction in [Tod] shows that hereditary separability is also
a non-productive property in topological groups.
Our final remark concerns the cellularity of topological groups. It is well-
known that, under MA +. . . CH, any Cartesian product of countably cellular
spaces is countably cellular. A subtle example in [Tod] shows that this is not the
case without the countability condition, even for topological groups: there exists
in ZFC a topological group G whose cellularity is less than the cellularity of its
square. The group G necessarily has uncountable cellularity. A construction of
a topological group of countable cellularity (ccc for short) whose square is not
ccc requires special set-theoretic assumptions such as CH or RVM (see [Tod]).
1.6. COMPLETE TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS.

COMPLETIONS
The fundamental idea of completeness that appears in real analysis and, in a

more general form, in the theory of metric spaces, acquires a specific form in
topological groups. In 1937, A. Weil published his famous memoir [We3], where
he founded the theory of uniform spaces, showed that topological groups have
natural uniform structures (the left and right group uniformities) and defined
the completion of uniform spaces and, hence, of topological groups. We assume
that the reader is familiar with the basic notions of the theory of uniform spaces
and simply give a brief sketch ofWeil's approach to completions oftopological
groups.
Let G be a topological group. Denote by .N"G (e) the system of all open
neighborhoods of the identity e in G. For every V E .N"G(e), consider the
following entourages of the diagonal in G 2 :
U~ = {(x, y) E G 2 : x-I. y E V} and U{:, = {(x, y) E G 2 : x . y-I E V}.
It is easy to verify that each of the families
*OU, = {U~ : V E .N"G (e) }, OU,* = {U{:,: V E .N"G(e)}
is a base of a uniformity on G. The uniformities on G that correspond to *OU, and

OU,* are called the left and right group uniformity on G, respectively. They are
usually denoted by *"V and "V* . Following Weil, we say that a filter <!f of sub sets
of Gis a Cauchy filter in the uniform space (G, *"V) if for every V E .N"G(e),
there exists an element F E <!f such that F- I . F ~ V. We will use the term
left Cauchy filter instead. It is c1ear how right Cauchy filters on G have to be
defined.
Let <fol (resp. <for) be the family of aliieft (right) Cauchy filters on G. The
set G can be identified with a subfamily of<fo 1 n<fo r if one assigns to every point
x E G the filter <!fx of all open neighborhoods of x in G. Two left Cauchy filters
<!f and 'tJe are called equivalent if the family
';!F A '1Je = {F U H : F E ';!F and H E '1Je}
is again a left Cauchy filter. Consider the set G of equivalence c1asses in <fol with
the corresponding uniform structure *V, a base of which consists of the sets
U~ = {(<!f, 'tJe) : F- I . H ~ V for some FE <!f, HE 'tJe},
where V E .N"G (e). The uniform structure just defined induces a topology on G
which agrees with the original topology of the subset G ~ G. It turns out that
the uniform space (G, *V) is complete, that is, every Cauchy filter converges
in this space.
Weil's basic idea was to extend the group operations from G to continuous
operations on G. A multiplication in Gis defined by means of multiplication in
<fol: if <!f, 'tJe E <fol, then <!f 'tJe is the left Cauchy filter in G with the base
{F . H : F E <!f, H E 'tJe}.
1052 NUCHAELG.TKACHENKO
A problem arises when the inverse operation in G is defined. For a left

(right) Cauchy filter CfF, put
It turns out that the inverse of a left Cauchy filter is a right Cauchy filter and
vice-versa. There are, however, many topological groups G in which the family
ofleft Cauchy filters C(6~ does not coincide with the family of right Cauchy filters
C(6o' and this is the main difficulty in the theory developed by Weil. But Weil
notes that if the inverse function x ~ x-I is uniformly continuous on some
V E .NG (e), then C(61 = C(6r. Thus, the set G with the multiplication and inverse
operations defined above becomes a group in this case. It is easy to verify that
both operations are eontinuous in the topology induced by the uniformity *V
and, hence, G is a topological group with the dense subgroup G. The topological
group G is called the Weil completion of G.
The following particularly useful fact is also due to Weil [We3]. Let us call
a topologie al group G locally bounded if G contains a bounded neighborhood
V of identity. [The latter means that V can be covered by finitely many trans-
lations of any set W E .NG(e).] So, the crucial fact is that the inverse operation
x ~ x-I is uniformly continuous on any bounded neighborhood of identity
in G. Summarizing, every locally bounded group G is a dense subgroup of the
topological group G.
Recall that the uniform spaee (G, *V) is complete, that is, every left Cauchy
filter in the group G converges to some point of G. Topological groups having
this property are called Weil-complete.
Let V be a bounded neighborhood of the identity in G. Then the closure V-
of V in Gis also bounded in G. It is known, however, that a closed bounded
sub set of a complete uniform spaee is compact and, hence, V- is a eompact
neighborhood of identity in G. The latter means that the group G is locally
compact. On the other hand, every subgroup of a locally compact topological
group is obviously locally bounded, thus giving us the following result [We3]:
Theorem 1.25. Every locally bounded topological group is topologically iso-

morphie to a dense subgroup of a locally compact group, and vice-versa, a
subgroup of a locally compact group is locally bounded.
One can reformulate Theorem 1.25 by saying that the class of subgroups of
locally compact groups coincides with the class of locally bounded topological
groups. This result is a natural generalization of a similar theorem characterizing
subgroups of compact topological groups (see Theorem 1.8).
We mentioned above that the inverse of a left Cauchy filter is a right one,
and vice-versa. In general, the inverse of a left Cauchy filter may fail to be
a left one, thus making it impossible to extend the inverse operation from G
to a continuous operation on G = G U ~l. This fact simply means that the

Weil completion of the uniform space (G, *'V) does not have the structure of a
topological group. The first examples of this phenomenon were given in 1944
by Dieudonne [Die]. One of them is the group G of all autohomeomorphisms
of the unit interval topologized by the metric
Q(f, g) = sup{lf(x) - g(x)1 : x E [0, I]}.
This group is remarkable in many respects and serves as a counterexample to

many attractive conjectures in the theory of topological groups. It is also worth
mentioning that the group G just defined admits a compatible metric a such
that (G, a) is a complete metric space [BePe]. One can simply take
This remark shows that the notion of completeness in topological groups is

different from its metric analog, though the basic idea came from the theory of
metric spaces.
The fact that the Weil completion of a topological group is not necessarily a
topological group made it important to find out whether every topological group
G can be embedded into a complete topological group G as a dense subgroup.
The word complete here should mean the existence of a complete uniformity
on G "definable" mainly from the algebraic structure of G. To explain this
c1early, let us mention that every metrizable space admits a compatible complete
uniformity (the universal uniformity, for example). Thus, every first countable
topological group admits a compatible complete uniform structure and, hence,
is "topologically" complete. However, the group of rationals Q seems to be very
far from being complete as a topological group.
The existence of a "true" topological group completion was proved in 1946
by RmKov [Rai]. His construction is, in asense, a natural correction of Weil's
discussed above. As is easily seen, Weil's approach is asymmetrie: why left (or
right) Cauchy filters? This question immediately leads to the idea of considering
the family of simultaneously left and right Cauchy filters on a given topological
group G, that is, the family ~ = ~l n~r. An improvement can be made in order
to avoid considering an equivalence relation on ~. Let us say that a filter ?Ji E ~
is minimal if it satisfies the following condition:
(*) For every W E ?Ji, there exist W' E ?Ji and U E .N G (e) such that U W' . U ~
W.
Minimal filt~s of ~ will simply be referred to as minimal Cauchy filters
on G. The set G of minimal Cauchy filters is c10sed under the product and
inverse operations defined above and, hence, G is (algebraically) a subgroup of
the group G. The next step is to introduce a group topology to G. For every
V E N G(e), define
-
V = {~E
-
G: F ~ V for some F E ~}.
An easy verification shows that the family {V : V ENG (e)} forms a base of
a group topology r at the identity of G and the restrietion of r to G coincides
with the original topolo~ r of the group G, thus making G a dense topological
subgroup of the group G. The main fact established by Ralkov was the com-
pleteness of Gin the sense that every minimal Cauchy filter on Gconverges. It
was shown in the same artic1e [Rai] that the completeness of a topological group
is equivalent to the property of being an absolutely closed group, as defined in
1942 by Alexandrov [Ale]. In other words, a complete group H is c10sed in
any topological group which contains H as a topological subgroup. These two
results show that Ralkov's construction presents exact1y what is expected of
the completion of topological groups. The construction just given is called the
Ralkov completion or simply the completion of topological groups.
A non-compact completely regular space can have many compact exten-
sions. This fact gives rise to the problem of whether a non-complete topological
group G has different group completions, that is, if G embeds as a dense
subgroup in different complete topological groups. If so, is there a maximal
group completion of G? It turns out that the Ralkov completion G is maximal
among all group extensions of G and it is unique up to topologie al isomorphisms
fixing points of G.
It is easy to see that every Weil-complete topological group is Ralkov-
complete, but not vice-versa as the example of the group of autohomeomor-
phisms of the unit interval shows [Die]. Ralkov's approach permitted the char-
acterization of Weil-complete groups [Gr2]: a topological group G is Weil-
complete if and only if it is Ralkov-complete and every left Cauchy filter on G
is a right Cauchy one.
Our description of the Ralkov completion is adopted from Graev's work
[Gr2] , where some technical improvements to the original construction were
introduced. In fact, the Ralkov completion of a topological group G is the
completion of the uniform space (G, *"V*). The symbol *"V* stands for the
bilateral group uniformity on Gwhich is the upper bound of the left and right
group uniformities on G. It is useful to note that the three uniformities *"V, "V*
and *"V* coincide for an arbitrary Abelian topological group G, so the Weil
completion and the Ralkov completion coincide for Abelian groups. A similar
conc1usion holds for the wider c1ass of topological groups with an invariant
base, that is, for groups with a base at the identity consisting of sets invariant
under all inner automorphisms [HR].
Graev [Gr2] mentions that a topological group locally isomorphie to a
(Weil-) complete group is (Weil-) complete as weIl. In particular, if N is a
discrete normal subgroup of a (Weil-) complete topological group G, then the
quotient group GIN is also (Weil-) complete. On the other hand, Vilenkin
[ViI] shows that the c1ass ofWeil-complete topological groups is c10sed under
extensions: if N is a c10sed normal subgroup of a topological group G and both
N and GI N are Weil-complete, then G is Weil-complete. Following Vilenkin's
reasoning, Graev [Gr2] proves a similar result for complete topological groups.
These results give rise to the problem of whether a quotient of a (Weil-)
complete topological group is (Weil-) complete. Vilenkin [ViI] constructed an
example which shows that a quotient group of a Weil-complete topological
group need not be Weil-complete. Since the groups in Vilenkin's example are
Abelian, this implies that quotients of complete groups can lose this property.
On the other hand, Freudenthal [FreI] proved that if a Weil-complete group G
is metrizable, then all quotients of G are Weil-complete and metrizable (see also
[Gr2]). The proof given by Freudenthal could not be (automatically) translated
into a proof of a similar result for complete groups, and the completeness
preservation theorem for quotients of metrizable groups appeared many years
later.
There is an interesting relation between completeness of topological groups
and Cech-completeness (a completely regular space X is called Cech-complete
if Xis a Ga-set in the Cech-Stone compactification X). Choban [Chol] and,
independently, Brown [Bro] ~roved that a first countable topological group is
complete if and only if it is Cech-complete. In fact, the result they proved is
more general. Following Pasynkov [pas3], we call a topological group G almost
metrizable if G contains a non-empty compact set which has countable character
in G .It is immediate that all metrizable and alliocally compact groups are almost
metrizable, but the c1ass of almost metrizable groups is wider than the union of
the two c1asses just mentioned. An almost metrizable group G contains a c10sed
compact subgroup K such that the quotient group GI K is first countable, and
this property characterizes almost metrizable groups [Pas3]. The result proved
in [Chol] and [Bro] can now be formulated as folIows: an almost metrizable
topological group is complete if and only if it is Cech-complete. Note that this
fact and Hausdorff's theorem [Hau] on open mappings (if f: X --+ Y is an
open continuous mapping of a complete metrizable space X onto a metrizable
space Y, then Y is complete) together imply completeness of the quotients of
first countable complete groups.
The articles [Sul], [Gral], [Gra2] , [LeiI] and [Lei2] contain many results
about completeness of quotient groups. Usually, additional conditions on a
complete group or its c10sed normal subgroup are to be imposed. A useful
source of further information about complete topological groups is the book
[RoDi] by Roe1cke and Dierolf.
It frequently happens that a continuous epimorphism between two complete
topological groups is open. As far as we know, the first example of this phe-
nomenon was found in 1931 by Banach [Ba]: if f: G --+ H is a continuous
epimorphism of first countable topological groups and both G and H are com-
plete as metric spaces, then f is open. A corollary to Banach's theorem is the fact
that a continuous epimorphism between Weil-complete second countable groups
is always open [FreI]. It is also well known that a continuous homomorphism
of a locally compact a-compact group onto a locally compact group is open
[Pon4], [Bou].
Let us call a homomorphism g : G -+ Halmost open if for every neigh-

borhood U of the identity in G, the c10sure of g(U) in H is a neighborhood
of the identity in H. The latter is equivalent to requiring that g(U) be con-
tained in the interior of its c10sure (in H) for each open subset U of G. Pettis
[Pet] proved (following some ideas of Banach) that a continuous almost open
homomorphism g: G -+ H of metrizable groups G and H is open whenever
Gis Weil-complete. Almost open homomorphisms were thoroughly studied by
Husain [Hus]. Husain c1arifies Pettis's result by proving that every almost open
continuous epimorphism of a Weil-complete metrizable group G to elsewhere
is open and, hence, G is a B(sIl)-group in the terminology of [Hus].
Further generalization is due to Brown [Bro]: every almost open continuous

homomorphism g: G -+ H of a Cech-complete topological group G to an
arbitrary topological group H is open. Some developments of this and related
results are given in [Gral].
1t seems natural to ask wh ich topological groups are quotients of com-

plete groups. Does any kind of completeness present in quotients of complete
Abelian groups? The answer is quite unexpected: every Abelian topological
group is a quotient group of a complete Abelian topological group. This fact
was proved in Chapter 11 of [RoDi]. Another way to deduce the result is to
apply the following theorem of Tkacenko's [TkI]: if X is a paracompact (or
more generally, Dieudonne-complete) space, then the free Abelian topological
group A(X) over X is complete (see Section 5 for a detailed description ofthe
properties of free topological groups). 1ndeed, every completely regular space
can be represented as an open continuous image of a paracompact space [Jun].
Take now a continuous open mapping f: X -+ G of a paracompact space X
onto a given Abelian group G and extend f to a continuous homomorphism
j: A(X) -+ G. The homomorphism j is automatically open and, hence, the
group G is topologically isomorphic to a quotient group of the complete group
A(X).
The coincidence of the c1ass of all topological groups with the c1ass of
quotients of complete groups would follow if we knew that the free topological
group F(X) over a paracompact space X is complete. The latter result was
recently announced by O. Sipacheva.
1.7. SEMIDIRECT PRODUCT OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS
The construction we will discuss below came from algebra. It appeared as an

attempt to reconstruct a group L having only information on anormal subgroup
G of L and the quotient group L / G. It was c1ear from the very beginning
that the complete reconstruction is almost always impossible (even if L has
no topology). The study of the situation, however, resulted in many profound
algebraic and topological advances. The first thing to come was the construction
which is known as the semidirect product of (topological) groups.
If G and H are topological groups, both the topology and the algebraic
structure of the product group G x H are uniquely defined by the factors.
Retaining the product topology on G x H, one can, in general, define many
different group structures on G x H which agree with those on G and H
and make the product a topological group. Indeed, let cp: H ~ Aut(G) be a
homomorphism of H to a group Aut( G) of automorphisms of G. Define the
multiplication 0 in G x H by the rule
(x, h) 0 (x/, h') = (x. cp(h)(x'), h . h')
for all x, x/ E G and h, h' E H, where the centered dot stands for the mul-
tiplication in both G and H. A direct verification shows that G x H with the
operation 0 is a group. If the mapping (x, h) 1--* cp(h)(x) of G x H to G is
continuous, then the multiplication and the inverse in G x H become continuous
as well, thus making L = G x H a topological group. The topological group L
just defined is called asemidireet topologieal produet of G and H and will be
denoted by G Xl H.
In what follows, the group G Xl H will simply be referred to as a semidirect
product of G and H if it is c1ear what topologies the groups G and H carry.
The construction of a semidirect product of two groups c1early depends on the
choice of a homomorphism cp: H ~ Aut(G), thus giving many options to
extend the group operations from G and H to G x H.
Topologically, a semidirect product G Xl H is always a product of the spaces
G and H, but algebraically it can be very distinct from the direct product G x H.
This makes the semidirect product operation quite an important tool in the theory
of topological groups.
We have just described an external approach to semidirect products. Inter-
nally, semidirect products can be defined even more easily. Again, let L be a
topological group and G be a c10sed normal subgroup of L. If there exists a
c10sed subgroup H of L such that G n H = {eLl and G H = L, then L is said
to be a semidirect product of G and H. We will also say that G splits in L. The
latter definition of semidirect products is considerably "wider", but it agrees with
the former one because of the fact that the subgroups G/ = {(x, eH) : x E G}
and H' = {(eG, h) : h E H} are c10sed in the topological group L' = G Xl H,
G' n H ' - {e L'}, G' 0 H = L' and G' is normal in L' (no matter what a
homomorphism<p: H ~ Aut(G) is). Note that an "internal" semidirect product
of G and H need not even be homeomorphic to the topological product G x H.
There are few situations either in abstract groups or in topological groups
when a semidirect splitting is direct. First, this obviously happens if H is normal
in L. This is also true for a divisible subgroup G of an Abelian group L or for
p-primary components of Abelian torsion groups - they are always direct
summands. The case of topological groups is more complicated. Let us say that
a topological group G is a vector group if it is topologically isomorphic to the
additive group of a finite-dimensional vector space jRn. A semidirect splitting
becomes direct in each of the following cases:
(1) L is a locally compact Abelian group compact modulo its component and
G is a vector subgroup of L or the maximal compact subgroup [Kam2] ,
[We4];
(2) L is a maximally almost periodic connected locally compact group and G

is either a vector subgroup or the maximal compact subgroup of L [Fre2],
[We4].
[An Abelian topological group G is called maximally almost periodic if con-
tinuous homomorphisms of G to the cirele group 1I' separate the points of G.]
Two more cases of the same phenomenon can be found in [Fre3] and [lwa2].
There are numerous examples which show that a semidirect product need
not be direct. An important instance of a semidirect splitting was found by
Iwasawa [Iwal]: if G is anormal vector subgroup of a locally compact group
L and L / G is compact, then there exist anormal vector subgroup N and a
compact subgroup C of L such that L is a semidirect product of N and C.
Note that vector groups are complete and, hence, elosed in whatever group they
are contained. An alternative proof of Iwasawa's theorem was given by Cartier
[Cart]. Various generalizations ofthis theorem can be found in the book [HoMo]
by Hoffman and Mostert.
There are many applications of the semidirect product operation to produce
either "pathological" examples of topological groups or to prove "positive"
results. Let us mention a few. Pestov [Pe12] used this construction to embed
every a -compact topological group into a compactly generated one, thus giving
a positive answer to a problem posed by A.v. Arhangel'skil. However, the
problem of whether every a-compact Abelian group can be embedded into a
compactly generated Abelian group is still open.
Markov's fifth problem [Mar2] on the existence of connected group topolo-
gies was posed in 1945 and solved by Pestov [pe15] in 1988 with the help of
the iterated semidirect product operation. Following Markov, call a subset X of
a topological group G unconditionally closed if X is elosed in each Hausdorff
group topology for G. It is c1ear that the existenee of an unconditionally c10sed

proper subgroup H of a group G with IG / H I < c makes it impossible to
define a Hausdorff connected group topology for G. So, Markov suggested that
this necessary condition is also sufficient for introducing such a topology for
G. An ingenious construction by Pestov produces an example of a group G
satisfying IG / H I ~ c for every unconditionally c10sed proper subgroup H of
G; however, G does not admit a Hausdorff connected group topology. Another
eounterexample to Markov's fifth problem was found by Remus [Rem]. The
group considered by Remus is simply the group S(c) ofpermutations ofthe set
c. All proper subgroups of S (c) are of index greater than or equal to c, and every
Hausdorff group topology for S(c) is totally disconnected.
2. Locally Compact Topological Groups
The theory of locally compact groups is the richest part of the general the-
ory of topological groups in results as well as in the techniques involved. At
the beginning the study of locally compact groups was very much stimulated
by Hibert's fifth problem as to whether every locally Euclidean topological
group is a Lie group. The efforts made by many contributors gave rise to the
Pontryagin-van Kampen duality theory for loeally compact Abelian groups,
representation theory of compact topological groups, structure theory of locally
compact (Abelian) groups, etc. We briefly discuss here the main coneepts and
results concerning locally compact topological groups.
2.1. STRUCTURE OF LOCALLY COMPACT GROUPS

AND HILBERT'S FIFTH PROBLEM
A topological group G is called locally Euclidean if G contains a neighborhood

U of the identity e E G homeomorphic to the finite-dimensional space Rn.
A homeomorphism a: U ~ Rn which takes e to zero E Rn defines a
loeal coordinate system in G, say, a(u) = (UI, U2, ... , u n ), where u E U
and UI, U2, ... , Un E IR. In these coordinates, the group operations of G are
expressed by a set of continuous real-valued functions. In other words, there exist
an open neighborhood V of in Rn and continuous funetions J-ti: V X V ~ R,
i = 1,2, ... , n, such that the product w = Uv- l belongs to U for all u, V E
a-I(V) and Wi = J-ti(UI, U2, ... , Un , VI, V2, ... , Vn ), for i = 1,2, ... , n.
If a locally Euclidean topological group G contains a neighborhood of
identity in which the group operations of G are expressed by analytic functions
J-ti, then G is called a Lie group. Hilbert's fifth problem (or, better, the question
it transformed into in the process of investigation) is the following one:
Is every locally Euclidean topological group a Lie group?
Hilbert's fifth problem was solved in the affirmative in 1952 by Montgomery

and Zippin [MoZl] who essentially used the results obtained by Gleason [Gle2].
In subsequent publications [MoZ2], [Jac], [Yal], [Ya2] and [Glu2], the structural
theory of locally compact groups acquired an almost accomplished form. The
book [Kapl] by Kaplansky contains an elegant exposition of the main part of
this theory. Let us list the most important facts which constitute the basis of the
theory.
(i) A locally compact group G is a Lie group iff there exists a neighborhood
of the identity in Gwhich contains no non-trivial subgroups.
(ii) If G is a locally compact group, Go is the connected component of the
identity in G and the quotient group G / Go is compact, then G is a projeetively
Lie group, that is, G is a projective limit of Lie groups. This is equivalent to
saying that every neighborhood of the identity in G contains a c10sed normal
subgroup K such that G / K is a Lie group.
(iii) In general, a locally compact group need not be projectively Lie, but
every locally compact group G contains an open projectively Lie subgroup H.
In fact, the subgroup H can be chosen so that H / Ho is a compact group, where
Ho is the connected component of the identity in H.
A local group G is called a loeal Lie group if G contains a neighborhood L
of the identity homeomorphic to a neighborhood W of the identity in a Lie group
H under a homeomorphism cp: W -+ L such that CP(WI wi l ) = cp(WI)cp(W2)-1
for all WI, W2 E W satisfying Wlwil E W.
(iv) Every neighborhood of the identity in a locally compact group G con-
tains a neighborhood U of the identity representable in the form of the product
U ~ L x K, where L is a local Lie group and K is a compact subgroup of G.
(v) If a locally compact group G satisfies dim G > 0, then there exists a
neighborhood U of the identity in G such that for any neighborhood V ~ U of
the identity and any representation V ~ L x K as above, dim L > O.
(vi) In addition, if dim G < 00, then the compact group K in the decompo-
sition V "" L x K can be chosen zero-dimensional.
Since a locally Euc1idean topological group G is finite-dimensional and
locally connected, (vi) implies that the group K is trivial, that is, G contains an
open Lie subgroup. This means that G is a Lie group itself.
Let us describe some of the better known and most useful properties of
projectively Lie groups.
(vii) Let G be a locally compact group such that G / Go is compact. Then
every compact subgroup of G is contained in a maximal compact subgroup of
G, and all maximal compact subgroups of G are conjugated.
(viii) Let G be as in (vii) and K be a maximal compact subgroup of G.
Then G contains c10sed subgroups LI, L2, ... , Ln topologically isomorphic to
lR such that the mapping (k, 11, 12, ... , In) -+ kII12 ... ln is a homeomorphism
ofthe product K x LI X L2 X . X Ln onto G (the Cartan-Maltsev-Iwasawa

theorem).
(ix) If G is a compact connected topologieal group, then every element of
G is contained in a maximal connected Abelian subgroup of G; all maximal
Abelian subgroups of G are conjugated and coincide with their centralizers. A
compact group is divisible iff it is connected.
(x) A locally compact connected group is isomorphic to the quotient group
(K x M)/ D, where K is a compact connected group without non-trivial con-
nected Abelian normal subgroups, M is a connected locally compact group
all compact normal subgroups of whieh lie in its center and D is a totally
disconnected c10sed central subgroup of K x M.
(xi) A locally compact connected finite-dimensional group is topologieally
isomorphic to the quotient group (l~.n X L x K)/ D, where L is a compact
semisimple Lie group, K is a compact Abelian totally disconnected group and
D is a finitely generated discrete central subgroup of jRn x L x K.
Assertions (vii)-(xi) make it possible to study projectively Lie groups, in
particular, locally compact connected groups, applying the powerful and well
developed theory ofLie groups. On the other hand, the structural theory oftota1ly
disconnected locally compact groups is at the initial stage of development [Wil].
2.2. HAAR MEASURE AND REPRESENTATIONS

OF LOCALLY COMPACT GROUPS
Invariant integration, without exaggeration, is the heart of Abstract Harmonie

Analysis. One can simply have a look into the first volume of the book "Abstract
Harmonie Analysis" by Hewitt and Ross to see the place invariant integration oc-
cupies there. Representation theory of compact and locally compact topological
groups is based on invariant integrals, for instance.
Invariant integrals on special c1asses of matrix groups have been used since
the late 19th century. Hurwitz [Hur] presented a complete computation of the
invariant integral on the special orthogonal group G D(n). Invariant integrals on
GD(n) and on the orthogonal group D(n) as weH as their applications were
given by Schur [Schu]. The existence of an invariant integral for an arbitrary
compact Lie group was proved in 1927 by Weyl and Peter [PeWe].
The next period in the development of Harmonie Analysis starts in 1933
with Haar's discovering that every locally compact group of countable weight
admits a left Haar measure [Haa]. The direct Haar's construction was translated
by Weil [Wel], [We2] into the language of linear functionals on linear spaces
of continuous functions with compact supports and extended to the c1ass of
alilocally compact topologieal groups. The existence of a left invariant Haar
measure on an arbitrary locally compact group was also established by Kakutani
[Kak2].
The proof of the uniqueness of a left invariant Haar measure on a locally

compact group required the efforts of a few first-rank mathematicians. Von
Neumann [Neu 1] established the uniqueness (and existence) of the Haar integral
for compact topological groups. In [Neu2], von Neumann proved the uniqueness
of the left Haar measure for locally compact groups of countable weight. Finally,
Weil [We4] completed the work by showing the uniqueness of the left Haar
integral for alilocally compact groups. It was quite natural that all uniqueness
proofs we have mentioned depended on the existence of the Haar measure.
The advantage of Cartan's approach to the subject is that it simultaneously
demonstrates the existence and uniqueness of the Haar measure [Car].
In what follows, we present basic facts on Haar measure and Haar integrals
on locally compact topological groups.
Let G be a locally compact group. There exists a non-negative measure m
on the family ~ of all Borel sets in G satisfying the following conditions:
(i) m(K) < 00 for every compact subset of G;
(ii) m(U) > 0 for each non-empty open subset U ~ G;

(iii) the measure m is regular;
(iv) the measure m is left invariant, that is, m(gM) = m(M) for all g E G and
ME~.
A measure m on ~ satisfying (i)-(iv) is called a left Haar measure on

G. Conditions (i)-(iv) define the measure m uniquely up to a multiplicative
constant.
Let Co(G) be the space of all continuous real-valued (or complex) functions
on G with compact supports. A left Haar integral on G is defined by
[(f) = L f(x) dm
for each f E Co(G). The integral [ is left invariant in the sense that
i f(gx)dm = i f(x) dm
for each g E G. If a is a topological isomorphism of G, then
J(f) = i f(a- 1(x)) dm
is also a left Haar integral on G. There exists, therefore, a multiplicative constant

~(a) > 0 such that
i f(a- 1 (x)) dm = ~(a) i f(x) dm

for every f E Co (G). The function b. is called the modular function of a locally
compact group G. If b,. (g) = 1 for all g E G, the group G is called unimodular.
Strictly speaking, we have to write b,.(i g ) = 1 in the definition ofunimodularity,
where ig is the inner automorphism of G defined by ig (x) = gx g -1 for each x E
G. It turns out that the mapping b.: G --+ R+ is a continuous homomorphism
of G to the multiplicative group of positive reals R+. If the left and right group
uniformities of a locally compact group G coincide, then G is unimodular. In
particular, every compact group is unimodular.
If a locally compact group has a finite Haar measure mG(G) < 00, then G
is compact. If G is a compact group, the Haar measure mG on G can always
be chosen to satisfy mG(G) = 1, and this condition defines the measure mG
uniquely.
By the Peter-Weyl theorem [PeWe], for every element gof a compact group
G with g i= eG, there exists a continuous finite-dimensional representation
Q: G --+ V(n, C) such that g fj. ker(Q). This result immediately implies that
every compact group is projectively Lie, and this is the first step towards the
solution of Hilbert's fifth problem.
On the other hand, there exist locally compact (even discrete) topological
groups which do not admit non-trivial finite-dimensional representations. The
situation completely changes if infinite-dimensional representations of a locally
compact group G are admitted: for each element g of G different from the
identity there exists a continuous, unitary, irreducible representation of G in
an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space lHI whose kernel does not contain g (see
[GR1], [GR2]).
Fortunately, the study of compact groups does not need the infinite-dimen-
sional representation theory founded by Gel'fand and Ralkov. It turns out that
every continuous, irreducible, unitary representation of a compact group is
finite-dimensional [Koo] , [Nach]. In fact, every continuous unitary represen-
tation of a compact group is the direct sum of irreducible finite-dimensional
representations.
Let G be a locally compact group with the component of identity Go, and
suppose that G / Go is compact. Then the intersection of the kemels of all finite-
dimensional irreducible unitary representations of G coincides with {eG} iff G
is topologieally isomorphie to Rn X K, where n ~ 0 and K is a compact group
[We4].
2.3. PONTRYAGIN-VAN KAMPEN DUALITY THEORY
A continuous homomorphism x: G --+ l' of a topologie al group G to the

additive circ1e group l' = R/Z is called a character of G. It was Frobenius [Fro]
who invented characters offinite Abelian groups. Pontryagin [poni] introduced
the natural group operations in the set G/\ of all characters of a group G as
follows: if X, Xl, X2 E G/\ and g E G, then
(Xl + X2)(g) = XI(g) + X2(g) and (-X)(g) = -X(g)
Later, Pontryagin [Pon2], [Pon4] introduced a group topology into the dual
group G/\ known as the compact-open topology or the topology of uniform
convergence on compact sets. A base of open neighborhoods of the neutral
element in G/\ is defined as the family of all sets of the form
W(K, U) = {X E G/\ : X(K) ~ U},
where K is an arbitrary compact subset of G and U runs through open neigh-
borhoods of zero in 1I'. van Kampen [Kam2] gave a formally different definition
of a group topology for the dual group G/\, but in fact it coincides with the
one considered by Pontryagin for alilocally compact Abelian groups (LCA for
short). This was shown by Yosida and Iwamura [YI].
The first basic fact of the duality theory for LCA groups is that the dual
group G/\ with the compact-open topology is LCA for every LCA group G
[Pon4], [Kam2] , [We4]. This makes it possible to consider the second dual
group G/\/\ = (G/\)/\ for an LCA group G.
Let us note that every continuous, irreducible, unitary representation of
an LCA group is one-dimensional, so the Peter-Weyl theorem implies that
characters of an LCA group G separate the points of G. This is the second basic
fact of the duality theory. Another proof of this fact which does not depend on
the use ofthe representation theory ofLCA groups was given in 1954 by F!i>lner
[Foll], [FoI2].
Let G and H be LCA groups and cp: G -+ H be a continuous homo-
morphism. The dual homomorphism cp/\: H /\ -+ G/\ defined by cp/\ (X) (g) =
X(cp (g)) for all X E H /\ and g E G is continuous. In addition, if cp is open, then
so is cp/\.
Since the group G/\ is LCA, the second dual group G/\/\ is weIl defined and
we can consider the canonical homomorphism PG: G -+ G/\/\ given by
PG(g)(X) = X(g)
for X E G/\ and g E G. The following duality theorem is due to Pontryagin and
van Kampen.
Theorem 2.1. For every LCA group G, PG is a topological isomorphism ofG
onto G/\/\. If cp: G -+ H is a continuous homomorphism between LCA groups
G and H, then PHCP = cp/\/\ PG
This theorem enables us to identify the groups G and G/\/\ as weIl as the
homomorphisms cp and cp/\/\. One of the main steps towards the proof of Theo-
rem 2.1 is the duality of compactness and discreteness: if an Abelian topological
group G is compact (discrete), then G/\ is discrete (compact). This assertion

makes it possible to reduce completely the study of topologieal properties of a
compact Abelian group to the study of algebraic structure of the dual discrete
group G/\. To understand better how the duality theory works, let us have a look
at its main tools and basic facts.
Suppose that H is a subgroup of an LCA group G. The annihilator of H is
the subgroup H.1 of G/\ consisting of all characters X E G/\ such that X(g) = 0
for each gEH. The annihilator H.1 is always dosed, H.1 = (d H).1, and if
H is dosed in G, then (H.1).1 ~ H. In addition, if ep: K -+ L is a continuous
homomorphism of LCA groups, then ker(ep/\) = ep(K).1 and d(ep/\(L =
(ker ep ).1.
The following relations between the operations of taking dual groups and
quotient groups are particularly important. If H is a dosed subgroup of an LCA
group G, then
In both cases, the corresponding isomorphisms are induced by the dual homo-
morphism ep", where ep is the canonical homomorphism of G onto G / H in the
first case and the embedding of H to G in the second one.
Theorem 2.1 implies that the properties of an LCA group G are completely
determined by the properties of its dual group G". Passing from G to G/\
and back makes it possible to study in detail the structure of LCA groups. We
have just mentioned that an LCA group G is compact if and only if the dual
group G/\ is discrete. An LCA group G is connected iff every non-zero element
of G" generates a subgroup topologieally isomorphie to the discrete group Z
(such elements are called pure). An LCA group G is totally disconnected iff all
elements of G/\ are compact, that is, the dosure ofthe cydie subgroup (g) in G
is compact for each g E G. A compact Abelian group G has finite dimension iff
the freerank of G/\, say r(G/\), is finite. Furthermore, dim G = r(G/\). An LCA
group G is metrizable iff the dual group G/\ is a -compact. The weight of an
LCA group G coincides with the weight of G/\. All these results illustrate how
one can "translate" certain properties of an LCA group into the duallanguage
of the group of characters.
Let us describe some results on the structure of LCA groups. First, every
LCA group G is topologieally isomorphie to the direct product jRn x H, where
n E N and H is an LCA group that contains an open compact subgroup. An
LCA group is called elementary if it is topologieally isomorphic to a group of
the form jRn x ']I' x Zl x F, where 0 ~ 1, m, n < 00 and F is a finite group.
The dass of elementary LCA groups is exactly the dass of compactly generated
Abelian Lie groups. Every LCA group is an inductive limit of open compactly
generated subgroups.
The dass of compactly generated LCA groups admits a dear description: an
LCA group H is compactly generated iff H ~ jRn X Zl x K, where 0 :s 1, n < 00
1066 MITCHAELG.TKACHENKO
and K is a compact Abelian group. Every LCA group is a projective limit of

its quotient groups topologieally isomorphie to elementary LCA groups of the
form jRn x Tm X D, where 0 ::: m, n < 00 and D is a discrete Abelian group.
Recall that a topological group is monothetic if it contains a dense cyclic
subgroup. It is elear that monothetie groups are Abelian. Every LCA monothetie
group is either compact or discrete (and then is topologieally isomorphic to the
group Z). A compact Abelian group K is monothetie if and only if w(Ko) ::: c
(Ko is the component of the identity in K) and the quotient group K / Ko is
isomorphie to the Cartesian product OPEP L p' where P is the set of all prime
numbers and for every PEP, L p is either topologieally isomorphie to the
group Z p of p-adie integers or the cyelie group Z(pn) of order pn.
Given a prime p and an element g of a locally compact topological group
G, we say that g is a p-element if the elosure in G of the cyclic group (g) is
topologieally isomorphic either to Zp or Z(pn) for some n E N. It is known
that the set G p of all p-elements of a totally disconnected LCA group G is a
elosed subgroup of G whieh is often called the p-Sylow subgroup of G.
Finally, let G be an LCA group all elements of whieh are compact. Then G
is decomposable into a locally direct product OpEP(G p : K p) of its p-Sylow
subgroups, where K p = G p n K for each pEP, and K is an open subgroup
ofG.
To conelude this section, we have to mention that almost all expositions of
the Pontryagin-van Kampen duality theory rely on functional analysis. Even the
first deep result - the existence of sufficiently many continuous characters on
LCA groups - is based on the properties of symmetric compact operators on
Hilbert spaces or on the theory of Banach algebras. The book [DPS] by Dikran-
jan, Stoyanov, and Prodanov offers another approach to the development of the
duality theory whieh involves only those tools of functional analysis that belong
to general topology: the Tikhonov compactness theorem, the Stone-Weierstrass
theorem, the Cech-Stone compactification, the Baire category theorem, etc. The
reader will also find in [DPS] a complete proof of the deep theorem that every
minimal Abelian topologie al group is totally bounded.
2.4. CLASSES OF LOCALLY COMPACT GROUPS
The results of this section concern locally compact topologieal groups elose in
some sense to Abelian groups. A measure "of being elose to Abelian" can have
an algebraic or topologie al nature as we will see below.
One of the main difficulties arising in the study of non-Abelian locally
compact groups is that the Pontryagin-van Kampen duality theory cannot be
applied directly (or is useless). The strategy of investigation in the non-Abelian
case consists, therefore, in the study of some special elasses of "generalized"
commutative groups which then will play the rle of Abelian ones in subsequent
steps.
A topological group G is called soluble if there exists a finite sequence
{e} = Go ~ GI ~ ... ~ Gn =G
of c10sed normal subgroups of G such that Gi +1/ Gi is Abelian for each i =
0, 1, ... ,n -1. A soluble group G is called nilpotent if Gi+I/ Gi is in the center
ofG/Gi,O:'.S.i <no
A locally compact group G is said to be pronilpotent (prosoluble) if every
neighborhood of the identity in G contains a c10sed normal subgroup G such that
G j N is a nilpotent (soluble) group. In other words, pronilpotent (prosoluble)
groups are exactly projective limits of nilpotent (soluble) groups.
A locally compact group G is called induetively pronilpotent (induetively
prosoluble) if every finite subset of G topologically generates a pronilpotent
(prosoluble) subgroup. This means that the c10sure of (K) in G is a pronilpotent
(prosoluble) for each finite subset K ~ G. The theory of inductively pronilpo-
tent groups was founded by Glushkov [Glul] and Platonov [Pla]. Let us give a
brief exposition of the main results concerning inductively pronilpotent groups.
First of all, a connected inductive1y pronilpotent group is nilpotent. A com-
pact1y generated inductively pronilpotent group is a projective limit of nilpotent
Lie groups. The theorem below gives a detailed description of the structure of
inductively pronilpotent groups.
Theorem 2.2. Let G be an induetively pronilpotent group. Then the following

assertions are valid:
(1) the set tG of eompaet elements of G is a closed subgroup of G;
(2) the elements oftG and ofthe eomponent Go ofidentity eommute;
(3) the eomponent (tG)o ofthe identity in tG is a central subgroup ofGo and
(tG)o = tG n Go;
(4) the quotient group GjtG is an induetively nilpotent Lie group with no
eompaet elements;
(5) the subgroup N = Go . tG is open in G and isomorphie to the quotient

group (L x tG)/C, where L is a eonneeted simply eonneeted nilpotent
Lie group and C is a closed subgroup of the produet L x tG sueh that
C n tG = {e} and C n L is diserete.
If G is a tota1ly disconnected inductively pronilpotent group all elements

of which are compact, then for every prime p, the set G p of all p-elements of
G is a c10sed normal subgroup of G and the group G is a local direct product

G ~ DpEP(G p : K p), where K p = G p n K for every PEP, and K is an
arbitrary compact open subgroup of G.
The following notion enables us to introduce several c1asses of generalized
nilpotent groups. A set Ql of c10sed subgroups of a topological group G is called
a subnormal series in G if it satisfies the conditions:
(i) Ql is linearly ordered by inc1usion and contains the trivial groups {e} and G;
(ii) for every subfamily X S; Ql, the subgroups c1G (UX) and nX belong to Ql;
(iii) if K, H E Ql form a gap in Ql (that is, K C H and Ql contains no subgroups

between K and H), then K is anormal subgroup of H.
A subnormal series Ql in a group G is said to be Abelian if, for every gap

K, H E Ql, the quotient group H j K is Abelian. Aseries Ql is called normal if
all elements of Ql are normal subgroups of G. Anormal series in G is ~alled
central if, for each gap K, H E Ql, the quotient group H j K is in the center of
GjK. _ ~
Let us define the c1asses Z, Z and N of generalized nilpotent groups in terms
of (sub)normal series:
G E Z if G has a central series;
G E Z if every normal series in G admits a central refinement;
GEN if every c10sed subgroup of G belongs to some subnormal series in
G.
The c1asses RN, RN, RI and RI of generalized soluble groups are defined
as follows:
GERN if G has an Abelian subnormal series;
G E RI if G has an Abelian normal series;
G E RN if every subnormal series in G has an Abelian subnormal refine-
ment;
G E RI if every normal series in G has an Abelian normal refinement.
A family :;e of c10sed subgroups of a topological group G is said to be an
inductive system if G = u9; and for any K, H E :;e there exists M E :;e such
that H U K S; M. A typical example of an inductive system is the family of all
c10sed subgroups of a group G topologically generated by finite subsets of G.
It is said that a c1ass ':J{ of topological groups satisfies the inductive theorem if
every topological group having an inductive system of subgroups in ':J{ belongs to
'J{. The fact that the c1asses Z, Z, N, RN, RN, RI, RI of generalized nilpotent
and generalized soluble locally compact groups satisfy the inductive theorem
was proved in 1979 by Protasov [Prl]. Two years later, Protasov [Pr6] extended
the inductive theorem to topological algebras. The results obtained by Pro-
tasov imply several important corollaries. Firstly, a locally compact inductively
prosoluble group belongs to each of the c1asses RN, RI. Secondly, a locally
compact inductively pronilpotent group belongs to each of the c1asses Z, N. In
particular, a locally compact inductively prosoluble group G different from a
cyclic group of prime order is not topologically simple, that is, G contains a
non-trivial c10sed normal subgroup.
Classes of locally compact groups satisfying various compactness and dis-
creteness type conditions were described in the survey of Mukhin [Muk].
We have to mention that the c1ass of profinite (that is, compact tota1ly
disconnected) groups occupies a special place among locally compact groups.
The fact that stimulated the study of profinite groups was that the Oalois groups
of infinite extensions of fields endowed with the Krull topology are profinite. It
is not surprising that the first period of the development of the theory of profinite
groups was very much infiuenced by the ideas and techniques from field c1asses
and the Oalois theory of c1assic fields. The monographs by Serre [Ser] and Ribes
[Rib] are good sources for the results obtained in this way. Chapter 11 of [OLl
presents the state of the art in profinite groups by the end of the eighties.
2.5. SPACES AND LATIICES OF CLOSED SUBOROUPS
K. Mahler [Mahl], [Mah2] introduced a topology on the set of discrete sub-

groups of IRn which have rank n for the purpose of studying the geometry of
numbers. Mahler's criterion of compactness of sets in the lattice of subgroups
is the base for finding critical lattices and critical determinants of star bodies.
Chabauty [Cha] extended Mahler's idea and defined a topology on the family
of closed subgroups of an arbitrary locally compact group which is known as
Chabauty topology.
Let G be a locally compact group and ;E(G) be the family of all c10sed
subgroups of G. A subbase of the Chabauty topology on ::E( G) consists of the
sets
{H E ::E(G) : H n u i= 0} and {H E ::E(G) : H n K = 0},
where U is open in G and K runs through compact sub sets of G. The topological
space ::E(G) is compact for every locally compact group G. The Chabauty
topology on ::E(G) was studied in [Cha] , [Mac], [MaSw], [Wanl], [Wan2] ,
[Mam], [porn], [Scho], [PoHu], [FZ], [Stil, [Pr2], [PrTsI] and [PrTs2].
The space ::E(G) with the Vietoris topology was an object of a systematic
investigation in [PrCh], [Pr2], [Pr3], [Pr4], [Pr7]-[Pr9], [PrIO], [KoPr], [PrSa],
[Sar] , [Kom], [Pil] , [Pi2] , and [MiPo]. Let us only mention that the Vietoris
topology on ;;e(G) is locally compact if and only if the locally compact group
G belongs to one of the following dasses:
(1) compact groups;
(2) Cpoo x ... x Cp;;o x K, where PI, ... , Pn are distinct prime numbers,
C p'oo, ... , C p;;o are quasieydie groups, K is a finite group and PI, ... , Pn
do hot divide the order of K;
(3) Qp x K, where Qp is the additive group of the field of p-adie numbers, K
is a finite group and P does not divide the order of K.
It is worth mentioning that the Vietoris topology on 5:E(G) (and its mod-
ifications [Pr5]) is better suited for the investigation of subtle algebraic and
topological properties of a locally compact group G than the Chabauty topology.
Topologies on ;;e(G) distinct from Chabauty and Vietoris ones were considered
in [PrCha] and [PrStu].
The set 5:E(G) has also a natural structure of a lattiee whieh was studied by
Mukhin [Muk].
3. Classes of Topological Groups. Embeddings
In the dass of topologie al groups, we can take direct products, subgroups and
quotient groups. These are the three main operations which produce a large stock
of elaborated examples of topologieal groups starting from relatively simple
ones. There can be, however, small c1asses of topological groups which generate
all topologieal groups by means of these operations. What are these dasses?
For example, do metrizable groups generate all topologie al groups? A similar
problem arises if we take a dass At of topological groups and study the -variety
of groups generated by At, that is, the minimal c1ass "V(At) that contains At and
is c10sed under direct products, taking subgroups and quotient groups. We only
mention here that the circ1e group 1I' generates the dass of all totally bounded
Abelian groups (this follows from results presented in Section 3.4).
One more line of investigation is to establish whether the groups of a given
dass "V are topologieally isomorphie to subgroups of the groups from another
given dass W. The latter problem leads directly to the question of the exis-
tence of universal topologie al groups with respect to certain properties. As an
example, we can mention Arhangel'skil's problem (see Problem 23 of [Arh8])
whether there exists a universal topological group of countable weight, that is,
a group G with weG) .:5 ~o such that every second countable topological group
H embeds into G as a topological subgroup.
These problems have been very stimulating for the development of the theory
of topologieal group during the last thirty years and many deep results were
established on the way of solving them. Let us start with metrizable groups.
3.1. METRIZABLE GROUPS AND THEIR PRODUCTS
It is dear that subgroups and quotient groups of metrizable groups are metriz-
able (see Theorem 1.3). Therefore, the direct product operation is the main
source of "new" groups. It was not dear in the forties how the subgroups of
direct products of metrizable groups look like. The problem was the fact that
metrizable topological groups need not have invariant metrics (general linear
groups GL(n, IR) and GL(n, q with n > 1 do not admit such metrics).
It is not surprising, therefore, that the first step towards solving the subgroup
characterization problem was done for the "invariant" case. Let us say that a
topological group G has an invariant basis if every neighborhood of the identity
in G contains a smaller neighborhood V of the identity such that x . V . X -1 = V
for all x E G. In other words, G has a base at the identity which consists of sets
invariant under inner automorphisms of G. It is dear that every metrizable group
with an invariant metric has an invariant basis, and vice versa. The following
theorem of Graev [Gr2] gives a complete characterization of topological groups
with invariant bases.
Theorem 3.1. Every topologieal group G with an invariant basis is topo-

logieally isomorphie to a subgroup 0/ a direet produet of metrizable groups
admitting invariant metries. Conversely, every subgroup of sueh a produet has
an invariant basis.
Since both Abelian and compact topological groups have invariant bases,
Graev [Gr2] condudes that such groups can be embedded into direct products
of first countable topological groups as topological subgroups. In fact, every
compact group can be embedded into a direct product of second countable
topological groups because first countable compact groups are second countable.
A complete description of subgroups of direct products of metrizable groups
was given in 1953 by Katz. Following [Katz], we say that a topological group
G has a quasi-invariant basis if for every neighborhood U of the identity in G
there exists a countable family y of neighborhoods of the identity satisfying the
following property: for every x E Gone can find V E Y with x . V . X -1 ~ U. In
[Arh8], [Usp9], the groups with a quasi-invariant basis are called ~o-balaneed.
It is immediate that metrizable groups have quasi-invariant bases. Katz's result
[Katz] can now be formulated as folIows.
Theorem 3.2. A topological group ean be embedded as a subgroup into a

direet produet 0/ metrizable groups iff it has a quasi-invariant basis.
It is easy to see that the dasses of topological groups with invariant and
quasi-invariant bases are dosed with respect to direct products, taking sub-
groups and quotient groups. A scheme defining an increasing chain of dasses
of topological groups with this property was considered in 1981 by Guran [Gu 1].
For an infinite cardinal -r, a topological group G is cal1ed -r -bounded if G can
be covered by -r translations of any neighborhood of the identity. Sporadical1y,
~o-bounded groups had appeared before in [Bro] and [Gra2] with the name
weakly separable groups. Guran [Gul] was the first to discover the remarkable
categorical properties of -r-bounded groups. First, it is easy to see that direct
products, subgroups and continuous homomorphic images of -r-bounded groups
are -r-bounded. In other words, -r-bounded topological groups form a J -variety
[M02]. Further, a topological group containing a dense -r-bounded subgroup is
-r-bounded as well. However, the main result about -r-bounded groups is the
following theorem that appeared in [Gul] almost without proof. Its proof can
be found in [Usp1o], [TkI8] or in Chapter IV of [THVR].
Theorem 3.3. A topologieal group is -r -bounded iff it is topologieally isomor-

phie to a subgroup of a direet produet oftopologieal groups having weight less
than or equal to -r.
In particular, ~o-bounded groups are characterized as subgroups of direct prod-

ucts of second countable topological groups. The proof of Theorem 3.3 given
by Guran is based on a generalization of the fact that every ~o-bounded group
has a quasi-invariant basis.
It is a helpful fact that every topological group of countable cellularity as well
as every Lindelftopological group is ~o-bounded [Gul]. The same conc1usion
holds for a topological group G with a Linde1f subspace generating a dense
subgroup of G.
An interesting relation between ~o-bounded groups and the groups of count-
able cellularity was mentioned by Arhangel'skii in [Arh8]: a topological group
is ~o-bounded iff it can be embedded into a topological group of countable
cellularity as a topological subgroup. A similar assertion is valid for -r -bounded
groups, this immediately follows from Theorem 3.3. However, an ~o-bounded
group can contain an uncountable family of disjoint open sets [Uspl].
Since there are many topological groups with no quasi-invariant bases,
Theorem 3.2 implies that metrizable groups do not generate the c1ass of al1
topological groups by means of the three operations: taking direct products,
subgroups and quotient groups. Free topological groups on metrizable spaces
need not have quasi-invariant bases and, in fact, they can be very complicated
in this respect. This was Arhangel'skii's point when he asked iffree topological
groups on metrizable spaces could generate all topological groups if one applied
the three operations mentioned above (see [Arh8]). A solution to the problem
has been recently obtained through the efforts of Morris, Nickolas, Pestov,
Svetlichny, and Uspenskij. Surprisingly, the answer depends on the existence
of a real-measurable eardinal. If such a cardinal does not exist, then every
topological group is a quotient of a c10sed subgroup of the free topological

group F(M) for an appropriate metrizable spaee X [MNPS]. If, however, K is
a real-measurable cardinal, then the symmetrie group S(K) of all permutations
of K with the pointwise convergenee topology cannot be obtained from free
topological groups on metrizable spaces by iterating these operations [Usp15].
Every free topological group on a metrizable spaee is of countable pseudo-
character; this fact follows from Graev's extension theorem (see Theorem 5.1).
We will consider such groups in the following seetion.
3.2. GROUPS OF COUNTABLE PSEUDOCHARACTER
A quotient group of a first countable topological group is obviously first eount-

able. Let us consider topological groups of countable pseudocharacter, that is,
groups whose identity is a countable interseetion of open sets. Simple examples
show that quotient groups of such groups need not have countable pseudochar-
acter. Do the groups of countable pseudoeharaeter generate all topological
groups? This question of Arhangel'skil's was answered by Pestov [Pe5] in the
affirmative.
Theorem 3.4. Every topological group is a quotient group 01 a topological

group 01 countable pseudocharacter.
Let us briefly discuss a scheme of the proof given by Pestov. Every topolog-
ical space X can be represented as an open continuous image of a completely
regular submetrizable space Y (in other words, Y admits a continuous one-
to-one mapping onto a metrizable spaee) - the eorresponding construction
is given on p. 331 of [Eng]. For a topological group G, we ean, therefore,
find a Tikhonov submetrizable spaee Y and an open continuous onto mapping
1: Y ---+ G. Then the free topological group F (Y) is of eountable pseudochar-
T
acter. Let
r
F (Y) ---+ G be a continuous homomorphism extending 1. Sinee
the mapping 1 is open, the homomorphism is open as weIl. This means that
r.
G is topologically isomorphie to the quotient group F(Y)j K where K is the
kernel of
Pestov's construction also implies that every topological group is a quo-
tient of an NSS-group (see Seetion 1.4). Indeed, sinee the above space Y is
submetrizable, the free topological group F(Y) is an NSS-group by a theorem
of [SiUs] (see also [MoTl] and [Tho]). Another proof of the fact that the free
topologie al group on a submetrizable space is an NSS-group has been given by
Pestov [Pe16] with the use of the concept of afree Banach-Lie algebra.
In 1979, Arhangel'skii introdueed the ~o-representable topologie al groups
as subgroups of direct produets of groups of countable pseudoeharaeter (see
[Arh6]), and asked if all topological groups are ~o-representabie. A counterex-

ampie was independently found by Guran [Gu2] and L. Stoyanov: the group of
all permutations with finite supports of an uncountable set endowed with the
pointwise convergence topology is not ~o-representable.
Pestov [pe4] gave a characterization of ~o-representable topological groups
as folIows. For a topological group G, let G V be the same group G with the
topology generated by the G.s-subsets of the space G. It is elear that G V is
also a topologie al group. Making use of this modification of group topologies,
Pestov proves that a topological group G is ~o-representable iff G V has a quasi-
invariant basis. In other words, G is ~o-representable if and only if, for every
neighborhood U ofthe identity eG in G, there exists an invariant G.s-set P with
eG E P ~ U. The invariance of P means that x . P . x-I = P for each x E G.
The groups of countable pseudocharacter look very much like metrizable
groups (cf. Theorem 1.3). In fact, every group of countable pseudocharacter
admits a continuous one-to-one mapping onto a metrizable space [Arh2], [Arh7].
This fact made probable Arhangel'skil's conjecture that every group of countable
pseudocharacter admits a weaker metrizable topological group topology (only
Hausdorff group topologies are considered). Shortly afterwards, an unexpected
solution came: the group GL(2, lR)Wl with the box product topology has count-
able pseudocharacter, but it does not admit a weaker metrizable group topology
[pe2]. It seems that this example of Pestov's has not been paid much attention,
so that Arhangel'skiI's conjecture is often repeated in the cirele of topological
group specialists.
3.3. THE CONSTRUCTION OF HARTMAN AND MYCIELSKI
Can an arbitrary topological group be embedded into a connected topological

group as a (elosed) subgroup? The operation oftaking the convex cone does not
help here. There is, however, a perfect analog of the connected cone operation
in the theory of topological groups presented by Hartman and Mycielski [HaMi]
in 1958. Let us briefly discuss their construction.
Given a topological group G with the multiplication " consider the set G#
of all functions J on J = [0, 1) with values in G for which there is a sequence
o = ao, < al < ... < an = 1 such that J is constant on [ak, ak+l) for each
k = 0, ... , n - 1. We can define a group operation * in G# by (f * g)(x) =
J(x) . g(x) for all J, g E G# and x E G. Clearly, then (f-I)(r) = (f(r-I
for each r E J (the inverse on the left and right part of the equality is taken
in G# and G, respectively). To introduce a topology in G#, we take an open
neighborhood V of the identity in G, areal number e > 0 and define the set
O(V, e) = {J E G#: J.t({r E J : J(r) ~ V}) < e},

where f..l, is the Lebesgue measure on J. One easily verifies that the sets 0 (V, s)
form a base of a topologieal group topology at the identity of G#, thus making
G# a topological group.
It remains to embed G into G#. To this end, we assign to each x E G
the element x of G# deftned by x(r) = x for all r E J. Then the funetion
i: G -+ G#, i (x) = x, is a topologieal monomorphism of G to G#, and i (G)
is a dosed subgroup of G#. A simple argument shows that the group G# is
path-eonneeted and loeally path-eonneeted.
It can be useful to note that the eorrespondenee G 1-+ G# is of functorial
nature: every eontinuous homomorphism 1/1: G -+ Hextends uniquely to a
continuous homomorphism 1/1#: G# -+ H# [BrMo]. This defines a eovariant
funetor # in the eategory of topologieal groups and continuous homomorphisms.
It turns out that the groups G and G# share many properties. For instanee,
if G is Abelian, divisible, torsion or torsion-free, then so is G#. A similar
assertion is valid for the metrizability [BrMo], weight, charaeter, separability
(see [Bie]) , ~o-boundedness (I. Guran, personal eommunieation), and some
others. However, the group G# is never totally bounded (except for the ease
IGI = 1). There are, nevertheless, many ways to embed a totally bounded group
into a conneeted totally bounded group. For instance, every totally bounded
group is topologieally isomorphie to a dosed subgroup of a pseudocompact
eonnected group [Ur]. On the other hand, the author is not aware of the existence
of a funetorial construetion of this kind.
Path-connectedness of the group G# makes it very useful in many respeets.
In [Arh2], Arhangel'skii used Hartman and Mycielski's construetion to simplify
Kakutani's proof [Kak4] of the existenee of free topological groups. Pestov
[Pe13] applied it to give a short version of the original eonstruetion of exten-
sions of continuous pseudometries to universal topologie al algebras presented
by Choban in [Ch05].
3.4. UNIVERSAL GROUPS
Given a dass ~ of topologie al groups, it is natural to ask whether universal

groups exist in this dass. The term universal ean mean universality with respeet
to embeddings or (open) homomorphisms. Thus, we ean ask if, for every infinite
eardinal K, there is a group G E ~ with w (G) ~ K sueh that every group H E ~
of weight ~ K ean be embedded into G as a topological subgroup or is an (open)
eontinuous homomorphie image of G.
It foIlows easily from the Pontryagin-van Kampen duality theory that the
group 1F eontains an isomorphie copy of every seeond eountable eompaet
Abelian group. Thus, the dass of seeond eountable, eompaet Abelian groups
eontains a universal group. A similar assertion is valid for the dass of second
countable eompact groups as weIl. One ean take G = nneN+ U (n) as a universal
group, where U(n) is the group of unitary complex matrices of size n. This
follows from the fact that every compact topological group has a complete
system of finite-dimensional irreducible representations [PeWe], [Pon3].
The problem of the existence of a universal group of countable weight
(in the sense of embeddings) was explicitly posed in 1981 by Arhangel'skii
[Arh8]. Uspenskij responded affirmatively and presented two "different" uni-
versal topological groups of countable weight [Usp8], [UspI2]. The first one is
the group Aut(lW) of homeomorphisms of the Hilbert cube /w onto itself in the
compact-open topology. Universality of the group Aut /w is proved by Uspenskij
[Usp8] with the help of Keller's theorem from the infinite-dimensional topology.
The second example of Uspenskij's is "elementary" in the sense that it does
not require any knowledge of the infinite-dimensional topology. Let U be a
complete, separable metric space which contains an isometric copy of every
complete, separable metric space. Such aspace U was constructed by Urysohn
[Uryl] , [Ury2]. In addition, the space U has the following property: every
isometry h: F ~ U with F ~ U and IF I < ~o can be extended to an isometry
h: U ~ U. Making use of these properties, Uspenskij [UspI2] shows that the
group Is(U) of isometries of U in the topology of pointwise convergence is
universal in the dass of second countable groups. It is not known, however, if
the groups Aut /w and Is(U) are topologically isomorphic (see [UspI2]).
The problem whether there exists a universal group in the dass of topological
groups of weight ~ t' for a uncountable cardinal t' is still open. It is not dear
whether Aut r: is such a group. A similar problem posed by Arhangel'skii in
[ArhlO] for Abelian groups has recently been solved (in the affirmative) by
Shkarin for the special case t' = ~o.
The problem of the existence of projectively universal topological groups in
the sense of open homomorphic images was considered by Pelant, Shakhmatov,
and Watson in [PSW]. The main result of [PSW] is the following theorem.
Theorem 3.5. For every infinite cardinal t', there exists a complete metric
Abelian group Gt' ofweight t' such that every complete metric Abelian group
ofweight ~ t' is a quotient group of Gt'.
In particular, there exists a Polish Abelian group G such that every Polish
Abelian group is a quotient group of G. In fact, the group G in question is
the completion of the free Abelian group A(B(w on the Baire metric space
B(w) = ZW with the topology generated by Graev's extension d ofthe standard
metric d on B (w). It is interesting to note that the complete groups appear in
Theorem 3.5 not by accident. As is shown in [PSW], for every topological group
G of weight t' ~ ~o, there exists a metric Abelian group H of weight t' which
is not a continuous homomorphic image of G.
Much less is known in the non-Abelian case. By a theorem of [PSW], for
each infinite cardinal t' , there is an invariant complete metric group Ht' of weight
't' such that every invariant complete metric group of weight ~ 't' is a quotient
group of H r . It is again an open problem whether the result remains valid if one
omits "invariant". For't' = ~o, this problem was posed by Kechris [Kec].
4. Cardinal Invariants of Topological Groups
Following the idea of the previous chapters, we are going to present many results
illustrating the fact that cardinal functions behave much better in topological
groups than in (Tikhonov) spaces. Sometimes the difference is enormous. For
example, a first countable topological group G is metrizable by the Birkhoff-
Kakutani theorem (see Theorem 1.3) and, hence, w(G) = d(G) = c(G).
Another particular phenomenon is the coincidence of several cardinal functions
in the dass of topological groups while they are different, even for com-
pact spaces. A good example of this kind is the equality of the character and
Jr-character of every topological group [Arh7].
The strongest results about relations between cardinal functions have been
obtained for (locally) compact topological groups. The information on the
subject known to date seems to be almost exhaustive.
As usual, w(G), nw(G), d(G), X(G), 1/!(G), L(G) and c(G) are the
weight, network weight, density, character, pseudocharacter, Lindelf number
and cellularity of G. We denote by Jrw(G) and JrX(G) the Jr-weight and Jr-
character of G. The tightness of Gis t(G), and o(G) is the number of open sets
in G. If ~ (G) is the family of all compact subsets of G, we define
k(G) = min{IYI : y S; ~(G), Uy = G}.
A useful cardinal function is the index 0/ boundedness of a topological group

G denoted by ib(G) and defined to be the least infinite cardinal 't' sueh that G
can be covered by at most 't' translations of any neighborhood of the identity.
Let us start with eardinal inequalities which are valid for all topologieal
groups.
4.1. BASIC INEQUALITIES
Suppose that ~ is a loeal base at the identity e of a topological group G and S

is a dense subset of G. It is immediate that each of the families
{xU : x ES, U E oo} and {Ux: x E S, U E oo}
is a base for G. Therefore, w(G) ~ d(G) . X(G). This fact implicitly appears
in [Pon4] and it admits several generalizations. Let us note that if Du S; G and
G = Du . U for each U E 00, then {xV: U E 00, x E Du} is also a base for
G. This observation readily implies the following.
Theorem 4.1. Every topological group G satisfies the inequalities:

(1) w(G) ~ d(G) X(G); (2) w(G) ~ k(G) X(G);
(3) w(G) ~ L(G) . X(G); (4) w(G) ~ ib(G) . X(G).
The last assertion of Theorem 4.1 implies all the others and apparently is due
to Guran [GuI]. In fact, the inequalities in (1), (3) and (4) of the theorem are
equalities because ib(G) ~ w(G) and X(G) ~ w(G) for every topological
group G. Note that the previous theorem is not valid, even for compact spaces:
the two arrows space Z (see Exercise 3.1 O.C of [Eng]) is compact, first countable
and separable, but w(Z) = c. Therefore, neither (1), (2) nor (3) ofTheorem 4.1
can be extended to compact spaces.
Let y be a n: -base at the identity of a topological group G. One easily
verifies that the family {U . U- I : U E y} is a base at the identity. This implies
that the character and n:-character of G coincide. Since d(G) ~ n:w(G) and
n: X(G) ~ n:w(G), from Theorem 4.1 (1) it follows that
w(G) ~ d(G) X(G) = d(G) n:X(G) ~ n:w(G).
Summarizing, we have the following.
Theorem 4.2. Let G be a topological group. Then

(1) X(G) = n:X(G); (2) w(G) = n:w(G).
To our knowledge, the above result has to be attributed to Arhangel'skil
(see [Arh7]). Again, none of the assertions of Theorem 4.2 is valid for compact
spaces. Indeed, let a(A) be a one-point compactification of an uncountable
discrete space A. Then n:x(a(A = ~o, but X(a(A = lAI > ~o. As for (2)
of the previous theorem, it suffices to consider the two arrows space Z.
To describe other specific features of topological groups, we recall the
definitions of four more cardinal functions.
A family g'3 of open sub sets of aspace X is called a pseudobase for X
if {x} = n{U E g'3 : x E U} for each x E X. The pseudoweight pw(X)
of a T I-space X is the minimal cardinality of a pseudobase for X. The i-
weight iw(X) of aspace X is the minimal cardinal r such that there exists a
continuous one-to-one mapping of X onto a completely regular space of weight
r. The diagonal number bo(X) of X is the pseudocharacter of the diagonal
box = {(x, x) : x E X} in X 2 Finally, the weak Lindelfnumber of X denoted
by wL(X) is the minimal cardinal number r with the following property: for
every open cover y of X there exists a subfamily /1- ~ Y such that U/1- is dense in
X and 1/1-1 ~ r. Note that the inequalities wL(X) ~ L(X) and wL(X) ~ c(X)
hold for every space X.
It is easy to see that every TI-space X satisfies 1/r(X) ~ bo(X) ~ w(X), and
if Xis compact Hausdorff, then w(X) = bo(X) = pw(X) [Juh]. However, the
TOPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS 1O?9
"gap" between the pseudocharacter and diagonal number can be arbitrarily large
because for every cardinal 't', the Tikhonov cube rc contains a dense subspace
Y of countable pseudocharacter such that b.(Y) = 't' [Ami]. The existence of a
topological group structure on aspace changes the situation: b.(G) = 1/I(G) for
every topological group G [Arh?]. Indeed, if y is a pseudobase at the identity
of G, put Ou = {(x, y) E G x G : x-1y E U} for every U E y. Then the
intersection of the family {Ou : U E y} of open subsets of X 2 coincides with
the diagonal b.x of X 2 This simple observation is applied in [Arh?] to prove
the following result.
Theorem 4.3. lf G is a topological group, then pw(G) :::: iw(G) :::: wL(G) .
1/1 (G).
Since wL(G) :::: min{L(G), c(G)}, we conclude that every topological
group G satisfies iw(G) :::: L(G) . 1/I(G) and iw(G) :::: c(G) . 1/I(G) [Arh?].
Note that if Xis a TI-space, then lXI:::: 2iw (X). Therefore, Theorem 4.3 implies
the following.
Corollary 4.4. Let G be a topological group. Then:

(1) IGI:::: 2L (G).1/J'(G), and (2) IGI:::: 2c (G)'1/J'(G).
It is an old problem posed by Arhangel'skll whether there exists an upper

bound for the cardinality of Hausdorff (regular) Lindelf spaces of countable
pseudocharacter (see Section 1 of [Arh3]).1t is known that the cardinality of such
spaces is less than the first measurable cardinal, but it is consistent with ZFC that
there exist regular Lindelf spaces X of countable pseudocharacter with IX I > c
(see [She], [Mal2]). Therefore, Corollary 4.4 (1) cannot be extended to regular
spaces even in the countable case. As for the second assertion of Corollary 4.4,
there exist arbitrarily large Tikhonov spaces X with c(X) . 1/I(X) = ~o. In fact,
even the condition c(X) . 1/I(X) . teX) :::: ~o does not imply any upper bound
for the cardinality of a Tikhonov space X [Ami].
The cellularity considered in the class of topological groups acquires very
specific features. The first well-known result (which is difficult to attribute
to anybody) states that a locally compact O'-compact topological group has
countable cellularity. There are at least two different proofs of this fact; the first
one is based on the existence of a Haar measure on locally compact groups
(see Theorem 3.9(iv) of [Com2]), and another makes use of a decomposition
of locally compact groups into inverse spectra of second countable groups
with continuous open homomorphisms [Scel]. It turns out, however, that the
conclusion does not depend on the local compactness of a 0' -compact group,
and the latter fact is due to Tkacenko [Tk2].
Theorem 4.5. Every 0' -compact topological group has countable cellularity.
Uspenskij's artic1e [Usp1] with a generalization of Theorem 4.5 appeared

a little earlier than the original paper [Tk2] , but Uspenskij had learned the
reasoning contained in [Tk2] before its publication and he gives credit to the
author in [Usp1]. The idea of the proof of Theorem 4.5 was to apply Ramsey's
theorem on finite partitions of unordered pairs of integers (see Chapter II of
[Rud]).
Let y be a family of compact sub sets of a topologieal group G such that
Uy = G. For every K E y, denote by HK the subgroup of G generated by K.
Then HK is a a-compact subgroup of G and, hence, the above theorem implies
that C(HK) ::: ~o. Since G = UKEY HK, we conc1ude that c(G) ::: lyl . ~o,
thus obtaining the following generalization of Theorem 4.5.
Theorem 4.6. Let G be a topological group. Then c(G) ::: k(G) . ~o.
It is worth mentioning that homogeneous compact spaces can have uncount-

able cellularity [Mau], [MiI]. Can the cellularity of such spaces exceed the power
of continuum? This problem, posed by van Dowen in 1980, remains open.
Theorem 4.6 stillleaves some space for the further investigation of the cellu-
larity in topological groups. The following result was proved by Tkacenko [Tk5]
and Uspenskij [Usp1] (again, the dates of these publications do not correspond
to the historic chronology).
Theorem 4.7. Every topological group G satisfies c(G) ::: 2 ib (G).
Recall that any ~o-bounded group is topologieally isomorphie to a subgroup

of a Cartesian product of second countable topologieal groups (see Theorem
3.3). Therefore, Theorem 4.7 implies that if H is a subgroup of the product
of second countable groups, then c(H) ::: c. It seems interesting to compare
this assertion with Tikhonov's embedding theorem. This comparison shows a
huge difference in the behavior of the cellularity in topologieal spaces on one
side and in topological groups on the other. To see this difference particularly
c1early, we formulate the following corollary to Theorem 4.7 (see [Usp1]). One
only has to note previously that every topological group G satisfies ib( G) :::
wL(G) ::: c(G) [Gu1].
Corollary 4.8. lf His a subgroup 0/a topological group G, then c(H) ::: 2c (G).
An interesting and non-trivial generalization of Theorem 4.6 was given by

Uspenskij in [Usp5] via the introduction of the Nagami number of a Tikhonov
space. Let y be a family of subsets of Z and X ~ Z. We say that y separates
X from Z \ X if, for all x E X and Z E Z \ X, there exists F E Y such that
x E F and z rt F.
Definition 4.9. Let X be the Stone-Cech compactification 0/ a Tikhonov

space X, and let ~ be the /amily 0/ all closed subsets 0/ X. Then the Nagami
number Nag(X) 0/ Xis defined as/ollows:
Nag(X) = min{lyl : y ~~, y separates X from X \ X}.
It is immediate from the definition that Nag(X) ~ k(X) for every Tikhonov
space X. In particular, every a-compact space X satisfies Nag(X) ~ ~o. The
spaces X with Nag(X) ~ ~o are called Lindel/ I:,-spaces. One can also verify
that L(X) ~ Nag(X) ~ nw(X) for every Tikhonov space X.
The advantage of working with the class of Lindelf I:, -spaces is that many
results valid for a -compact spaces remain true in the former class. In addition,
the class of Lindelf I:,-spaces is closed under countable products, continuous
images and taking Fa-subsets. Combining these facts, one easily deduces that
a topological group generated by a Lindelf I:,-subspace is also a Lindelf
I:,-space [Uspl].
In 1982, Uspenskij extended Theorem 4.5 to Lindelf I:,-groups. A more
general form of this result is the inequality c(G) ~ Nag(G), which holds for
every topological group G (see Theorem 1 of [Uspl]).
Another refinement of Theorem 4.5 is related to the notion of a L-cellular
space introduced by Arhangel'skil in [ArhlO]. The idea of the corresponding
definition goes back to Efimov [Efl], who proved that every family y of G,,-
sets in {O, l}K contains a countable subfamily p, such that cl(Up,) = cl(Uy). In
general, if every family y of G.".-sets in aspace X contains a subfamily p, such
that cl(Up,) = cl(Uy) and 1p,1 ~ L, the space X is called L-cellular. Thus, for
any cardinal /C, {O, l}K is ~o-cellular by Efimov's theorem. Note that c(X) ~ L
for every L-cellular space X. The following result proved by Uspenskij in [Usp5]
is a wide generalization of Efimov's theorem which also implies Theorem 4.5.
Theorem 4.10. Every Lindel/ I:,-group H is ~o-cellular. In addition, the

closure 0/ a union 0/ an arbitrary /amily 0/ G" -sets in H is a G" -set.
In 1989, Uspenskij mentioned in [Uspll], without proof, that both ass er-
tions of the above theorem can be naturally extended to topological groups H
satisfying Nag(H) ~ L (in this respect, see Theorem 1.5 of [Tk12]). Tkacenko
[Tk12] proved that Theorem 4.10 is also valid for arbitrary products of Lindelf
I:,-groups.
Theorem 4.7 and Corollary 4.8 made it interesting to find out whether
2~o is the least upper bound for the cellularity of subgroups of ~o-bounded
topological groups. Uspenskij [Usp14] constructed a subgroup H of K C with
c(H) = c, where K is the discrete free group with countably many generators.
Thus, subgroups of separable topological groups can have cellularity equal to
c, and the upper bound in Theorem 4.7 is exact.
The problem of estimating the cellularity of Lindelf topological groups

was more difficult. Tlcacenko [fk2] found out that such groups need not have
countable cellularity. The example presented in [Tk2] is quite simple. Let X
be the one-point Lindelfication of an uncountable discrete space. Then X n is
Lindelf for every n E N. Therefore, the free topologie al group F(X) on X
is also Lindelf. In addition, X is P-space, that is, all Ga-subsets of X are
open in X. This easily implies that F(X) is also a P-space. Since F(X) is not
discrete, the cellularity of the group F(X) is uncountable. It is not difficult to
show that c(F(X = ~I independently ofhow big the cardinality of Xis. This
fact suggests the following conjecture formulated by Tkacenko (see Problem
2.3 of [Tk5]):
The cellularity of every Lindelftopological group does not exceed ~I.
Six years later, W. Comfort repeated the same conjecture in [Com4] as Ques-
tion l.B.7. A partial result confirming the conjecture was proved by Uspenskij
in [Usp5]: every Lindelf P-group has cellularity less than or equal to ~I. In
particular, a non-discrete Lindelf P -group G satisfies c( G) = ~ I. The problem
has recently been completely solved in [GRS] by means of considering the free
topological group F(X) on a special space X such that all finite powers of X
are Lindelf, but c(F(X = c.
An interesting complement to Theorem 4.7 was proved by Pasynkov in
[pas5]: if a topological group H satisfies L(H) ::: 1", then celr(H) ::: 2 r .
The latter means that every family y of Gr-sets in H contains a subfamily
J.L such that d(UJ.L) = d(Uy) and IJ.LI ::: 2 r . This result refines the inequality
c(H) ::: 2L (H).1t is not dear ifPasynkov's result can be extended to topological
groups H satisfying ib(H) ::: 1".
Another problem on the cellularity of topological groups was posed by
Arhangel'skil in 1979 (cited in [Tk5]):
Does every subgroup of zr have countable cellularity?
Much effort has been made to prove (or disprove) Arhangel'skil's conjecture
and, finally in 1995, Uspenskij constructed a (quite elaborated) example of a
subgroup Hof ZC with c(H) = c [UspI4]. Note that Corollary 4.8 implies that
every subgroup G of zr satisfies c(G) ::: c.
The property of having cellularity ::: 1" is not productive, even in the dass
oftopological groups [fod].If, however, one oftwo factors is a u-compact (or
Lindelf I;-) group, then this is impossible from the following result of [Tk17]:
if Gis a subgroup of a Lindelf I;-group, then c(G x H) = c(H) for every
infinite topological group H. In fact, under the same assumption on G, the
equality c(G x Y) = c(Y) is valid for every infinite space Y. This result follows
from the fact that every regular cardinal 1" > ~o is a weak precalibre for G, that
is, every family y of open sets in G with Iy I ~ 1" contains a subfamily J.L of
cardinality 1" such that U n V i= 0 for all U, V E J.L (see [Tk2]).
To finish the section, we have to mention the following resuit of [Juh]: the
cardinality o(G) ofthe family of all open sets in an infinite topological group G
satisfies o(G) = o(GytJ. In fact, if G contains a disjoint family of open sets of
cardinality., then O(G)T = o(G) (see Theorem 3.16 of [Com2]). It is known
that the existence of a Hausdorff space X with o(X) < o(X)W is consistent with
ZFC (the result is due to SheIah).
4.2. CARDINAL INEQUALITIES FOR COMPACT AND LOCALLY

COMPACT GROUPS
Compactness and local compactness imply strong relations between cardinal

invariants in the realm oftopological groups. Let us start with compact topolog-
ical groups. The basic fact here is the following theorem proved independently
by Ivanovskir [Iva] and Kuz'minov [Kuz].
Theorem 4.11. Every compact topological group G is dyadic. In other words,

there exists a continuous onto mapping f: {O, I}T ~ G, where = w(G).
This resuit appeared in 1958 in response to the corresponding problem

posed in the early fifties by P. S. Alexandroff. A similar assertion for Abelian
compact groups was proved somewhat earlier by Vilenkin [Vi2]. Theorem 4.11
has several important corollaries deduced by different authors. The following
theorem presents the most well-known of them.
Theorem 4.12. Every compact topological group G with w(G) = 2: ~o

satisfies
(1) IGI = 2 T ; (2) d(G) = log(.); (3) o(G) = 2 T ; (4) c(G) = ~o.
The first and second assertions of the above theorem were proved in 1943 by
Kakutani in [Kak3] for compact Abelian groups with the heip of the Pontryagin-
van Kampen duality theory. Fifteen years latter, Hartman and Hulanicki
[HaHu] gave a direct proof of the same facts. Both artic1es make use of the
generalized continuum hypothesis (GCH for short). The first argument proving
(1) and (2) ofTheorem 4.12 without extra set-theoretic assumptions appeared in
the artic1e [Itz] by Itzkowitz and this was based on the Ivanovskll-Kuz'minov
theorem.
The third assertion ofTheorem 4.12 follows from the Ivanovskll-Kuz'minov
theorem and the following result of [Efl]: If X is a dyadic compact space and
x EX, X(x, X) = 2: ~o, then X contains a discrete subspace D of cardinality
such that D U {x} is homeomorphic to the one-point compactification of D.
Indeed, let G be a compact topological group with w(G) = 2: ~o. >From
(2) of Theorem 4.1, it follows that w(G) = X(G) and, hence, G contains
a copy of the one-point compactification of a discrete space of cardinality t'

by Efimov's theorem. Therefore, 2t' = o(X) :s o(G). Since there exists a
continuous mapping of {O, IV onto G, we conc1ude that o(G) :s o({O, 1}t') =
2t'.
Comfort [Com2] presents another proof of Theorem 4.12(3) which is based
on the following deep result:
Theorem 4.13. Let G be an infinite compact topological group with w(G) = t'.
Then there exists a continuous onto mapping I: G -+ [0, 1]t'.
In [Com2], Theorem 4.13 is attributed to Sapirovskii [Sapl], but the results

of [Sapl] do not cover the case ~o = c/(t') < t'. [The fundamental work
[Sap2] by Sapirovskil which does imply Theorem 4.13 as a very special case
appeared in 1980.] In any event, the above theorem follows from a result proved
by Gerlitz [Gerl] in 1976: if X is an infinite homogeneous dyadie space and
X(X) = t', then there exists a continuous onto mapping I: X -+ [0, 1]t'.
The last assertion of Theorem 4.12 is a special case of Theorem 4.5, but
the former has apparently been known since the forties. For example, on page
256 of the book [Hal] by Halmos, we find Exercise (9) which directly implies
the fact that every 10caIly compact a -compact topologie al group has countable
cellularity. Presumably, the reader of [Hal] was supposed to use the existence of
the Haar measure on a locally compact topological group. There exists, however,
an "elementary" proof of the inequality c(G) :s ~o for a compact topological
group G given by D. Strauss (see Lemma 2.2 of [Hush]). Her proof is based
on a relatively simple construction of a monotone mapping from the family of
all open non-void subsets of G to (0, 1] such that I(U U V) 2: I(U) + I(V)
whenever c1(U) n c1(V) = 0.
Another purely topologie al approach to the proof of (4) of Theorem 4.12
is essentiaIly due to Scepin (see [Seei]), and this works in many different
situations. Let us describe it briefly. Following Scepin, we say that a subset A
of a topologie al group G is of countable type if there exists a c10sed normal
subgroup N oftype G" in G such that A = Jr N1JrN(A), where JrN: G -+ GIN
is the quotient homomorphism. It is weIl known that the family ~ (G) of all open
sets of countable type forms a base of a 10caIly compact a-compact topological
group G (in fact, the latter assertion is valid for every ~o-bounded topological
group). Therefore, it suffices to show that every disjoint subfamily Y ~ ~(G) is
countable. Note that the quotient group GIN is second countable whenever N is
a c10sed normal G,,-subgroup of G and, hence, c(GI N) :s ~o. This simple fact
enables us to constructinductively two sequences {Yn : n E w} and {Kn : n E w}
which satisfy the foUowing conditions for each n E w:
(i) Yn ~ Yn+l ~ Y and IYnl :s ~o;

(ii) Kn is a closed normal G,s-subgroup of G, and Kn+l ~ K n;
(iii) If k < n, then U = rr;;LJrn(U) for each U E Yk;
(iv) rrn(UYn+ is dense in rrn(Uy).
In (iii) and (iv), rrn : G ~ GI K n is the quotient homomorphism. Let us define

K = nnEC/J Kn and J.L = UnEC/J Yn It is clear that IJ.LI ~ ~o. Let rr: G ~ GI K
be the quotient homomorphism. From (iii), it follows that U = rr-1rr(U) for
each U E J.L, and (i) together with (iv) imply that rr(UJ.L) is dense in rr(Uy).
Since the mapping rr is open, we conclude that UJ.L = rr-1rr(UJ.L) is dense in
Uy. This proves that c(G) ~ ~o.
Let us mention that every infinite compact topological group G of weight r
contains a homeomorphic copy of the Cantor cube {O, IV. This result follows
from a more general theorem about embeddings of Cantor cubes into dyadic
compact spaces [Ef2], [Gerl] , [Hag]. A direct proof of the fact was given in
1994 by Shakhmatov [Sh9].
The main inequalities for locally compact groups are collected in the follow-
ing theorem which gives almost complete information on cardinal characteristics
of these groups.
Theorem 4.14. Let G be a non-discrete, locally compact topological group.

Then
(1) X(G) = lf/(G) = t(G); (2) w(G) = k(G) . X(G) = ib(G) . t(G);
(3) d(G) = ib(G) log(X(G)); (4) IGI = ib(G) 2 X (G);
(5) c(G) = ib(G) = k(G) . ~o; (6) o(G) = 2 w (G).
The first assertion of Theorem 4.14 was proved by Arhangel'skll [Arh7] for
compact groups; a minor modification of the corresponding reasoning yields
the results in the present form. The part ib(G) = k(G) . ~o of (5) follows
immediately from local compactness of G and the definition of the index of
boundedness. The inequality c(G) ~ k(G) . ~o is valid for every topological
group G by Theorem 4.6. To deduce (5) it remains to note that always ib(G) ~
c(G) [Gu1].
The equality w(G) = k(G) . X(G) is due to W. Comfort (see Theorem
3.5 (iii) of [Com2]), which is apart of Theorem 4.14 (2). Combining the latter
equality with (5) of the theorem, we obtain (2). Assertions (3), (4) and (6) of
the theorem follow from (5) and Theorem 3.12 (ii)-(iv) of [Com2].
Theorem 4.14 has several interesting corollaries, two of which we present
below.
Theorem 4.15. Let H be a subgroup oj a locally compact topological group

G. Then
(1) c(H) ::::: c(G),
(2) lf H is closed in G, then d(H) ::::: d(G).

The first assertion ofthe above theorem follows from (5) ofTheorem 4.14.
Indeed, the c10sure H of H in G is a locally compact subgroup of G and, hence,
c(H) = c(H) = k(H) . ~o ::::: k(G) . ~o = c(G).

The second part ofTheorem 4.15 is due to Comfort and Itzkowitz [CIt]. Their
proof is based on (3) of Theorem 4.14: if H is non-discrete, then
d(H) = ib(H) log(X (H ::::: ib(G) log(X (G = d(G).

Thus, the cellularity and the density become monotonous functions on c10sed
subgroups of locally compact topological groups - a fact which has no analogy
either in topological spaces or in general topological groups (see [GiRS] and
[CIt]).
4.3. DYADICITY OF SUBSETS OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS
The Ivanovsldl-Kuz'minov theorem on dyadicity of compact topological groups

is a powerful tool for estimating various cardinal functions on these groups (see
Theorem 4.12). This fact made it possible to find out if there is an analog of the
dyadicity theorem for locally compact groups. The following result proved in
1989 by Cleary and Morris [ClMol answers the question in the affirmative.
Theorem 4.16. Every locally compact topological group G is locally dyadic,

that is, every neighborhood 0/ the identity in G contains a compact dyadic
neighborhood 0/ the identity.
This local version of the Ivanovskil-Kuz'minov theorem permits us to

give a short proof of items (2)-(4) and (6) of Theorem 4.14. Indeed, since
w(K) = X(K) = t(K), d(K) = log(w(K and o(K) = 2 w (K) for every
dyadie compact space K, the above-mentioned assertions ofTheorem 4.14 do
not present difficulty.
Cleary and Morris gave a "soft" proof of the local dyadicity theorem in
the sense that their reasoning depends only on basic results such as Mostert's
theorem [Mos] on the decomposition K ::: (K / Ko) x Ko for a compact group
K and some simple facts that follow from the Pontryagin-van Kampen duality
theory. Anyway, the one-page proof in [ClMo] is easy to understand. However,
the local dyadicity theorem is an immediate corollary of the following deep
result proved in 1976 by Choban (see [Cho2] for an announcement and [Cho3]
for a complete and detailed proof):
Theorem 4.17. A compact G &-subset of any topological group is dyadic.
Let H be a locally compact topological group and let U be a neighborhood

of the identity e in H. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the closure
of U is compact. Choose an open neighborhood V of e such that F = cl V ~ U
and define a sequence {Vn : n E w} of open subsets of H such that Vo = U and
F ~ cl Vn+l ~ Vn for each n E w (we use the fact that a locally compact group
H is normal, see Seetion 1.4). Then K = nnew Vn is a compact G&-set in H
and F ~ K ~ U, that is, K is a compact neighborhood of e in H. By Theorem
4.17, the compact space K is dyadie. This proves the local dyadicity theorem.
Another subtle result of [Ch02] concems compact sets in quotient spaces of
topological groups. Recall that a topological group G is called almost metriz-
able (see Seetion 1.3) if G contains a non-empty compact subset of countable
character in G.
Theorem 4.18. Let H be a closed subgroup ofan almost metrizable topological

group G. Then every compact G &-set K in the quotient space G / H is dyadic.
Theorems 4.17 and 4.18 were improved by Pasynkov in [Pas4], where he

showed that a compact G&-set in both theorems is a Dugundji compact space.
The latter notion plays an important rle in what follows and we give a short
description ofDugundji compact spaces defined by Pelczytlski [pel] in 1968. Six
years later, Haydon [Hay] characterized Dugundji compact spaces as follows: a
compact space X is Dugundji iff every continuous mapping f: A -+ X defined
on a c10sed sub set A of a Cantor cube {O, 1}t' can be extended to a continuous
mapping /: {0,1}t' -+ X. Since every compact space is a continuous image
of a closed subspace of a Cantor cube {O, l}w(X), we conclude that Dugundji
compact spaces are dyadie [Hay].
The results of Choban and Pasynkov left open the following problem posed
by Arhangel'skii: Is it true that a compact quotient space of a u-compact
topological group dyadie? A more general Arhangel'skil problem (see [ArhlOD
concems transitive actions of topological groups on compact spaces. Suppose
that cp: G x X -+ X is a continuous transitive action of a topological group G
on a compact space X where G satisfies one of the following conditions: (i) G
is u-compact; (ii) c(G) ~ ~o; (iii) G is Lindelf. Is then X dyadie?
All these problems were solved in the affirmative by Uspenskij [Usp9]. The
following theorem of [Usp9] answers these problems in a "uniform" way: the
c1ass of ~o-bounded groups contains u-compact and Lindelf groups as weIl as
the groups of countable cellularity [Gu1].
Theorem 4.19. Let cp: G x X -+ X be a continuous transitive action of an

~o-bounded topological group G on a compact space X. Then X is Dugundji.
To formulate the following result proved by Uspenskij in [Usp9], we recall

that ~o-balanced topological groups are subgroups of products of metrizable
groups (see Section 3.1).
Theorem 4.20. Let H be a closed subgroup 0/ an ~o-balanced topological

group G. Then every compact G J -set in the quotient space G / H is Dugundji.
Formally, the above result does not generalize Theorem 4.18 because there
exist almost metrizable topological groups which are not ~o-balanced [pe4].
However, every compact G J-set in a quotient space of an almost metrizable
topological group is homeomorphic to a compact GJ-set in a quotient space of
an ~o-balanced topological group [Ch03], so the conc1usion of Theorem 4.18
is covered by Uspenskij's result.
The proofs of Theorems 4.19 and 4.20 given in [Usp9] are essentially shorter
than the proofs of Theorems 4.17 and 4.18 presented in [Ch03]. In fact, the
brevity of Uspenskij's exposition is due to the use of Haydon's theorem on a
spectral decomposition of Dugundji compact spaces [Hay].
Since ~o-bounded groups form a proper subc1ass of ~o-balanced groups, it
is natural to ask whether Theorem 4.19 can be extended to ~o-balanced groups.
However, Uspenskij noted in [Usp9] that discrete groups are ~o-balanced and a
compact space that admits a continuous transitive action of a discrete group is
plainly a homogeneous compact space and, hence, need not be dyadic (the two-
arrows compact space is a counterexample). It is also mentioned in [Usp9] that
the two arrows compact space is homeomorphic to a quotient space of some
topological group of countable pseudocharacter, which means that Theorem
4.20 cannot be extended to the groups of countable pseudocharacter.
By Scepin's theorem (see Theorem 9 of [Scei]), an infinite, zero-
dimensional, homogeneous Dugundji compact space X is homeomorphic to the
Cantor cube {O, IV, where t' = w(X). Combining this result and Theorem 4.19,
Uspenskij [Usp9] deduces that a compact zero-dimensional space of weight t'
which admits a continuous transitive action of an ~o-bounded topological group,
is homeomorphic to the Cantor cube {O, ur. A similar assertion is valid for
compact zero-dimensional quotient spaces of ~o-balanced topological groups.
Another surprising fact established by Uspenskij in [Uspll] is that compact
retracts of topological groups are Dugundji. Recall that a continuous mapping
f: X ~ X is called retraction if f Cf (x = f (x) for each x EX, and that the
image feX) under the retraction f is called a retract of X.
Theorem 4.21. If a compact subset X of a topological group G is a retract of

G, then X is Dugundji.
Shakhmatov [Sh5] generalized the above theorem, extending it to compact

retracts of dense subspaces of topological group. In fact, he proved a more
general result which involves the notion of a d-regular extension operator

introduced by Shirokov [Shi2]. Let Y be a subspace of X. We denote by 5"(X)
and 5" (Y) the topologies of X and Y, respectively. A mapping e: 5" (Y) -+ 5" (X)
is called a d-regular extension operator if it satisfies the following conditions
for a11 U, V E 5"(Y):
(i) e(U) nY = U;
(ii) e(U n V) = e(U) n e(V);

(iii) e(0) = 0.
Itis easyto seethatifY is dense in X, then the function e(U) = X\el(Y\U)

is a d-regular extension operator from 5"(Y) to 5"(X). By a result of [Shi2],
a elosed subset Y of a Tikhonov cube F is Dugundji iff there exists a d-
regular extension operator e: 5"(Y) -+ 5"(l'r). In the following theorem of
[Sh5], Tikhonov cubes are replaced by topological groups.
Theorem 4.22. A compact subset Y 0/ a topological group G is Dugundji iff

there exists a d-regular extension operator e: 5"(Y) -+ 5"(G).
In particular, if S is dense in a topological group G and Y is a compact

retract of S, one easily verifies the existence of a d-regular extension operator
e: 5"(Y) -+ 5"(G). Therefore, Y is Dugundji by Theorem 4.22.
The reader can find additional information on compact subsets of topological
groups and quotient spaces of topological groups in [Sh5] and [Uspll].
We conelude this section with abrief discussion of the results conceming
compact continuous images of er-compact and Lindelf 'E-groups. This line
of investigation was suggested by Arhangel'skii in [ArhlO] (see also [Usp5]
for the first mention of the problem). The basic idea when studying compact
continuous images of er -compact groups is that these images have to be elose
to dyadie spaces. The first result in this direction was obtained by Uspenskij
in [Usp5]: if a compact space X is a continuous image of a Lindelf 'E-group,
then w(X) = X (X). This is a generalization of the elassic theorem on the
coincidence of the weight and character in dyadie compact spaces proved in
1949 by Esenin-Vol'pin [EV].
This result of [Usp5] was a partial solution to Arhangel'skii's problem about
the coincidence of the weight and tightness for compact images of er -compact
topological groups. The following theorem, proved by Tkacenko in [Tk12] ,
answers the problem in the affirmative.
Theorem 4.23. Let a compact space X be a continuous image 0/ a topological

group G. Then w(X) ~ t(X) . Nag(G).
Note that every a-compact group G satisfies Nag(G) ::::: ~o, so Theorem 4.23
implies that w(X) = t(X) for a compact continuous image X of a a-compact
group G. In fact, Theorem 4.23 is a special case of a more general result proved
in [TkI2]. Recall that if Xis a dyadic compact space of an uncountable regular
weight 1", then there exists a continuous onto mapping I: X -+ [0, IY [Ef2],
[Gerl]. Let us define the index id(X) of aspace X as folIows:
id(X) = sup{1": there exists a continuous onto mapping I: X -+ [0, Uf}.
It is known that every compact space X satisfies id(X) ::::: t (X) and, in addition, if
Xis dyadic, then w(X) = id(X) [Sapl]. The former assertion was generalized
in [TkI2]: id(X) ::::: t(X) . Nag(X) for every Tikhonov space X. The latter
result admits the following generalization, which also implies Theorem 4.23
(see [TkI2]):
Theorem 4.24. Let a compact space X be a continuous image 01 a topological

group G. Then w(X) ::::: id(X) . Nag(X).
In particular, a compact continuous image X of a a-compact topologi-

cal group satisfies w(X) = t(X) = id(X). In addition, if 1" = w(X) is
an uncountable regular cardinal, then there exits a continuous onto mapping
I: X -+ [0, I]T [TkI2]. It is interesting to note that Theorems 4.23 and 4.24
remain valid for compact continuous images of dense subspaces of topological
groups. The following result proved in [TkI2] gives even more. Let S be a
dense subspace of the product n = niE] Gi of topologie al groups Gi and let
I: S -+ X be a continuous mapping onto a compact space X. If Nag( Gi) ::::: 1"
for all i E I, then w(X) ::::: t(X) . 1" = id(X) . 1". In particular, if the groups
Gi are a-compact (or, more generally, Nag(Gi) ::::: ~o for each i E 1), then
w(X) = t(X) = id(X).
A special case of the latter result (namely, the equality w(X) = t(X)) was
earlier proved by Shirokov [Shil] for compact continuous images X of dense
subspaces of Cantor cubes {O, l}T.
Summarizing, we have the following corollary (see [TkI2]):
Corollary 4.25. Let S be a dense subspace 01 a a -compact topological group,

and suppose I: S -+ X is a continuous mapping onto a compact space X.
Then X is metrizable in each olthelollowing cases:
(I) X is 01 countable tightness;
(2) Xis linearly ordered (or, more generally, a-extended [Arh4]);
(3) X is ~o-monolithic;
(4) every non-empty closed subset F 01 X contains a point x E F such that

n X (x, F) :::: ~o.
Theorem 4.23 admits a local version analogous to the well-known equality

X (x, X) = t (x, X) whieh is valid for each point x E X of the dyadic compact
space X (see Theorem 11 of [Ger2]). Shirokov [Shil] showed that the character
and hereditary n -character coincide at every point of a compact continuous
image of a dense subspace of a generalized Cantor cube. These results follow
from the theorem proved in [TkI5]:
Theorem 4.26. Let S be a dense subspace 01 a product of Lindelf "2:.-groups

and let I: S -+ X be a continuous mapping onto a compact space X. Then
X(x, X) = t(x, X)lor each x EX.
It is an open problem whether a compact space X in Theorem 4.26 contains

a copy ofthe Cantor cube {O, l}f for every regular cardinal r :::: w(X).
s. Free Topological Groups
Free topologie al groups were introduced in 1941 by A.A. Markov in [MarI]

with the clear idea of applying the well-known construction of a free group from
group theory to topologie al groups. It is easy to give a categorical definition of
a free topological group as a kind of a projective object in the category of
topologieal groups and continuous homomorphisms, but the existence proof
of such objects is far from trivial, and this is only the first difficulty on the
way of studying free topological groups. After the complete (long and com-
plicated) proof of the existence theorem had appeared in [Mar2] , Kakutani
[Kak4], Nakayama [Nak] and Graev [Grl] brought significant improvements
into the original construction. Graev's approach, whieh involves an extension of
continuous pseudometrics from the set of generators of a free topologie al group
to the whole group, seems to be the most fruitful and constructive.
Free topologieal groups have become a powerful tool for investigating gen-
eral topologieal groups, whieh also serve as a source of examples and as an
instrument for proving theorems. Below, we will see numerous facts confirming
this statement.
Two articles present a good complement to the material of this chapter. The
first one is the (relatively short) survey article [M03] by Morrls on free Abelian
topological groups whieh contains a comprehensive list of bibliography up to
1984. Modern trends in the theory of topologie al groups and algebras given
from the category theory point of view are presented in the survey [Pel7] by
Pestov. The latter work also contains extensive bibliographie data.
5.1. DEFINITION AND BASIC PROPERTIES
It is a well-known fact (see [Rob] , [KaMe]) that for every non-empty set X,
there exists a group G that contains X as a set of generators and satisfies the
following condition:
(FG) every function cp: X -+ Hof X to an arbitrary group H can be extended
to a homomorphism $: G -+ H.
The set X is called the Jree basis of G. It turns out that the group G in
question is unique up to an isomorphism fixing the points of X; this group is
usually called the Jree group on X and denoted by F(X). If one changes the
word "group" to "Abelian group" in the above lines, we get the definition of the
free Abelian group on X, which will be referred to as A(X). The word "free"
appears here due to the fact that there are no non-trivial algebraic relations
in F(X) which means that any "word" g = Xfl ..... x~n in F(X) (with
Xl, ... , X n E X and EI, ... , En = 1) is different from the identity of F(X)
whenever gis irreducible. A similar assertion (with the obvious changes for the
commutative case) is valid for A(X).
In 1945, A. Markov published the work [Mar2] in which he showed that there
exists a profound analogy between algebraic and topological groups (the first
announcement goes back to 1941, see [MarI]). Let X be a completely regular
topological space and suppose that G is a topological group which contains X as
a subspace. Following Markov, we call G the free topological group on X if X
algebraically generates G and the pair (G, X) satisfies the following condition
resembling (FG):
(FTG) every continuous function cp: X -+ H of X to a topological group H
can be extended to a continuous homomorphism $: G -+ H.
The space X is called the free topological basis of G. A usual notation
for the group G is F(X). Again, if all groups in question are Abelian, G is
called thefree Abelian topological group on X and we designate it A(X). The
definition of a free (Abelian) topological group does not say anything about its
existence, and the first existence proof in [Mar2] based on the use of multinorms
was really difficult. Different approaches to the existence proof were proposed
by Nakayama [Nak], Kakutani [Kak4] and Graev [Grl]. Let us discuss briefly
Kakutani's construction.
Given a completely regular space X, consider the family <g; of all continuous
functions J: X -+ Hf of X to topological groups Hf satisfying IHf I :::: IX I ~o.
[The fair objection that <g; is not a set but a proper c1ass can be eliminated by
choosing one representative for every c1ass of equivalent functions J, g E <g; in
the sense that J '" g if there exists a topological isomorphism 1/1 : Hf -+ Hg
such that g = 1/1 0 J. Standard cardinal estimates show that <g; / '" is a set
of cardinality not greater than exp2i, the second exponent of i = lXI . ~o.]
Let qJ: X -+ n f E~ Hf be the diagonal product of the functions in cg;. Denote

by G the subgroup of H = nfE~ Hf generated by the set Y = qJ(X). The
group H with the direct product topology is a topological group and qJ is a
homeomorphism of X onto Y. Identifying X and Y, we embed X topologically
into the subgroup G of H as a set of its generators, and it follows from our
construction that the pair (X, G) satisfies the condition (FrG). Therefore, G is
the free topological group on X.
The existence proof just given is the shortest one, but it is very non-construc-
tive and presents no way to study the topological properties of free topological
groups. Even the fact that X is c10sed in the groups F(X) and A(X) (see [Mar2])
is far from c1ear.
The approach to the existence proof suggested by Graev in [Grl] requires
more effort, but it presents considerably more than the mere existence of free
topological groups. Graev's reasoning was as follows. Given a completely reg-
ular space X, it suffices to find only one topological group topology on the free
group F (X) which induces the original topology on X. Indeed, the upper bound
t* of the family 5' of all such group topologies on F (X) is the maximal element
of 5', and it is immediate that F(X) with the topology t* is the free topological
group on X. The same argument works for A(X).
To prove the existence of a group topology on F(X) compatible with the
original topology of X, Graev shows that every pseudometric d on a set X can
be extended to the maximal invariant pseudometric don F(X). The invariance
of d means that
d(xg, xh) = d(g, h) = d(gx, hx) for all g, h, x E F(X),
and dis maximal among all invariant pseudometrics on F(X) extending d.

This is the main technical assertion and the rest is easy. Let f!) be the family
of all continuous pseudometrics on X. For every d E f!), the function Nd on
F(X) defined by Nd(g) = d(g, e) is a pseudonorm (see Section 1.1), where e
is the identity of F(X). A straightforward verification shows that the family of
pseudonorms Nd with d E f!) generates a group topology t on F(X), and the
restriction of t to X coincides with the original topology of X. This finishes the
existence proof.
One simple but very important observation can be made now: for every
d E tfP, the extension d of d to the free topological group F(X) is continuous.
In other words, we have the following theorem:
Theorem 5.1. Every continuous pseudometric on X can be extended to a

continuous invariant pseudometric on thefree topological group F(X).
The use of continuous pseudometrics on X makes a proof of the fact that

Xis c10sed in the groups F(X) and A(X) fairlyeasy (see Section 4 of [Grl]).
1094 MUCHAELG.TKACHENKO
Graev also applies this technique to show that for every c10sed subset Y of X,
the subgroup Fy = (Y) and the normal subgroup F Ny of F(X) generated by
Y, are both c10sed in F(X).
The relation between F(X) and A(X) was found out by Markov [Mar2]:
the free Abelian topological group A(X) is topologically isomorphie to the
quotient group F(X)jK, where K is the derived subgroup of F(X) generated
by all commutators. In particular, K is c10sed in the free topological group
F(X). Again, Seetion 4 of [Grl] contains a shorter proof of this result.
It is natural to try to obtain information on the properties of F(X) and
A(X) relating them to the properties of the "generating" space X. For example,
neither F(X) nor A(X) is anormal space if X is not (because X is c10sed in
these groups). Therefore, if Xis a complete1y regular non-normal space, then
the free Abelian topological group A(X) fails to be anormal topological space.
This was exactly Markov's solution to the normality problem in the c1ass of
Hausdorff topological groups [MarI], [Mar2].
In fact, the topological complexity of the groups F(X) and A(X) is higher
than the complexity of the space X as the following result shows [Grl].
Theorem 5.2. lf aspace X is not discrete, then the groups F(X) and A(X)
are not first countable.
In other words, the groups A(X) and F(X) are metrizable if and only if
X is discrete. Since the free (Abelian) topological group on a discrete space
is discrete, we conclude that metrizability is equivalent to discreteness for free
(Abelian) topological groups. It also follows from Graev's results [Grl] that the
groups A(X) and F(X) are never locally compact, except for a discrete space
X. A generalization of this result to topological (Abelian) groups with a free
algebraic basis was obtained by Dudley [Dud].
By definition, X is a subspace of F(X) and A(X). It turns out that these
groups contain all finite powers of X as closed subspaces by Arhangel'skii's
result (see [Arhl]). This fact was rediscovered eight years later in [Joi], [HMT]
and is known as Joiner's lemma. This gives us even more examples of non-
normal topological groups: if S is the Sorgenfrey line, then the groups A(S) and
F(S) are not normal because S2 fails to be normal.
5.2. DIRECT LIMIT PROPERTY AND COMPLETENESS
Neither Kakutani's construction nor Graev's gives us a topological description

of free topological groups in general. If, however, the underlying space X
is compact, the topological structure of the groups A(S) and F(S) admits a
complete description given by Graev in [Grl].
For every positive integer n, let Fn(X) (An (X be the subset of F(X)
(A(X which consists of a11 elements of length at most n with respect to the
basis X. It is easy to see that both Fn(X) and An (X) are continuous images of
the space X n , where X is the topological sum of X, its copy X-I and the identity
e of F(X) (A(X: X = X EEl {e} EEl X-I. Therefore, if Xis compact, then the
sub sets Fn(X) and An(X) are c10sed in F(X) and A(X), respectively. (Making
use of the Stone-Cech compactification X of X, Arhangel'skiI [Arhl] shows
that the same conc1usion holds for any completely regular space X; see also
[Joi] and [HMT].)
In fact, a continuous mapping of X n onto F n (X) can be simply defined
by jn(XI, ... , x n ) = Xl ..... Xn. The continuity of jn follows from the conti-
nuity of the group multiplication in F(X). For A(X), it suffices to replace the
multiplication by the sum operation.
If X is compact, then the mapping jn is c10sed and we can uniquely re-
construct the topology of Fn (X) (An (X for every n E N+. The following
theorem, proved in 1948 by Graev, gives adescription of the topology of the
groups F(X) and A(X) (see [Gr2]).
Theorem 5.3. A subset A oJ the free topological group F(X) on a compact

space X is closed if and only if An Fn(X) is closed in Fn (X) Jor each n E N+.
The same it trueJor thefree Abelian topological group A(X).
We can reformulate the above theorem, saying that the free topological group
F(X) on a compact space Xis the inductive limit ofits c10sed subspaces Fn(X).
The proof of this fact given by Graev can be applied in a more general situation
when X is a so-called kw-space, that is, there exists an increasing sequence
{Kn : n E w} of compact subsets of X such that X = U{Kn : n E w} and
X is the inductive limit of Kn 'so Every kw-space is obviously O"-compact, but
not vice-versa (the rationals are a counterexample). Theorem 5.3 can now be
reformulated once again: the free topological group F(X) is a kw-space with
the decomposition F(X) = U{Fn(X) : n E w}. By a result of Mack, Morris
and Ordman [MMO], the free topological group F(X) on a kw-space X with
a decomposition X = UnEwKn is the inductive limit of its compact subspaces
{Fn(Kn ) : n E w}. This gives a more symmetric form to Graev's theorem.
Another generalization of Theorem 5.3 was given by Tkacenko in [Tk7] for
spaces c10se to being compact.
Theorem 5.4. Jf all finite powers oJ aspace X are normal and countably
compact, then F (X) is the inductive limit oJ its closed subspaces Fn (X), n E
N+.
A similar assertion also holds for free Abelian topological groups. The
c1ass of spaces X satisfying the conditions of Theorem 5.4 contains c10sed
subspaces of L-products of compact metrizable spaces, and it easily follows

from this theorem that the free topological group F (X) is the inductive limit of
the subspaces Fn (X) for every ordinal (X, no matter whether the cofinality of (X is
uncountable or not (allordinals are assumed to carry the interval topology). The
condition that the finite powers of aspace are normal and countably compact
can seem bizarre, but it was shown in [TkI6] that, for a pseudocompact space
X, this condition is necessary to imply the inductive limit property for the free
topological group F(X).
A detailed study of the properties of free topological groups on metrizable
spaces was undertaken in [Arh8] and [AOP]. Recently, Pestov and Yamada
[PeYa] succeeded in characterizing metrizable spaces X such that the free
(Abelian) topological group F(X) (A(X)) has the inductive limit property.
Surprisingly, the Abelian and non-Abelian cases are quite different.
Theorem 5.5. Let X be a metrizable space.
(1) The free topological group F(X) has the inductive limit property iJf X is
locally compact separable or discrete.
(2) Thefree Abelian topological group A(X) has the inductive limit property iJf
X is locally compact and the set 0/ all non-isolated points in X is separable.
Finally, Sipacheva [Si2] has shown that, for every countable (not necessarily
metrizable) space X with one non-isolated point a, F(X) has the inductive limit
property if and only if, for any collection fUn : n E w} of open neighborhoods
of a in X, there exists a neighborhood V of a such that V n (Un \ Un +l) is finite
for all n E w (the original proof in [Si2] requires, however, certain correction).
The problem of completeness of free topological groups was first investi-
gated by Graev in [Grl]. Making use of Theorem 5.3, he proved the following
basic result.
Theorem 5.6. For every compact space X, the free topological group F(X)
and the free Abelian topological group A(X) are complete. Furthermore, these
groups are Weil-complete.
This had been the only known fact about completeness offree groups unti11973,
when Hunt and Morris [HuMo] extended it to free (Abelian) topological groups
on kw-spaces. These results, however, leave open the problem of characterization
of the spaces X for which the groups A(X) and F(X) are complete. This
problem was completely solved in 1983 for free Abelian topological groups
by Tkacenko [Tkl] (however, Pestov [PeI7] notes that the solution to the
completeness problem was earlier obtained by Flood in [Flo]).
Let us say that a completely regular space X is Dieudonne-complete if X

is homeomorphic to a c10sed subspace of a product of metrizable spaces. This
is equivalent to saying that X admits a complete uniform structure compatible
with the topology of X. The following is a characterization of completeness of
A(X) in terms of the generating space X (see [Tk3], [FloD.
Theorem 5.7. Thefree Abelian topological group A(X) is complete if and only
if the space X is Dieudonne-complete.
In particular, the group A(X) is complete for every metrizable or, more gener-
ally, every paracompact space X. The above theorem also permits us to describe
completions of free Abelian topological groups. Let /l-X be the Dieudonne
completion of aspace X, which is the maximal subspace of the Stone-Cech
compactification X containing X and having the property that every continuous
function f: X ~ M of X to an arbitrary metrizable space M can be extended
to a continuous function f: /l-X ~ M. It is not difficult to see that X is
--
Dieudonne-complete iff /l-X = X. Thus, Theorem 5.7 applied to A(/l-X) implies
the equality A(X) = A(/l-X) for every completely regular space X, where A(X)
is the completion of A(X) (see [TkID.
--
All the results of this section are equally valid for A(X) and F(X). The
completeness of free groups is not an exception to this particular rule, but the
his tory of the problem and the methods applied for its solution in the Abelian and
non-Abelian cases are different. Roughly speaking, the reason for this distinction
is based in the complexity of a topological description of the topology of F (X)
[Tk3], while a corresponding topological description for A(X) is relatively
simple (see [Nil], [MoNi]) and, in fact, goes back directly to Graev's artic1e
[Grl].
The first advance in the non-Abelian case is due to Uspenskij [Usp6] who
showed that the free topological group F(X) is Weil-complete for a metrizable
space X (a complete proof ofthat is given in [Usp13D. In fact, Uspenskij proved
that this result is valid for all X which are products of metrizable spaces, so
the remaining problem was to extend the result to c10sed subsets of products of
metrizable spaces. It was also shown in [Usp6] that F(X) is Weil-complete for
every Lindelf space X.
The final solution of the completeness problem was announced in 1988 by
O. Sipacheva [Sii], but as far as the author knows, nobody was able to verify
the proof given there. Apart from the exposition style of [Sii], the Western
reader faces another problem: the artic1e has never been translated into English.
Recently, the artic1e [Si3] by Sipacheva gave results which imply a positive
solution to the completeness problem.
5.3. SPECIAL PROPERTIES OF FREE GROUPS
By Graev's results in [Grl], the free (Abelian) group on aspace X is metrizable

iff X is discrete. This fact directly leads to the problem of characterization of
spaces X for which the free topological group F(X) (or A(X is Frechet-
Urysohn, sequential, has countable tightness, or is a k-space.
Let us introduce some notation. For a Tikhonov space X, we denote by X
the free sum of X, its copy X-I and the identity e ofthe free topological group
F(X): X = X $ {e} $ X-I. It is c1ear that Xis naturally homeomorphic to a
c10sed subspace of F(X). For every n E N+, let in be the mapping of X n to
F(X) defined by in(XI, ... , Xn ) = Xl ..... Xn . Also, let jn: X 2n -+ F(X) be
defined by
Jn. ( Xl, ... , Xn , YI, ... ,Yn ) = xl ..... Xn . Yn- 1 -1

..... YI .
Both mappings in and jn are continuous because of the continuity of the multi-
plication and inverse operations in F(X). It is c1ear that the image in (X n ) is the
sub set Fn (X) of F (X) consisting of all words of length at most n with respect
to the basis X.
If Xis compact, then all mappings in are c10sed (and hence quotient), thus
defining the topology of each of the spaces Fn (X). Since F (X) is topologically
the inductive limit of the c10sed subspaces Fn (X), n E N+, this gives us a
topological description of the space F(X) [Grl]. In fact, the same approach
works in the case of a kw-space X [MMO]: again al1 mappings in are quotient
and F(X) is the inductive limit of the c10sed subspaces Fn(X). Thus, if X
is additionally sequential, then so is X n for each n E N+, and since in is
quotient, the image Fn(X) = in(X n ) is also sequential. Using the inductive
limit property of F(X), we conc1ude that F(X) is sequential as weH [OrTh]. A
similar cargument shows that F(X) has countable tightness if Xis a countably
tight kw-space (the result implicitly foHows from [Arh7]).
Suppose that the free topological group F(X) is sequential. What will the
sequential order of F(X) be then? This was exactly the question answered by
Ordman and Smith-Thomas [OrTh]: if X is not discrete and F(X) is sequen-
tial, then the sequential order of F(X) is equal to (VI. In particular, F(X) is
Frechet-Urysohn iff X is discrete. These results were extended to subgroups of
free topological groups by Morris and Thompson [MoT2]: every non-discrete
sequential subgroup of a free topological group has sequential order (VI. In
fact, Morris and Thompson show that if a subgroup G of a free (Abelian)
topological group F(X) (A(X has a non-trivial sequence YI, Y2, ... converg-
ing to the identity e, then G contains the free (Abelian) topological group on
Y = {e} U {yn : n E N+} and, hence, G also contains the Franklin space Sw
which is of sequential order (VI .
The results just mentioned depend on the assumption that the free topo-
logical group F(X) or its subgroup is sequential. Is it really the case for good
spaces X, say, for metrizable ones? Surprisingly, in 1979 Fay, Ordman and
Thomas [FOT] proved that the free topological group over the rationals is neither
sequential nor a k-space. In fact, they showed that even the c10sed subspace
F6(Q) of F(Q) is not a k-space. This pathology made it interesting to study the
metrizable spaces X forwhich the group F(X) (a subspace Fn(X is sequential
or a k-space. Since the rationals Q are very far from being locally compact or
complete, there was hope that locally compact or complete metrizable spaces
generate free topological groups with the k-property. However, Borges [Bor]
noted that there exists a locally compact zero-dimensional metrizable space
X such that F(X) and F6(X) are not k-spaces. The space X in question is
simply the free sum of c copies of the convergent sequence (with its limit). It
is also shown in [Bor] that the mapping i6: x!' ~ F6(X) is not quotient, thus
answering (negatively) a question posed in [FOT].
The next step to realizing the topological structure of free groups on metriz-
able spaces was done by Arhangel'skil, Okunev, and Pestov in [AOP]. They
gave a complete characterization of metrizable spaces X for which F(X) or
A(X) has the k-property. We summarize the results of [AOP] in the following
two theorems.
Theorem 5.8. For a metrizable space X, the /ollowing conditions are equiva-
lent:
(a) F(X) is a k-space;
(b) F(X) is a kw-space or discrete;

(c) X is locally compact separable or discrete.
The case of free Abelian topological groups is different.
Theorem 5.9. lf X is metrizable and X' is the set 0/ all non-isolated points 0/
X, then the /ollowing conditions are equivalent:
(a) A(X) is a k-space;
(b) A(X) is homeomorphic to a product 0/ a kw-space with a discrete space;
(c) X is locally compact and X' is separable.
The rationals Q and the free sum S of c copies of the convergent sequence
both produce the free topological groups F(Q) and F(S) which fall to be k-
spaces. The reason for this phenomenon is that these groups contain small
subspaces F6(Q) and F6(S), respectively, which faH to be k-spaces. Is it always

so for free (Abelian) topological groups on metrizable spaces? Recently, Yamada
[Yam2] showed that this is not true for the hedgehog J(K) with K many spines,
K ~ ~o: An (J(K is ak-space for each integer n, but A(J(K is not. According
to another result of [Yam2], if X is metrizable and every An(X) is a k-space,
then the set X' of non-isolated points of X is locally compact.
Surprisingly, the property of the subspaces An (X) of A(X) to be k-spaces
is determined by n = 4 for every metrizable space X as the following theorem
of [Yaml] states.
Theorem 5.10. For an arbitrary metrizable space X, the Jollowing are equiv-
alent:
(a) A4(X) is a k-space;
(b) An(X) is a k-spaceJor each n E N+.
It is also shown in [Yaml] that A2(X) is a k-space for any metrizable space X,
and there exist metrizable spaces X and Y such that A3(X) and A4(Y) are not
k-spaces, but A3(Y) iso
A characterization of spaces X for which all mappings in: X n ~ Fn (X)
are quotient is still open. The Abelian version of the problem is also far from
being solved. For n = 2, however, the problem was completely solved in
1985 by Pestov in [Pe7]: the mapping i2 is quotient iff every neighborhood
of the diagonal in X 2 belongs to the finest uniform structure on X compatible
with the topology on X. In particular, the mapping i2 is quotient for every
paracompact space X. An analogous result is valid for free Abelian topological
groups. Therefore, there are locally compact spaces X for which the mapping
i2: X ~ A2(X) is not quotient: every locally compact non-normal space X
suits. On the other hand, if M is the free sum of Wl copies of the convergent
sequence, then the mapping in: M" ~ An(M) is not quotient for each n ~ 4
[Yaml]. This result refines one of the facts established by Borges in [Bor].
Several facts conceming the mappings in were obtained by Tkacenko in
[Tk7], [Tk16].1t is proved in [Tk7] that if X n is normal and countably compact
for some n E N+, then in is a closed mapping. Further, if X n is pseudocompact,
then the conclusion is weaker: in is z-closed, that is, in takes zero-sets in X n to
closed sets in Fn (X) [Tk16]. These results, however, leave open the problem of
characterization of the spaces for which the mappings in are closed or z-closed.
We finish this section with a very isolated theme: the reexivity of free
Abelian topological groups. In other words, the problem is to characterize
the spaces X for which the free Abelian topological group A(X) satisfies the
Pontryagin-van Kampen duality. As far as the author knows, only tbree publi-
cations [PelD], [pe18] and [GH] exist conceming this area (the second article
being a complete version ofthe first one). In [pe18] it is proved that if A(X) is
reflexive, then X is path-disconnected and if, additionally, X is pseudocompact,
then the first homotopy group of X is trivial. In addition, if X is a strongly zero-
dimensional space which is either metrizable or compact, then A(X) is reflexive.
The latter result left open the problem of characterization of reflexivity of A (X)
in terms of X. Galindo and Hernandez [GH] made significant progress in this
direction. They proved that, for a JL-space X (the c10sure of every functionally
bounded subset of Xis compact), the group A(X) is reflexive iff every compact
subset of X is totally disconnected and all compact sub sets of Ck(X, '1[') are
equicontinuous. Here Ck(X, '1[') is the space of all continuous functions from X
to '1[' endowed with the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets.
5.4. SUBGROUPS OF FREE TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS
By the Nielsen-Schreier theorem, every subgroup of a free group is a free

group (see Chapter 6 of [Rob]). The same result holds for free Abelian groups.
For free topological groups, the situation is more complicated. Section 13 of
[Grl] contains an example of a c10sed subgroup G of the free Abelian group
A (aN) on the convergent sequence aN which does not contain a free topological
basis (see Section 5.1). This example shows that there is no hope of extending
the Nielsen-Schreier theorem to free topological groups. Certain subgroups of
free topological groups, however, inherit the property of being free topological
groups. This is so for open subgroups of the free (Abelian) topological F(X)
(A(X on a kw-space X [BrHa]. Recently, Morris and Pestov proved a similar
assertion for open subgroups of free Abelian topological groups on arbitrary
Tikhonov spaces [MoPe].
Another kind of subgroups with this property comes if we consider a canon-
ieal homomorphism 1r: A(G) -+ G, where G is a kw-group. Then the kernel
of the homomorphism 1r is a free Abelian topological group [MMO].
Let us restrict ourselves, therefore, to the special case when a subgroup G
of A(X) (or F(X is generated by a subspace Y of X. Will the group G then be
topologically isomorphie to the free Abelian topological group A(Y)? What will
be the answer in the non-Abelian case? Note that the problem is almost purely
topological, because the existence of an (algebraic) isomorphism between G
and A(Y) (respectively, between G and F(Y is absolutely c1ear.
The first result in this direction is due to Graev [Grl]: if Y is c10sed and
X is compact, then the answer to the problem is "yes" in both the Abelian
and non-Abelian cases. A similar assertion was proved for c10sed subspaces of
kw-spaces, but only for the non-Abelian case [KMN2].
The next step required new approaches. In 1982, Pestov [pel] and Nummela
[Numm] independently proved that if Y is a completely regular space and X =
Y is the Stone-Cech compactification of Y, then Y is a free topological basis in
the subgroup F y of F (X) generated by Y if and only if Y is pseudocompact. The

universal uniform structure on X plays the key rle in Pestov and Nummela's
proofs. Furthermore, their proofs work in both the Abelian and the non-Abelian
case.
For free Abelian topological groups, the complete solution of the subgroup
problem was obtained in 1983 by Tkacenko with the use of the notion of a P-
embedded subspaee (see [TkID. Let us say that a subspace Y of a completely
regular space X is P -embedded in X if every bounded continuous pseudometric
on Y can be extended to a continuous pseudometric over X. The following
theorem of [Tkl] characterizes the subspaces Y of a given space X which are
topologieal bases in the subgroup Ay of A(X) generated by Y.
Theorem 5.11. Let Y be a subspaee of a eompletely regular spaee X and let

Ay be a subgroup ofthefree Abelian group A(X) generated by Y. Then Ay is
topologieally isomorphie to A(Y) if and only ifY is P-embedded in X.
Therefore, a c10sed subspace Y of a paracompact space X generates a free

topologieal subgroup of A(X). In partieular, the same assertion is valid for
c10sed subspaces of metrizable spaces.
An analog of the latter fact for free topologie al groups was proved by
Uspenskij [Usp13]. In fact, Uspenskij showed that a more general statement
holds: a c10sed subspace of a stratifiable space X generates a free topological
subgroup of F(X). It is known that the c1ass of stratifiable spaces inc1udes
closed continuous images ofmetrizable spaces. By another result of [Usp13], if
Y is a P -embedded pseudo-wl -eompaet subspace of a completely regular space
X, then the subgroup Fy of F(X) generated by Y is topologieally isomorphie
to the free topological group F(Y). As usual, the pseudo-wl-compactness of Y
means that Y does not contain uncountable discrete families of open subsets.
In [Si3], Sipacheva showed that Theorem 5.11 is also valid for free topo-
logieal groups: the subgroup Fy of F(X) is topologieally isomorphic to F(Y)
iff Y is P -embedded in X.
Much work has been done to characterize c10sed topologically free sub-
groups of the topological groups F(ll) and A(ll) on the unit interval II = [0, 1].
We recall that c10sed subgroups of free (Abelian) topologie al groups need not
be topologically free [Grl]. For topologie al groups G and H, let us write
H ::::: G if H is topologically isomorphic to a subgroup of G. By a result
of [Ni2], F(ll2) ::::: F(ll). An embedding of F(ll2) into F(ll) can be obtained by
extending the mapping f: ll2 ~ F(ll) given by fex, y) = xyx, to a homo-
morphism 1: F(ll2) ~ F(ll). The homomorphism fis, in fact, a topologie al
monomorphism. Since the group F(ll2) is complete, its image is c10sed in F(ll).
The result of [Ni2] was essentially generalized by Mack, Morris, and Or-
dman in [MMO]: if Xis compact, then F(X) ::::: F(ll) iff Xis metrizable and
finite-dimensional. Moving to the non-compact case, Nickolas [Ni3] proved that

F(J) ~ F(I), where J is the open interval (0, 1). Again, since the interval J
is a kw-space, the group F(J) is complete and the corresponding embedding of
F (J) to F (I) is c1osed.
The following somewhat surprising result was obtained by Katz, Morris,
and Nickolas in [KMN2]: if X is a kw-space and Y is a c10sed subspace of
F(X), then F(Y) ~ F(X). In particular, F(Y) ~ F(I) for every c10sed sub set
Y of F(I).
The study of the Abelian case has been proceeding with more difficulties.
>From a result of [KMN3], A(SI) ~ A(I), where SI is the circumference.
The relation A(J) ~ A(I) is also valid [KMN1]. More results on subgroups of
free Abelian groups are given in [KMN4]. It is worth mentioning that if Xis
a countable CW-complex of a finite dimension n, then A(X) ~ A(B n ), where
B n is the c10sed n-dimensional ball [KaMo].
Recently, a complete solution to the embedding problem (in both the Abelian
and the non-Abelian case) was given by Leiderman, Morris, and Pestov in
[LMP]. To formulate their result, we recall that aspace X is said to be sub-
metrizable if it admits a weaker metrizable topology.
Theorem 5.12. For a completely regular space X, the following are equiva-
lent:
(1) A(X) ~ A(I);
(2) F(X) ~ F(I);
(3) X is homeomorphic to a closed subspace of A(I);
(4) Xis homeomorphic to a closed subspace 0/ F(lf);

(5) X is homeomorphic to a closed subspace of Rex> = limRn ;
--+
(6) X is a kw-space such that every compact subspace of X is metrizable and

finite-dimensional,'
(7) X is a submetrizable kw-space such that every compact subspace of X is

finite-dimensional.
5.5. M-EQUIVALENT SPACES
In 1945, Markov posed the following problem (see [Mar2]). Let X and Y be
completely regular spaces such that the free topological groups F(X) and
F(Y) are topologically isomorphie. Are then X and Y homeomorphic? In
what follows, we will call such spaces X and Y M -equivalent. It is shown in

[Grl] that the countable FnSchet fan and the free topological sum of countably
many convergent sequences (with their limits) are M-equivalent, thus answer-
ing Markov's question in the negative. But then Graev reformulated Markov's
problem asking what topological properties are preserved by the M -equivalence
relation. Answering this question, Graev proved in [Grl] that compactness is
one of such properties: if two spaces X and Y are M -equivalent and one of them
is compact, then so is the other. A similar assertion was established by Graev
for second countable compact spaces. It is also shown in [Grl] that ifthe spaces
X and Y are normal and X is countably compact, then Y is also countably
compact. In fact, Graev's proof of this result implies that pseudocompactness is
M -invariant (note that pseudocompact normal spaces are countably compact).
Tbe problem whether the countable compactness is M -invariant is still open.
On the other hand, the example of two M -equivalent non-homeomorphic
spaces mentioned above shows that local compactness, metrizability, Cech-
completeness, and first (second) countability are not M -invariant.
Another problem considered in [Grl] was to characterize M-equivalent
compact countable spaces. Graev gave a complete solution to it in terms of
the height of such spaces. Let us note that every compact countable space X is
scattered, and the height of X is the least ordinal number y such that the yth
derivative set of X is empty.
Tbe following result obtained by Graev in [Grl] has to be mentioned sepa-
rately: the equality dim X = dim Y holds for every pair X, Y of M -equivalent
compact metrizable spaces. This theorem has been the subject of many subse-
quent generalizations. Tbe first of them goes back to Joiner [Joi] who proved in
1976 that the same equality is valid for M-equivalent locally compact metriz-
able spaces. Tben Pavlovskii [pavI] showed that the result remains valid for
complete separable metrizable spaces. Further progress in this direction is due
to Zambahidze [Zam] and Arhange1'skii [Arh7]: the covering dimensions of M-
equivalent compact spaces coincide. In fact, Zambahidze proved the equality
dim X = dim Y for compact spaces X and Y with topologically isomorphic free
Abelian groups A(X) and A(Y); let us call such spaces A-equivalent. It is easy
to see that M-equivalent spaces are A-equivalent, thus making Zambahidze's
theorem more general than the formulation given above. Arhangel'skii's result
also inc1udes M -equivalent spaces as a special case because the equality in
question was proved in [Arh7] for l-equivalent compact spaces X and Y. We
recall that the spaces X and Y are called l-equivalent if the spaces Cp(X)
and Cp (Y) of real-valued continuous functions on X and Y with the pointwise
convergence topology are topologically isomorphic as linear spaces. Again, 1-
equivalence follows from M -equivalence and A -equivalence. Arhangel 'skii's
result was extended to Lindelf Cech-complete spaces in [PaVa].
The following unexpected result, proved by Pestov in [Pe3] , in a sense

finishes the long investigation of the dimension coincidence problem for 1- and
M -equivalent spaces.
Theorem 5.13. The equality dim X = dim Y is valid for an arbitrary pair X,
Y of l-equivalent completely regular spaces.
Burov [Burl] noted that Theorem 5.13 remains valid for the cohomologieal
dimension dimG, where the group of coefficients G is finitely generated and
Abelian.
It is interesting to note that even the strong result of [Pe3] admits a certain
generalization to a weaker equivalence relation: Gul'ko proved in [Gul] an
analog ofTheorem 5.13 forcompletelyregular spaces X and Y such that Cp(X)
and Cp(Y) are uniformly homeomorphie. Pestov's theorem is in contrast with
the following result of [Bur2]: there exist M-equivalent compact spaces X and
Y such that ind X =1= ind Y and Ind X =1= Ind Y. If, however, X and Y are
metrizable and locally compact (or separable), then ind X = ind Y (see [pavi]).
By another interesting result of [Pavi], two non-zero-dimensional polyhedra
are l-equivalent iff their dimensions coincide. The situation changes for the
M-equivalence. L. S. Pontryagin noted (cited in [Grl]) that if X and Y are M-
equivalent compact spaces, then for any topological group G, the groups [X, G]
and [Y, G] of the homotopy equivalence c1asses of continuous functions from
X and Y to G are isomorphie. In particular, the c10sed unit interval and the
circumference are not M-equivalent. Pontryagin's idea was rigorously realized
in [PaVa]: the cohomologieal groups Hn(X, n) and Hn(y, n) are isomorphie
for any countable Abelian group n and n = 1,2. It was mentioned (without
proof) in [PaVa] that the result remains valid for an arbitrary Abelian group n
and any nE N.
Let us turn to negative results related to the M -equivalence relation. The
first construction whieh allows us to produce various examples of M -equivalent
spaces with different topologieal properties was discovered by Tkachuk [TkaI]
in 1983. His idea was to use the Alexandroff duplicate X* of aspace X. It is
shown in [TkaI] that if Xis compact and lXI = ~ ~o, then X* is M -equivalent
to the free sum X E9 C(r), where C(.) is the one-point compactification of a
discrete space of cardinality . In particular, the spaces X* and X* E9 C (.) are
M -equivalent for any compact space X of an infinite cardinality . Another pair
of M-equivalent spaces given in [TkaI] is WI with the interval topology and
WI E9 C(wt}. Thus, Tkachuk conc1udes that there exist M-equivalent spaces X
and Y satisfying one of the following:
(a) X and Y are compact and have different characters;
(b) X and Y are countably compact and have different pseudocharacter;

(c) X and Y are compact, X does not contain non-trivial convergent sequences,
but Y does contain convergent sequences;
(d) all compact subsets of X are countable, but Y contains a compact subspace
of uncountable weight.
A general method for construction of M -equivalent spaces was developed by
Okunev in [Okt]. In fact, his method is a far-going generalization of Graev's idea
(see [GrID to show that the countable fan and the countable topological sum of
convergent sequences are M -equivalent. We can describe Okunev's construction
as follows. Let X be a completely regular space and K be a retract of X. If X+
is the space obtained by adding an isolated point to X and Y is the topological
sum of K and the R-quotient space XI K obtained from X by gluing K to a
point, then X+ and Y are M -equivalent. Another variation of this construction
makes use of a bunch of topological spaces. Let (X, xo) and (Y, YO) be spaces
with fixed points xo and YO. Then the quotient space (X E9 Y)/{xo, YO} is called
the bunch of (X, xo) and (Y, YO). This space is denoted by (X, xo) v (Y, YO).
Again, let K be a retract of a completely regular space X and xo e K. It is
shown in [Okl] that the spaces X and (XI K, *) v (K, xo) are M-equivalent,
where * is the image of K under the canonical projection of X onto XI K .
Applying this method to various spaces (sometimes fairly complicated ones),
Okunev presents in [Okl] a long list of properties which are not M-invariant.
This inc1udes the Baire property, local connectedness and path connectedness
(even within the c1ass of metric continua), countable 1l' -weight (even for compact
spaces), countable tightness, Frechet-Urysohn property, sequentiality, bisequen-
tiality, the property ofbeing a k-space, homotopy groups and, hence, homotopic
equivalence (even for finite-dimensional polyhedra), normality, collectionwise
normality (for countably compact spaces), hereditary normality, hereditary para-
compactness and hereditary Dieudonne-completeness (for compact scattered
spaces), and some others. It is also known (unpublished observation by Okunev
and Tkacenko) that dyadicity is not M-invariant within the c1ass of compact
spaces. However, under certain additional restrictions, F - and A-equivalence
relations become more stable. For example, if the spaces X and Y are metriz-
able, then the dispersion weights of X and Y coincide, where the dispersion
weight of aspace M is the minimum weight of non-empty open subsets of M
(see [GuOkD. It is also proved in [GuOk] that l-equivalence preserves local
compactness in metrizable spaces.
Cellularity is not an M -invariant cardinal function either. This fact was
announced without proofby Uspenskij in [Usp7]. Earlier, an analogous negative
result was established by Tkachuk in [Tka4] for A-equivalence. We recall that
M-equivalence implies A-equivalence, but no examples of A-equivalent spaces
that were not M -equivalent are known up to now. It is worth mentioning that
the cellularity becomes M -invariant in the c1ass of compact spaces (this follows
implicitly from the results of [Arh7]). Tkachuk [Tka2], [Tka3] extended this
result to l-equivalent spaces with the Baire property (in fact, this was done for
the so-called t-equivalent spaces).
On the other hand, some topological properties of aspace X are "easily" M-
invariant just because they admit a characterization in terms of the properties of
the free topological group F(X). For example, X is separable iff F(X) is separa-
ble, thus separability is an M -invariant property. Countable network weight and
a-compactness are other examples of such properties. Let us say that aspace X
with a a-discrete network is a a-space. We also call aspace X a-metrizable if
X is a union of countably many c10sed metrizable subspaces. By a subtle result
proved by Arhangel'skii in [Arh8], Xis a paracompact a-space (paracompact
a-metrizable space) iff so is the free topological group F(X). Therefore, the
properties ofbeing a paracompact a-space or a paracompact a-metrizable space
are "easy" M-invariant properties. By Theorem 5.7, DieudonmS-completeness
is also an "easy" M -invariant property.
A general result about the structure of M -equivalent spaces was obtained
by Pestov [Pe6] in 1984: if X and Y are M-equivalent spaces, then Y is a
countable union of subspaces each of which is homeomorphic to a subspace
of X. Therefore, Pestov conc1udes that hereditary cellularity (that is, spread),
hereditary separability and hereditary Lindelf number are M -equivalent cardi-
nal functions. In particular, if X and Y are M -equivalent Lindelf spaces and
one of them is perfectly normal, so is the other.
It is interesting to compare briefly various equivalence relations introduced
previously. By Graev's result in [Grl], M- and A-equivalence preserve com-
pactness. In 1982, Uspenskij [Usp2] generalized this result extending it to
l-equivalence. In fact he proved a stronger assertion: if the spaces Cp(X)
and Cp(Y) are uniformly homeomorphic and X is compact, then so is Y.
However, there exist Tikhonov spaces X and Y such that Cp(X) and Cp(Y)
are homeomorphic, but only one of the spaces X, Y is compact. In fact, one
can take X = [0. 1] and Y = lR [GuKh]. Tkachuk [Tka5] showed that if X
is a non-empty Tikhonov space and Y = X E9 N, then the free topological
groups F(X) and F(Y) are uniformly homeomorphic. This implies that neither
compactness, countable compactness nor pseudocompactness are preserved by
uniform homeomorphisms of free topological groups. Finally, we mention the
following interesting result of [Baa]: F - and l-equivalence relations coincide in
the c1ass of locally compact zero-dimensional separable metric spaces.
We finish our discussion of the 1- and M -equivalence relations with several
results conceming products of spaces. In 1982, Pavlovskii [Pav2] proved that if
spaces X, Y and Z are Dieudonne-complete, X and Y are l-equivalent and the
products X x Z, Y x Z are k-spaces, then X x Z and Y x Z are l-equivalent.
Eight years later, Arhangel'skll [Arhll], [ArhI3] showed that if compact spaces
X and Y are l-equivalent, then for any space Z. the product spaces X x Z and
y x Z are l-equivalent. These results make it possible to investigate whether

there is a certain analogy between 1- and M-equivalence with respect to the
product operation. The situation was c1arified by Okunev in [Ok2]:
Theorem 5.14. Suppose that X and Y are M -equivalent spaces, Z is aspace,

and at least one of the following conditions holds:
(a) Z is locally compact;
(b) X x Z and Y x Z are k-spaces.
Then the product spaces X x Z and Y x Z are M -equivalent.
A similar assertion is valid for A- and l-equivalence relations [Ok2]. However,

Okunev shows in the same work that there exist two M -equivalent spaces X
and Y such that X 2 and y 2 are not M -equivalent. In addition, X and Y can be
chosen so that X 2 and Y will be paracompact k-spaces.
5.6. FREE TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS RELATIVE TO CLASSES
The proof of the existence of free topological groups given by Kakutani [Kak4]
makes use of two operations: the direct product of topological groups and taking
subgroups. Therefore, if we want to generalize the notion of a free topological
group to certain c1asses of topological groups, it is natural to restrict ourselves
to classes closed under these operations. Further, it is not indispensable to work
only with c1asses c10sed with respect to subgroups. Sometimes it suffices to
know that closed subgroups of the groups in a given c1ass belong to this c1ass.
For example, the compact topological groups form a c1ass like this.
Let 'V be a c1ass of topological groups. Suppose that X is a Tikhonov space
and a group G contains X as a subspace. We say that G = G(X, 'V) E 'V is a
free 'V-group on X ifthe pair (X, G) satisfies the following condition:
(FGC) An arbitrary continuous mapping f: X ~ H of X to a topolog-
ical group H E 'V can be uniquely extended to a continuous homomorphism
1: G~ H.
Kakutani's argument (see [Kak4]) shows that the free 'V-group G(X, 'V)
exists for every completely regular space X and for each of the following c1asses
'V: totally bounded (Abelian) groups, ~o-bounded (Abelian) groups (see Section
1.3), groups with a (quasi) invariant basis, etc. For each of these c1asses, the
subset X ~ G(X, 'V) is c10sed in G(X, 'V) [M02]. The existence of the free
6-group G(X, ~) for the class ~ of compact groups (or simply free compact
group) requires some changes in Kakutani's construction because subgroups of
compact groups need not be compact. However, every continuous homomor-
phism ({J: G ~ H of topological groups is uniformly continuous with respect
to the bilateral uniformities and, hence, ({J can be continuously extended to the
completions of the groups. This proves, in fact, that the completion of the free
totally bounded group G(X, "\1') on X (with "\I' being the class oftotally bounded
groups) is the free compact group on X. It is clear that X is closed in G(X, '(6) iff
Xis compact. Further, X generates a dense subgroup of G(X, '(6) (topologieally
isomorphie to G(X, "\1' and the latter subgroup never coincides with G(X, '(6).
Free (Abelian) compact groups are well-studied objects from topological and
algebraic points of view. The study of properties of free compact (Abelian)
groups is related mainly to the names of Hofmann and Morris [Hof], [HM1]-
[HM3], [HM5], [HM6]. A good description ofthe material is given in the survey
[CHR]. Since the algebraic aspects dominate there, we omit the details.
Morris [Mo 1] found necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of
the free topologie al group G(X, "\1') relative to the variety "\1'.
An even more general approach to free topological groups was suggested in
the article [CM1] by Comfort and van Mill. Given two classes OlL and"\l' oftopo-
logieal groups and a Tikhonov space X, a topological group G = G(X, OlL, "\1')
containing X as a subspace is called the free (OlL, "\I')-group on X if G E OlL
and every continuous mapping f: X ~ H of X to an arbitrary topologi-
cal group H E "\I' can be uniquely extended to a continuous homomorphism
1: G ~ H. Let CZP A and '(6A be the classes of pseudocompact Abelian and
countably compact Abelian groups, respectively. Comfort and van Mill [CM1]
show that there is a free (CZP A, CZP A)-group over X iff X = 0, and for every
completely regular space X, there exists a free (CZP A, '(6A)-group in whieh X is
closed. Tkacenko [Tk8], [Tk14] and Fokkink [Fok] generalized the first of the
above results by proving that the free (CZP A, CZP A)-group on a non-empty space
X does not exist, even if we do not require that a homomorphism rextending
a mapping f: X ~ H should be unique.
6. Dimension Theory of Topological Groups
For anormal topologieal space, there exist three different approaches to define
its dimension, due to Lebesgue and Cech (covering dimension dim), Urysohn
and Menger (smali inductive dimension ind), and Poincare, Brouwer, and Cech
(large inductive dimension Ind). All the three dimensions coincide for separable
metric spaces (Tumarkin-Urysohn-Hurewitz's theorem proved in the late 20s),
the equality dim X = Ind X holds for any metric space X (Katetov-Morita's
theorem, 1954), while in 1962, Roy [Roy] constructed his famous example of
a complete metric space Y such that ind Y = 0, but dim Y = Ind Y = 1.
In general, the functions ind, Ind and dim behave completely independently
of each other, subject to the trivial restrietion ind X ~ Ind X, which always
holds. Well-known examples show that the dimension functions dim, ind and
Ind need not coincide, even in the class of compact spaces [Nag] , [Pea]. In
addition, continuous open mappings of compact metrizable spaces can raise all
these dimensions simuItaneousIy [KeI] and neither dim nor Ind are monotone
functions (see Chapter VII of [Eng]).
We will see in this Section how the topological group structure improves
the behaviour of dimensional characteristics of spaces (but still leaves some
possibilities for singularities). Let us start with Iocally compact topological
groups which Ieave no space for pathologies.
6.1. COINCIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS FOR LOCALLY COMPACT AND

PSEUDOCOMPACT GROUPS
The presence of the topological group structure on a locally compact space

X makes the space X normal (see Section 1.4) and this means that all the
dimensions ind X, Ind X and dim X of X are defined in the classic way. The
following result, proved in 1960 by Pasynkov [Pasi], implies that locally com-
pact groups occupy the same place in the dimension theory oftopological groups
as separable metric spaces do in the class of normal spaces.
Theorem 6.1. Every locally compact topological group G satisfies ind X =

IndX = dimX.
The above theorem was extended in [pas2] to quotient spaces of locally

compact topological groups. It is useful to remember that a locally compact
group G, as weIl as its quotient space G / H, can be represented as disjoint
unions of open cr-compact subsets, thus implying that G and G j H are (strongly)
paracompact. Theorem 6.1 gives us an opportunity to speak of the dimension
of a locally compact group without mentioning which of the three dimensional
functions is meant.
Zarelua [Zar] gave another proof of Theorem 6.1. The article [SkI] by SkIya-
renko contains many results on the structure and dimensional properties of
locally compact groups and their quotient spaces.
The problem whether the dimension of a quotient space G j H of a locally
compact group G can exceed the dimension of the group G was considered
by Yamanoshita [Yama]. His result gives a simple method for calculating the
dimension of quotient spaces:
Theorem 6.2. Let H be a closed subgroup 0/ a locally compact topological

group G. Then dimG = dimGjH +dimH.
In fact, [Yama] contains a more general resuIt: if K and H are closed

subgroups of a locally compact group G and K ~ H, then dim G j K -
dimGjH + dimHjK. In particular, dimGjH ~ dimGjK ~ dimG.
Let us call a topological group G locally pseudocompact if G contains a

pseudocompact neighborhood of identity. In 1990, Tkacenko generalized Theo-
rems 6.1 and 6.2 to locally pseudocompact groups (see [Tk11]). Two points have
to be mentioned here. First, pseudocompact groups are not necessarily normal
[Kis] and a closed subgroup of a pseudocompact topological group need not be
pseudocompact [CSa]. In particuIar, the Iarge inductive dimension Ind can be
not defined for a pseudocompact group. These difficulties have been overcome
in [TkI1] by considering the comp1etion G of a locally pseudocompact group
G.
Theorem 6.3. Let H be a closed subgroup of a locally pseudocompact topo-

logical group G. Then:
(1) dimG = indG = IndG;
(2) dimG = dimGjH +dimH.
In particular, if His a closed subgroup of a (locally) pseudocompact group,

then dim G j H :::: dim G. We conclude, therefore, that open continuous homo-
morphisms do not raise the dimension of Iocally compact and Iocally pseudo-
compact groups. Note that the equality dim G j H = Ind (G j H) for G and H
as in Theorem 6.3 was proved in 1970 by Choban [Chol].
It is well known that, for a regular locally compact space X, the connected
component c(x, X) of a point x E X coincides with the quasicomponent q (x, X)
of X which is defined to be the intersection of all clopen subsets of X containing
x. Aspace X is said to be hereditarily disconnected if c(x, X) = {x} for every
x EX, and totally disconnected if q (x, X) = {x} for all x EX. It is clear that
total disconnectedness implies hereditary disconnectedness. Therefore, every
hereditarily disconnected locally compact group G is totally disconnected (and,
in fact, has a base consisting of open subgroups, see Theorem 1.15).
In 1989, Comfort and van Mill [CM2] asked whether every totally bounded
hereditarily disconnected group was totally disconnected. Dikranjan [Di3], [Di4]
answered the question in the negative by constructing aseries of pseudocompact
hereditarily disconnected topological groups which fail to be tota1ly discon-
nected. Then Shakhmatov reformulated the problem asking whether a countably
compact hereditarily disconnected topological group is totally disconnected
(see Question 3.2 A.4 of [CHR]). Dikranjan [Di3] solved this problem in the
affirmative for the wider class of hereditarily pseudocompact groups (that is,
the groups all closed subgroups of which are pseudocompact).
Theorem 6.4. Let G be a hereditarily pseudocompact hereditarily discon-

nected topological group. Then q(e, G) = c(e, G) and Gjc(e, G) is zero-
dimensional. In particular, every countably compact hereditarily disconnected
topological group is zero-dimensional.
Let us also mention the following result established by Shakhmatov (cited

in [Di3]): a pseudocompact totally disconnected topological group admits a
coarser zero-dimensional group topology.
6.2. GROUPS WITH NON-COINCIDING DIMENSIONS.

SPECIAL CLASSES OF TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS
Pasynkov's result on the coincidence of dimensions for locally compact groups

made it natural to find a wider dass of topological groups with the same property.
In 1961, Sklyarenko and Smirnov [SS] posed the problem ofwhether the equal-
ities dim G = ind G = Ind G hold for every normal topological group G. This
problem remained open up to 1989 when Shakhmatov [Sh3], [Sh4] constructed
the first example of a topological group with non-coinciding dimensions.
Theorem 6.5. For every integer n 2: 1, there exists a connected Abelian

topological group G n such that dim G n = n, ind G n = Ind G n = 00, and
G n is a Lindelf 'L.,-space.
In addition, the group G n in the above theorem can be chosen to be totally

bounded and algebraically free [Sh3]. Note that the small and large induc-
tive dimensions of G n coincide. The following result of [Sh3] explains this
phenomenon.
Theorem 6.6. Every Lindelf'E-group G satisfies the equality ind G = Ind G.
In particular, the equality ind G = Ind G holds for every (J' -compact topo-
logical group G. It is still unknown, however, if dim G and ind G coincide for
every (J'-compact group G (see Question 1.5 of [Sh7]).
To present further results on dimensions of topological groups, we need the
notion of an lR-factorizable group introduced by Tkacenko [TkI2], [Tk13].
Definition 6.7. A topological group Gis calledlR-Jactorizable if,forevery con-

tinuous function g: G ---+ lR, there exist a continuous homomorphism 1f: G ---+
H of G onto a second countable topological group Hand a continuous function
h: H ---+ lR such that g = h 0 1f.
The dass of lR-factorizable groups indudes a11 totally bounded topological

groups as well as Lindelf groups and arbitrary subgroups of Lindelf 'L.,-
groups [TkI2], [Tk13]. A quotient group of an lR-factorizable group is also
lR-factorizable, but subgroups of lR-factorizable groups need not inherit this
property [Tk13]. It is not known if the dass of lR-factorizable groups is closed
under direct products (see Problem 4.1 of [Tk13]).
The notion of an lR-factorizable group makes it possible to unify similar

results established for different c1asses of topological groups and c1arify basic
ideas of the corresponding proofs. The first application of this notion to the
dimension theory was found by Shakhmatov [Sh6].
Theorem 6.8. The equalities ind G = 0 and dim G = 0 are equivalent for
every lR-factorizable topological group G.
Therefore, if a group G is totally bounded (or topologically isomorphic to

a subgroup of a Lindelf :E-group) and satisfies ind G = 0, then dim G = O.
It is known that every lR-factorizable group is ~o-bounded, but not vice-versa
[Tk13]. This fact gives rise to the problem whether Theorem 6.8 can be extended
to ~o-bounded groups (see Question 1.17 of [Sh6]). An interesting problem is
to find out ifthe inequality dirn G :::: ind G holds for every lR-factorizable group
(Question 1.18 of [Sh6]).
The covering dimension dim and the large inductive dimension Ind are not
monotonous in the c1ass of normal spaces. In fact, there exists a hereditarily
normal space X such that dim X = Ind X = 0 and for every n E N, X contains
a subspace An with dim An = Ind An = n [PP]. Since every completely regular
space X with ind X = 0 is homeomorphic to a c10sed subspace of a pseudo-
compact topological group G with dim G = 0 (see Theorem 6.14 below), the
dimension dim is not monotonous when taking c10sed subspaces of topological
groups. If Xis aspace as in [PP], then ind X = 0 and, hence, X is homeomorphic
to a subspace of the compact zero-dimensional topological group {O, l}w(X).
We conc1ude, therefore, that (hereditarily) normal subspaces of compact zero-
dimensional topological groups can have arbitrarily large dimensions Ind and
dim. The following conjecture is, however, very tempting.
Problem 6.9. Suppose that H is a subgroup of a topological group G. Is it

true that dim H :::: dim G? Does the inequality dim H :::: dim G hold if H is
closed in G and the space of G is normal?
This problem has been mentioned by many specialists, but we are unable to
attribute it to anybody. There are no examples raising dimensions of subgroups,
and the problem remains unsolved to date. In some special cases, however,
the monotonicity problem has a positive solution. In 1990, Shakhmatov [Sh6]
proved that if H is a totally bounded subgroup of an arbitrary topological group
G, then dim H ::::: dim G. It is interesting to note that this result does not depend
on any additional normality condition and the group H is not assumed to be
c1osed.
In the same artic1e [Sh6] , Shakhmatov found two c1asses of topological
groups in which the covering dimension dirn is monotonous with respect to all
subgroups.
Theorem 6.10. Let H be a subgroup oj a topological group G. lf G is either a

Lindelj E -group or a (iocally) pseudocompact group, then dim H ::::: dim G.
Analyzing Shakhmatov's original proofs, Tkacenko [Tk13] found out that

the property of a subgroup H of G responsible for the monotonicity of the
function dim is lR-factorizability. Since totally bounded groups and subgroups
of Lindelf E- groups are lR-factorizable (and a locally pseudocompact group
contains an open lR-factorizable subgroup), the above results on monotonicity
follow from Theorem 2.7 of [TkI3]:
Theorem 6.11. lf H is an lR1actorizabie subgroup oj a topological group G,

then dim H ::::: dim G.
It was recently found in [HST] that an lR-factorizable subgroup H of a

topological group G is z-embedded in G, that is, for every zero-set K in H there
exists a zero-set F in G such that K = F nH. Combining this fact with the result
of Chigogidze that the function dim is monotonous on z-embedded subsets of
Tikhonov spaces (see Corollary 2.14 of [Chi2]), we obtain an alternative proof
of Theorem 6.11.
It is not difficult to verify that every lR-factorizable group is ~o-bounded
[TkI2]. This fact gives rise to the following special case of Problem 6.9 posed
by Shakhmatov [Sh7]: Does the inequality dim H ::::: dim G hold for every
~o-bounded subgroup H of a topologie al group G?
Another open problem concerns the covering dimension of products of topo-
logical groups. It is weH known that the inequality dim X x Y ::::: dim X + dim Y
can fall, even for Lindelf spaces X and Y (see [Prz2]). Shakhmatov [Sh4] con-
sidered an analogous problem for topological groups. No counterexamples have
been found, but some positive results from [Sh3], [Sh4] deserve mentioning. We
summarize them in the following theorem.
Theorem 6.12. Let G and H be topological groups.

( 1) lf G and H are totally bounded, then dim G x H ::::: dim G + dim H.
(2) lfG and H are LindeljE-groups (in particular, u-compact groups), then
IndG x H ::::: IndG + IndH.
The second assertion of Theorem 6.12 can be extended to retracts and G8-
subsets ofLindelf E-groups [Sh3]. It is not known, however, ifTheorem 6.12
is valid for ~o-bounded groups (see Question 3.4 of [Sh7]). There are no results
on the logarithmic inequality ind G x H ::::: ind G +ind H for topological groups
G and H (except for locally compact and u-compact groups, when one can
apply, respectively, Theorem 6.2 or Theorems 6.6 and 6.12 (2. The problem is
open, even for totally bounded groups [Sh7].
6.3. EMBEDDINGS INTO TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS

PRESERVING DIMENSION
In 1978, Bel'nov [Bel] showed that every completely regular space X can be
embedded as a c10sed subspace into a completely regular homogeneous space Y
with dim Y = dim X. Since topological groups are homogeneous, this motivated
Bel'nov to ask whether every completely regular space X can be embedded into
a topological group G such that dim G = dim X. The following result of [Sh6]
answers this question in the negative.
Theorem 6.13. Ifn =1= 0, 1,3,7, then the n-dimensional sphere sn cannot be
embedded into an n-dimensional topological group (no matter which dimension
ind, Ind or dim is considered).
The condition n =1= 0, 1,3,7 appears in Theorem 6.13 because its proof
makes use of the Adams theorem [Ada] that sn is not an H -space unless n :/=
0,1,3,7. The importance of the Adams theorem was first noted by Uspenskij
who proved in 1987 that if n =1= 0,1,3,7, then Sn cannot be a retract of a
topological group. Both SO and SI are c1early topological groups themselves, S3
can easily be embedded as a c10sed subgroup into the group of quartemions and,
hence, is a topological grOUp. The compact space S7 also admits a topological
group structure compatible with its topology [Ada]. Actually, Kato [Kat] showed
that Theorem 6.13 is a special case of a general result about manifolds: A
compact n-dimensional manifold Mn without boundary can be embedded into
an n-dimensional topological group if and only if Mn can be equipped with a
group structure compatible with the topology of Mn (in other words, if Mn is a
topological group itselt).
The "gap" n =1= 0, 1,3,7 in Theorem 6.13 and the use of Adams' theorem
in its proof made it interesting to find out if the numbers 0, 1,3,7 are really
exceptional, and give "purely" topological counterexamples to the problem
posed by Bel'nov. The first step in this direction was done by Kimura [Kim].
He proved that the figure eight cannot be embedded into a topological group
of dimension one and asked if the "letter" T (a subspace of the figure eight)
admits an embedding into a one-dimensional topological group. Kulesza [Kul]
answered the latter question in the negative. In the same artic1e, Kulesza proved
that for every integer n ::: 1, there exists a compact metric space X n of dimension
n which cannot be embedded into an n-dimensional topological group, and the
metric hedgehog with (01 spines embeds in no finite-dimensional topological
group.
Unlike the general negative results, the zero-dimensional case is surprisingly
good. The following theorem is due to Shakhmatov [Sh6].
Theorem 6.14. Every completely regular space X with ind X = can be
embedded into a pseudocompact Abelian topological group G with dim G 0.
=
Note that dim X = 0 always implies ind X = 0, so the assumption of the

theorem appears to be weaker than its conc1usion.
6.4. DIMENSIONS OF FREE TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS
The study of dimensional properties of free topological groups is an interesting

and difficult task because of the complicated topological nature of these groups
(see Seetion 5). As far as we know, only the property ofbeing zero-dimensional
has been considered by now. The reason for this phenomenon is quite c1ear: the
groups F (X) and A (X) contain c10sed copies of X n for each n E N+. Therefore,
if X contains a compact subset of a positive dimension, then dimensions of X n
tends to infinity when n --+ 00, and hence the groups F(X) and A(X) are
infinite-dimensional.
This study was initiated in 1969 by Arhangel'skii [Arh2] who proved the
equalities dim F(X) = 0 and dim A(X) = 0 for every separable metrizable
space X with dim X = O. This result was then applied to show that every
second countable topological group is a quotient group of a second countable
zero-dimensional topological group [Arh2].
In 1981, Arhangel'skii [Arh8] extended the former result to free topological
groups on arbitrary zero-dimensional metrlzable spaces. In fact, a more gen-
eral theorem was proved in [Arh8]. Let us call a paracompact space X with
a er-discrete net a paracompact er-space. Clearly, every metrlzable space is a
paracompact er-space. It is shown in [Arh8] that F(X) is a paracompact er-space
for every metrizab1e space X. More generally, F(X) is a paracompact er-space
iff so is X [Arh8]. Making use of this subtle theorem and refining the standard
representation F(X) = UneN Fn(X), Arhangel'skil applies the countable sum
theorem for the covering dimension to deduce the following resuit (see [Arh8]).
Theorem 6.15. lf X is a paracompact er -space and dim X = 0, then dim F (X)

=0.
In particular, Theorem 6.15 implies that the equality dim F(X) = 0 holds for
every zero-dimensional metrizable space X.
The investigation was then continued by Shakhmatov [Sh3], [Sh4], [Sh6],
Sipacheva [Sill and Tlcacenko [Tk4], [Tk6]. It is natural to try to extend the
above theorem to a wider c1ass of spaces X. In 1983, Tkacenko [Tk4] proved
that ind A(X) = 0 for every completely regular space X satisfying dim X = O.
Six years later, Sipacheva [Si1] showed that the conc1usion remains valid for
F(X). Combining these results, we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 6.16. Let X be a completely regular space satis.fying dim X = O.

Then ind A(X) = ind F(X) = O.
In Theorems 6.15 and 6.16, the space X is assumed to satisfy dim X = O.

Arhangel'skiI [Arh8] asked if ind X = 0 always implies ind F(X) = O. In fact,
Theorem 6.16 was proved as an attempt to answer Arhangel'skil's question. It
turned out, however, that the covering dimension in the above theorem appeared
quite logically. The following result obtained by Shakhmatov in [Sh4] shows
that the condition ind X = 0 does not imply zero-dimensionality of the free
topological group F(X).
Theorem 6.17. There is a Tikhonov space X with ind X = 0 such that the
groups F(X) and A(X) satisfy ind F(X) t=
0 and ind A(X) t=
O. In addition,
the space X can be chosen normal or pseudocompact.
The foregoing results leave open Arhangel' skil' s problem of whether ind X =
oimplies ind F(X) = 0 or ind A(X) = 0 for a metrizable space X (see [Arh8]).
Another problem posed by Arhangel'skiI was to find out if one can omit the
condition on X to be a paracompact cr-space in Theorem 6.15. In other words,
does dimX = 0 imply dimF(X) = 0 or dimA(X) = 0 for every completely
regular space X?
While these problems remain open, an analog of the second one was solved
in the affirmative by Shakhmatov [Sh6] for free topological groups relative to
special varieties of topological groups (see Section 6.2). Recall that a c1ass 'V
of topological groups is called a variety if 'V is c10sed with respect to direct
products and taking arbitrary subgroups of the groups in 'V.
Let us use TB (AT B) to denote the variety of totally bounded (Abelian)
topological groups and B(w) (AB(w to denote the variety of ~o-bounded
(Abelian) topologie al groups. It is easy to see that relative free topological
groups for these varieties exist and, for every Tikhonov space X, there are
continuous isomorphisms F(X) -+ G(X, B(w -+ G(X, TB) and A(X) -+
G(X, AB(w -+ G(X, AT B) [Sh6]. The following theorem of [Sh6] answers
Arhangel'skil's question for free topological groups relative to TB and AT B.
Theorem 6.18. Let X be a Tikhonov space with dim X = O. Then

(1) dim G(X, TB) = 0 and dim G(X, AT B) = 0;
(2) ind G(X, B(w = 0 and ind G(X, AB(w = O.
Note that to prove Theorem 6.18 it suffices to show that ind G(X, TB) =
0= ind G(X, AT B) and then apply Theorem 6.8 (and the fact that every totally
bounded group is lR-factorizable). It is also shown in [Sh6] that one cannot
weaken dim X = 0 to ind X = 0 in Theorem 6.18 (1). In fact, Shakhmatov
presents two different spaces X (one normal and the other pseudocompact)
such that ind X = 0 but ind G(X, 'V) t= 0 for each 'V E {TB, AT B, B(w),
AB(w)}.
7. Miscellaneous
The limitation of the volume does not allow us to present all the interesting and
important areas in topological groups adjacent to General Topology. Here we
mention briey only some of them and give references to the main sources of
information.
7.1. MINIMAL AND TOTALLY MINIMAL GROUPS
A topological group G is said to be minimal if every continuous isomorphism

rr: G -+ H of G to a Hausdorff topological group H is a homeomorphism,
i.e., G does not admit a coarser Hausdorff group topology. One might expect
that minimal topological groups be compact, but this is not the case: Stephen-
son showed in [Ste] that the cirele group 1r contains minimal dense proper
subgroups. In the same artiele, Stephenson proved that every locally compact
Abelian minimal group is compact. In fact, there exist locally compact second
countable topological groups that fall to be precompact [DiSc]. In the elass of
Abelian groups, the situation is better: every Abelian minimal topological group
is precompact (see Section 2.7 of [DPS]). The original proof of this important
result was given in [PrSt] by Prodanov and Stoyanov.
A topological group G is called totally minimal iff all Hausdorff quotients
of G are minimal. Totally minimal Abelian groups are eloser to being compact,
but again, the cirele group 1r contains the proper dense subgroup Q./Z which is
totally minimal. Minimality does not imply total minimality, even in the Abelian
case: the soele of 1r is minimal but not totally minimal (see Example 4.3.6 of
[DPS]). However, every divisible minimal Abelian group is totally minimal. A
proper dense subgroup is never complete, but Remus and Stoyanov [ReSt] show
that there exist complete totally minimal groups which are not locally compact.
Chapters IV-VII of [DPS] serve as a good introduction to the subject. Recent
advances in the area can be found in [DSl]- [DS4], [Di6], [Di7] and [Meg2].
Is every topological group a quotient of a minimal topological group? Can
every topological group be embedded as a elosed subgroup into a minimal
topological group? These questions were posed by Arhangel'skii in [ArhlO]
and stimulated the study of minimal groups. Megrelishvili [Megi] answered
the first question in the affirmative for Abelian groups. The second one has
been positively solved by Uspenskij in [Usp16].
Another tempting hypothesis was suggested by Arhangel'skil in [Arh8]: the
character and pseudocharacter of every minimal topological group coincide.
Counterexamples were independently given by Guran [Gu3], Pestov [Pe9] and
Shakhmatov [Sh2]. It was shown in [Sh2] that for every infinite cardinal r,
there exists a minimal Hausdorff group topology of countable pseudochar-
acter and character r on the free group of rank r. Therefore, the difference
between the character and pseudocharacter of minimal groups can be arbitrarily

big.
7.2. CONTINUITY OF ALGEBRAIC OPERATIONS
Let G be an abstract group endowed with a topology 5'. What topological

conditions on (G, 5') have to be imposed in order that (G, 5') be a topological
group? Let us say that (G, 5') is a semitopological group if the multiplication
mapping in G is separately continuous and the inverse x ~ x-I is continuous
with respect to 5'. If the multiplication mapping in G is jointly continuous, G is
said to be aparatopological group. In 1957, Ellis [Ell] proved that every locally
compact paratopological group is a topological group. Zelazko [Zell showed
that the conc1usion remains valid for completely metrizable paratopological
groups. Both Ellis and Zelazko's results follow from Brand's theorem proved
in [Bra]: every Cech-complete paratopological group is a topological group.
Later on, Pfister [Pfi] gave a simplified proof of Brand's theorem and asked
whether every Cech-complete semitopological group is a topological group.
This problem has been recently solved in the affirmative by Bouziad [Bouz].
By Christensen and Fischer's theorem, a separately continuous biadditive
mapping 'P: G x H ~ N is jointly continuous if G, H and N are complete
metrizable Abelian groups [ChFi]. This result has been generalized in [Ebr]
as follows: if G and H are semitopological groups, N is a first countable
topological group and 'P: G x H ~ N is a separately continuous biadditive
mapping, then 'P is jointly continuous.
An interesting extension of the c1ass of topological groups was considered
by Covington in [Cov]. Let G be a group with a topology 5'. Suppose that there
exists a collection .N of normal subgroups of G satisfying the following:
(1) for every neighborhood U ofthe identity in G there exists N E .N such that
N~U;
(2) G / N with the quotient topology is a topological group for every N E .N.
Then (G,5') is called a protopological group. From a result of [Cov], every
protopological group with continuous multiplication is a topological group.
The following highly non-trivial theorem was proved by Reznichenko in
[Rez]: every pseudocompact paratopological group is a topological group. In
fact, Reznichenko's theorem finishes the work started by Korovin [Kor].
A different problem is to find conditions on a topological semigroup Gwhich
imply that G is a topological group. By a theorem of Numakura [Numa], every
compact topological semigroup satisfying the left and right cancellation laws
is a topological group. In 1955, A. D. Wallace [Wal] asked whether this result
could be extended to countably compact topological semigroups. Mukherjea and
Tserpes [MuTs] answered Wallace's question in the affirmative for the special
case of first countable countably compact semigroups. Pfister [Pfi] showed that
every completely regular countably compact topological semigroup which is
algebraically a group is, in fact, a topological group. Grant [Gra3] gave a positive
answer to Wallace's question in the case of a completely regular sequentially
compact cancellative topological semigroup. Yur'eva [Yur] generalized both
Grant's and Mukherjea-Tserpes's results as follows: every countably com-
pact sequential topological semigroup is a topological group. Finally, Robbie
and Svetlichny [RoSv] constructed a countably compact subsemigroup of TC
in 1996 which fails to be a group, thus answering the Wallace question in
the negative. Rowever, their construction makes use of CR. Recently, Tomita
[Tom2] presented a construction of a similar subsemigroup of TC that depends
on MAcountable. It is not known whether such a subsemigroup can be constructed
in ZFC.
7.3. lR-FACTORIZABLE GROUPS
This dass of groups appeared in Section 6 when the dimensional characteristics

oftopological groups were considered (see Definition 6.7). Rowever, the origin
ofthis notion is due to the following result cited in [Pon4]: for every continuous
function f: H -+ lR defined on a compact topological group H, there exists a
dosed normal subgroup N of type G 8 in H such that f is constant on every coset
xN of N in G. Therefore, all compact topological groups are lR-factorizable. In
1966, Comfort and Ross [CRos] extended the result of [Pon4] to pseudocompact
topological groups. The notion of an lR-factorizable group was introduced in
1991 (see [Tk12], [Tk13]). It turns out that all totally bounded and all Lindelf
topological groups are lR-factorizable [Tk9], [Tk12]. In particular, every pseu-
docompact group is lR-factorizable. In fact, the dass oflR-factorizable groups is
considerably wider: every subgroup of a Lindelf ~-group (see Definition 4.9)
is lR-factorizable by a theorem of [Tk12].
A locally compact group G is lR-factorizable iff Gis a-compact [ReTk]. A
subgroup of an lR-factorizable group is not necessarily lR-factorizable [Tk13],
but an lR-factorizable subgroup H of an arbitrary topological group G is z-
embedded in G [RST]. In addition, if a subgroup H of an lR-factorizable group
Gis z-embedded in G, then H is lR-factorizable [ReTk].
Many natural problems concerning lR-factorizable groups are still open. It
is not known whether a product of two lR-factorizable groups is lR-factorizable
(even if one of the factors is compact). Another open problem is to find out
whether a continuous homomorphic image of an lR-factorizable group is lR-
factorizable. If, however, the corresponding homomorphism is open, then the
answer is "yes" [Tk13]. The reader will find a detailed discussion ofthe proper-
ties ofR-factorizable groups, as well as the list of open problems, in the survey
artic1e [Tk18].
7.4. RESOLVABLE GROUPS
A topological space X is called resolvable if it contains a subset S such that

both S and X \ S are dense in X; otherwise X is said to be irresolvable. This
definition goes back to Hewitt [Hew] who showed that every Tikhonov space X
without isolated points admits a finer Tikhonov irresolvable topology without
isolated points, thus providing us with a lot of non-trivial irresolvable Tikhonov
spaces.
Resolvability of topological groups was first considered in [CM3] and
[CGM]. By a result of [CGM] , every infinite totally bounded group is resolvable.
It is known, however, that there are irresolvable topological groups: Malykhin
[Mall] proved, under Martin's Axiom, that the countably infinite Boolean group
admits a non-discrete extremely disconnected, irresolvable group topology. In
fact, irresolvability ofMalykhin's group was established in [CM3], where it was
also shown that every Abelian group of finite 2-rank is resolvable in every non-
discrete group topology. The artic1e [CMZ] by Comfort, Masaveu, and Zhou
contains aseries of interesting results on resolvability. It is proved there that
every non-discrete Abelian group G is resolvable if G is either locally bounded
or has the Baire property. Further, the square of every non-discrete topological
group is resolvable, and the product GI x G2 is resolvable whenever GI and
G2 are non-discrete Abelian topological groups. Villegas-Silva [Vill] proved
that every uncountable ~o-bounded topological group is resolvable. This result
was generalized in [MaPr] as follows: an ~o-bounded topological group G of
cardinality IC > ~o can be represented as the union of IC disjoint dense subsets.
In fact, this decomposition is the same for any ~o-bounded group topology on
G (so that G is maximally absolutely resolvable).
In [CM3], Comfort and van Mill introduced the notions of strongly resolv-
able and absolutely resolvable groups and posed several problems that have
stimulated the further study of resolvability. A group G is strongly resolvable
if, for every non-discrete group topology rzr on G, there exists D 5; G such
that both D and G \ D are rzr -dense in G. If there is a sub set D of G such
that D and G \ D are dense in G for every non-discrete group topology on G,
then G is called absolutely rersolvable. Clearly, an absolutely resolvable group
is strongly resolvable. One easily defines strongly IC-resolvable and absolutely
IC-resolvable groups for every cardinallC ?: 2 by requiring the existence of IC
dense disjoint subsets of a given group.
Comfort and van Mill mentioned in [CM3] that the groups Z and Z(pOO)
(for any prime p) were absolutely resolvable and raised the problem of finding
an algebraic characterization of absolutely resolvable groups. In [Pr12], [Pr15]
Protasov shows that an arbitrary free Abelian group is absolutely ~o-resolvable

and every free group G is absolutely IGI-resolvable. Absolute resolvability
of the group Q of rationals is proved in [Pr13]. Every infinite subgroup of a
direct product of countably many finite groups without elements of order 2 is
absolutely ~o-resolvable by a theorem of [PrI4]. The reader will find more
examples (and counterexamples) concerning absolute and strong resolvability
in the survey article [Pr16].
Another problem of [CM3] was to find out whether a non-discrete irresolv-
able Abelian group contains an open Boolean subgroup. Protasov [Pr12] proved
that such a group necessarily contains an open countable Boolean subgroup. One
of the most difficult and interesting questions posed by Comfort and van Mill in
[CM3] was the following: does there exists in ZFC a non-discrete irresolvable
Abelian group? This problem has been recently solved in the negative by Pro-
tasov in [Pr17]: if there exists a non-discrete irresolvable Abelian topological
group, then w \ w contains a P-point. Since there is a model of ZFC in which
w \ w does not contain P-points [She], it is consistent with ZFC that every
non-discrete Abelian group is re solvable. The artic1es [Zele] and [ZePr] contain
several interesting results about relations between irresolvable and extremally
disconnected topological groups.
7.5. SUITABLE SETS FOR TOPOLOGICAL GROUPS
If a discrete sub set S of a topological group with identity e generates a dense

subgroup of G and S U {e} is c10sed in G, then S is called a suitable set for
G. This definition first appeared in 1990 in the article [HM4] by Hofmann and
Morris, but this notion was also considered by Tate thirty years before (see the
citation in Chapter 12 of [Dou]). The following deep theorem is due to Hofmann
and Morris [HM4]: every locally compact topological group has a suitable set.
The study of suitable sets in the nonlocally compact case began in 1994 after
the Conference on Set-Theoretic Topology and its Applications in Matsuyama,
Japan. The first results on the existence of suitable sets in general topological
groups were obtained in [CMRST].1t was proved, in particular, that every count-
able topological group G contains a c10sed discrete subset that algebraically
generates G. Every metrizable topological group contains a suitable set, and if
the group is not compact, then a suitable set can be chosen to be c1osed. On the
other hand, there exist O"-compact topological groups with no suitable sets: the
free Abelian topological group A(w*) on w* = w \ w is such a group. Under
Martin's Axiom MA, there exists a separable countably compact topological
group without a suitable set: van Douwen's countably compact Boolean group
constructed in [vDo] does not have suitable sets.
It is an open problem whether there exists in ZFC a separable topological
group with no suitable set. However, all such groups are necessarily pseudocom-
paet [DTIl]. The problem about the existenee (in ZFC) of a pseudoeompaet
topological group without suitable sets has been solved in the affirmative in
[OTII]. The artic1e [OTI2] contains many results about suitable sets in quotient
groups, minimal groups, in produets, direet sums and in the groups equipped
with the Bohr topology. The existenee of suitable sets in free topologieal groups
on eompaet spaees is eonsidered in [OkTk] where it is shown that the free
topologie al group F(X) on a dyadie eompaet spaee X contains a suitable set.
Suitable sets in finite produets of topological groups and in Abelian groups with
the Bohr topology are studied by Tomita and Trigos-Arrieta in [TI]. The fol-
lowing result has been proved independently in [DTI2] and [TI]: every loeally
eompaet Abelian group endowed with the Bohr topology (i.e., with the finest
tota1ly bounded group topology eoarser than the original one) has a suitable set.
In addition, a diserete Abelian group with the Bohr topology contains a c10sed
diserete subset which algebraieally generates the group [DTI2].
References
[Ada] Adams, J.F., On the non-existence of elements of Hopf invariant one, Ann.
o! Math. 72 (1960),20-104.
[Ale] Alexandrov, A.D., On extension of a Hausdorff space to an H -closed space,
Dokl. AN SSSR 37 (1942), 138-141.
[Ami] Amirdzhanov, G.R., On dense subspaces of countable pseudocharacter and
other generalizations of separability, Dokl. AN SSSR 235 (1977), 993-996.
[Are] Arens, R., Note on convergence in topology, Math. Mag. 23 (1950), 229-
234.
[Arhl] Arhangel'skiI, A.v" Mappings related to topological groups, Soviet Math.
Dokl. 9 (1968), 1011-1015.
[Arh2] _ _ , Topological spaces and mappings, Remarks on Topological Groups,
Moscow Univ. Pub!., Moscow 1969 (in Russian).
[Arh3] _ _ , Structure and classification of topological spaces and cardinal in-
variants, Russian Math. Surveys 33 (1978), 33-96. Russian original in:
Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 33 (1978), 29-84.
[Arh4] _ _ , On a-expanded spaces, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 239 (1978), 505-
508.
[Arh5] _ _ , The frequency spectrum of a topological space and the product
operation, Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. 40 (1981), 163-200. Russian original
in: Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obshch. 40 (1979),171-206.
[Arh6] _ _ , Cardinal invariants oftopological groups. Embeddings and conden-
sations, Soviet Math. Dokl. 20 (1979), 783-787. Russian original in: Dokl.
AN SSSR 247 (1979), 779-782.
[Arh7] _ _ , Relations among the invariants of topological groups and their
subspaces, Russian Math. Surveys 35 (1980), 1-23. Russian original in:
Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 35 (1980), 3-22.
[Arh8] _ _ , Classes of topological groups, Russian Math. Surveys 36 (1981),

151-174. Russian original in: Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 36 (1981),127-146.
[Arh9] _ _ , Every topological group is a quotient group of a zero-dimensional
topological group, Dokl. AN SSSR 258 (1981), 1037-1040 (in Russian).
[ArhlO] _ _ , Topological homogeneity, topological groups and their continuous
images, Russian Math. Surveys 42 (1987), 83-131. Russian original in:
Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 42 (1987),69-105.
[Arhll] _ _ , On linear topological and topological classification of spaces
Cp(X), Zb. Rad. (3) (1989),3-12.
[ArhI2] _ _ , On biradial topological spaces and groups, Topology Appl. 36
(1990),173-180.
[Arh13] _ _ , On linear topological classification of spaces of eontinuous func-
tions in the topology of pointwise eonvergenee, Math. USSR Sbomik 70
(1991), 129-142. Russian original in: Mat. Sbomik (5) 181 (1990).
[AOP] Arhangel'skiI, A.Y., Okunev; O.G. and Pestov, Y.G., Free topological
groups over metrizable spaces, Topology Appl. 33 (1989), 63-76.
[Baa] Baars, J., Equivalenee of eertain free topologie al groups, Comment. Math.
Univ. Carolin. 33 (1992), 125-130.
[BaLe] Baer, R. and Levi, F., Stetige Funktionen in topologischen Rumen, Math.
Z. 34 (1932), 110--130.
[Ba] Banach, S., ber metrische Gruppen, Studia Math. 3 (1931), 101-113.
[Ban] Banasehewski, B., Minimal topologieal algebras, Math. Ann. 211 (1974),
107-114.
[Bel] Bel'nov, v.K., Dimension of topologieally homogeneous spaees and free
homogeneous spaees, Dokl. AN SSSR 238 (1978), 781-784 (in Russian).
[BePe] Bessaga, Cz. and Pelczynski, A, Selected Topics in Infinite-Dimensional
Topology, Monografie Matematyezne, vol. 58. PWN, Warsaw 1975.
[Bic] Bicknell, K., Step funetions from the half-open unit interval into a
topological spaee, Topology Appl. 11 (1980), 111-119.
[BiMo] Bicknell, K. and Morris, S.A, Norms on free topological groups, Bull.
London Math. Soc. 10 (1978), 280--284.
[Bir] Birkhoff, G., A note on topological groups, Compositio Math. 3 (1936),
427-430.
[Bor] Borges, C.R., Quotient topologies on free topological groups, Math.
Japonica 30 (1985),835-837.
[Bou] Bourbaki, N., Elements de matMmatique. Topologie generale, Livre III,
Chap. III-IV, Hermann, Paris 1942.
[Bouz] Bouziad, A, Every Ceeh-analytic semitopologieal group is a topological
group, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1996), 953-959.
[Bra] Brand, N., Another note on the continuity of the inverse, Arch. Math. 39
(1982),241-245.
[Bro] Brown, L.G., Topologically eomplete groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 35
(1972), 593-600.
[BrHa] Brown, L.G. and Hardy, J.P.L., Subgroups of free topologieal groups and
free topologieal produets of topological groups, J. London Math. Soc. 10
(1975),431-440.
[BrMo] Brown, R. and Morris, S.A, Embeddings in contractible or compact

objects, Colloq. Math. (2) 38 (1977/1978), 213-222.
[Buch] Buchwalter, H., Produit topologique, produit tensoriel et c-repletion, Bull.
Soc. Math. France Suppl. Mem. 31 (1972), 51-71.
[Burl] Burov, Ju.A, Mutual decompositions of weak topological bases of a
topological vector space, Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 30 (1984), 237-238.
[Bur2] _ _ , On 1- and M-equivalences, in Problems in Geometry and Topology,
Petrozavodsk 1986, pp. 3-13 (in Russian).
[Car] Cartan, H., Sur la mesure de Haar, C. R. Acad. Sei. Paris 211 (1940), 759-
762.
[CaDi] Cartan, E. and Dieudonne, J., Notes de teratopologie. - m, Rev. Sci. 77
(1939),413-414.
[Cart] Cartier, P., Structure topologique des groupes de Lie generaux, Seminaire
"Sophus Lie", E.N.S., (1954-1955), Expose No. 22.
[Cha] Chabauty, C., Limite d'ensembles et geometrie des nombres, Bull. Soc.
Math. France 78 (1950), 143-151.
[Che] Chevalley, C., Theory of Lie Groups. 1., Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ. 1946.
[Chil] Chigogidze, AC., On K-metrizable spaces, Russian Math. Surveys 37
(1982), 209-210. Russian original in: Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 37 (1982),
241-242.
[Chi2] _ _ , On relative dimensions, in General Topology: Spaces of Functions
and Dimension, P.S. Alexandrov, AY. Arhangel'skiI, V.1. Zaitzev, V.V. Fe-
dorchuk (eds.), Moscow State University, Moscow 1985, pp. 67-117.
[Chol] Choban, M.M., On completions of topological groups, Vestnik Moskov.
Univ. Sero Mat. Mekh. (1) 1970,33-38 (in Russian).
[Ch02] _ _ , Topological structure of subsets of topological groups and their
quotient spaces, Dokl. AN SSSR 228 (1976), 52-55 (in Russian).
[Ch03] _ _ , Topological structure of subsets of topological groups and their
quotient spaces, in Topological Structures andAlgebraic Systems, Kishinev,
Shtiintza 1977, 117-163 (in Russian).
[Ch04] _ _ , Some questions in the theory of topological groups, in General
Topology and Discrete Geometry, Kishinev, Shtiintza 1980, 120-135 (in
Russian).
[Ch05] _ _ , On stable metrics on universal algebras, Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 41
(1986),201-202 (in Russian).
[ChFi] Christensen, J.P.R. andFischer, P., Jointcontinuity ofmeasurable biadditive
mappings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1988), 1125-1128.
[ClMo] Cleary, J. and Morris, S.A., Locally dyadic topological groups, Bull.
Austral. Math. Soc. 40 (1989), 417-419.
[Comi] Comfort, W.W., Compactness-like properties for generalized weak topo-
logical sums, Pacific J. Math. 60 (1975), 31-37.
[Com2] _ _ , Topological groups, in Handbook 0/ Set-theoretic Topology, K.
Kunen and J.E. Vaughan (eds.), Chapter 24, North-Holland, Amsterdam
1984,pp.1143-1263.
[Com3] _ _ , Some progress and problems in topological groups, in General

Topology and its Relations to Modem Analysis and Algebra VI, Z. Frolik
(ed.), Proc. Sixth 1986 Prague Topological Symposium, Heldermann
Verlag, Berlin 1989, pp. 95-108.
[Com4] _ _ , Problems on topological groups and other homogeneous spaces,
in Open Problems in Topology, 1. van Mill and G.M. Reed (eds.), North-
Holland, Amsterdam 1990,313-347.
[Com5] _ _ , Topological groups: introduction and unsolved problems, XI Latin
American School 01 Mathematics (Mexico City, 1993), Aportaeiones Mat.
Comun. 15 (1995),115-155.
[CGM] Comfort, W.W., Gladdines, H. and van Mill, J., Proper pseudocompact
subgroups of pseudocompact Abelian groups, Ann. New York Acad. Sei.
728 (1994), 237-247.
[CHR] Comfort, W.W., Hofmann, K.H. and Remus, D., Topological groups and
semi-groups, in Recent Progress in General Topology, M. Husek and J. van
Mill (eds.), Chapter 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam 1994.
[CIt] Comfort, W.W. and Itzkowitz, G., Density character in topological groups,
Math. Ann. (1977), 223-227.
[CMZ] Comfort, W.W., Masaveau, O. and Zhou, H., Resolvability in topology and
topological groups, Ann. New York Acad. Sei. 767 (1995), 17-27.
[CM1] Comfort, W.W. and van Mill, J., On the existence offree topological groups,
Topology Appl. 29 (1988),245-269.
[CM2] _ _ , Concerning connected, pseudocompact Abelian groups, Topology
Appl. 33 (1989), 21-45.
[CM3] _ _ , Groups with only resolvable group topologies, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 120 (1994), 687-696.
[CMRST] Comfort, w.w., Morris, S.A., Robbie, D., Svetlichny, S. and Tkacenko,
M.G., Suitable sets for topological groups, Topology Appl. 86 (1998), 25-
46.
[CRob] Comfort, W.W. and Robertson, L., Extremal phenomena in certain cIasses
oftotally bounded groups, Dissert. Math. 272 (1988), 1-48.
[CRos] Comfort, w.w. andRoss, K.A., Pseudocompactness and uniformcontinuity
in topological groups, Pacific 1. Math. 16 (1966), 483-496.
[CSa] Comfort, W.W. and Saks, v., Countably compact groups and finest totally
bounded topologies, Pacific J. Math. 49 (1973), 33-44.
[Cov] Covington, 1.L., Protopological groups, Kyungpook Math. 1. 35 (1995),
323-328.
[Dal] Dantzig, D. van, Studien over topologischen Algebra, Dissertation, Ams-
terdam, 1931.
[Da2] _ _ , Zur topologischen Algebra, I, Komplettierungstheorie, Math. Ann.
107 (1932), 587-626.
[DiSc] Dierolf, S. and Schwanengel, U., Examples of locally compact non-
compact minimal topological groups, Pacific J. Math. 82 (1979), 349-355.
[Die] Dieudonne, J., Sur la completion des groupes topologiques, C. R. Acad.
Sei. (Paris) 218 (1944), 774-776.
[Dil] Dikranjan, D.N., Connectedness and disconnectedness in pseudocompact

topological groups, Rend. Accad. Naz. dei XL, Memorie di Mat. (110) XV1
fasc. 12 (1992),211-221.
[Di2] _ _ , Quasi-components, disconnectedness and dimension in pseudo-
compact groups, manuscript.
[Di3] _ _ , Structure of minimal countably compact Abelian groups,
manuscript submitted for publication.
[Di4] _ _ , Dimension and connectedness in pseudocompact groups, C. R.
Acad. Sci. Paris 316, Serie I (1993),309-314.
[Di5] _ _ , Zero-dimensionality of some pseudocompact groups, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 120 (1994), 1299-1308.
[Di6] _ _ , Recent advances in minimal topological groups, Topology Appl.
126 (1998), 149-168.
[Di7] _ _ , Countably compact groups satisfying the open mapping theorem,
Topology Appl. 98 (1999), 81-129.
[DPS] Dikranjan, D.N., Prodanov, I. and Stoyanov, L., Topological Groups (Char-
acters, Dualities and Minimal Group Topologies), Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
New York-Basel 1990.
[DS1] Dikranjan, D.N. and Shakhmatov, D.B., Critical power of minimality of
topological groups dose to being compact, C. R. Acad. Bulgare Sei. 43
(1990), 13-15.
[DS2] _ _ , Products of minimal Abelian groups, Math. Zeitschrift 204 (1990),
583-603.
[DS3] _ _ , Compact-like totally dense subgroups of compact groups, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 114 (1992),1119-1131.
[DS4] _ _ , Pseudocompact and countably compact Abelian groups: Cartesian
products and minimality, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 335 (1993), 775-790.
[DTT1] Dikranjan, D., Tkacenko, M.G. and Tkachuk, V.V., Some topological
groups with and some without suitable sets, Topology Appl. 98 (1999),
131-148.
[DTT2] _ _ , Topological groups with thin generating sets, J Pure Appl. Algebra
145 (2000), 123-148.
[Dou] Douady, A., Cohomologie des groupes compacts totalment discontinus,
Seminaire Bourbaki, Expose 189, Secretariat Math., Paris, 1960; Reprint:
Benjamin, New York 1966.
[vDo] Dowen, E.K. van, The product of two countably compact topological
groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 262 (1980), 417-427.
[Dud] Dudley, R.M., Continuity of homomorphisms, Duke Math. J. 28 (1961),
587-594.
[Ebr] Ebrahimi-Vishki, H.R., Joint continuity of separately continuous mappings
on topological groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1996), 3515-3519.
[Efl] Efimov, BA, Dyadic compacta, Trudy Moskov. Matem. Obshch. 14 (1965),
211-247 (in Russian).
[Ef2] _ _ , Mappings and embeddings of dyadic bicompacta, Mat. Sbomik 103
(1977), 52-68 (in Russian).
[EIl] EIlis, R., Locally compact transformation groups, Duke Math. 1. 24 (1957),
119-125.
[Eng] Engelking, R., General Topology, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin 1989.
[EV] Esenin-Vol'pin, AS., On the relation between the local and integral weight
in dyadic bicompacta, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 68 (1949), 441-444.
[FOT] Fay, T.H., Ordman, E.T. and Thomas, B.Y.S., The free topological group
over rationals, Topology Appl. 10 (1979), 33-47.
[FZ] Flachsmayer, J. and Ziechang, H., Uber die schwache konvergenz der
Haarschen Mae von untergruppen, Math. Ann. 156 (1964), 1-8.
[Flo] Flood, J., Free Topological Vector Spaces, Ph.D. thesis (Australian National
Univ., Canberra, 1975).
[Fok] Fokkink, R., A note on pseudocompact groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 107
(1989),569-571.
[FolI] F~lner, E., Generalization of a theorem of Bogoliouboff to topological
Abelian groups, Math. Scand. 2 (1954), 5-18.
[FoI2] _ _ , Note on a generalization of a theorem of Bogoliouboff, Math.
Scand. 2 (1954),224-226.
[FreI] Freudenthai, H., Einige Stze ber topologische Gruppen, Ann. of Math.
37 (1936), 46-56.
[Fre2] _ _ , Topologische Gruppen mit gengend vielen fastperiodischen Funk-
tionen, Ann. of Math. 13 (1951), 57-77.
[Fre3] _ _ , La structure des groupes a deux bouts et des groupes triplement
transitifs, Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Indag. Math. 13 (1951), 288-294.
[Fro] Frobenius, G., ber Gruppencharaktere, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss.,
phys.-math. Kl. 1989,985-1021.
[GH] Galindo, J. and Hemandez, S., Pontryagin-van Kampen reflexivity for free
Abelian topological groups, Forum Math. 11 (1999), 399-415.
[GRS] Gartside, P.M., Reznichenko, E.A and Sipacheva, O.Y., Maltsev and retral
[GR1] Gel'fand, I.M. and Ra'ikov, D., Irreducible unitary representations oflocally
bicompact groups, Mat. Sbornik, N.S. 13 (55)(1943), 301-316 (in Russian).
[GR2] _ _ , Irreducible unitary representations of locally bicompact groups,
Dokl. AN SSSR 42 (1944), 199-201 (in Russian).
[Gerl] Gerlitz, J., On subspaces of dyadic compacta, Studia Scientarum Math.
Hungarica 11 (1976), 115-120.
[Ger2] _ _ , Continuous functions on products of topological spaces, Fundam.
Math. 106 (1980), 67-75.
[GiRS] Ginsburg, J., Rajagopalan, M. and Saks, Y., On the density character of
closed subgroups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 57 (1976), 148-150.
[GL] General Algebra, vol. I, Mathematical Library. Nauka, Moscow 1990.
[Gle2] Gleason, AM., Groups without small subgroups, Ann. Math. 56 (1952),
193-212.
[Glul] Glushkov, VM., Locally nilpotent locally bicompact groups, Trudy Moskov.
Mat. Obshch. 4 (1954), 291-332 (in Russian).
[Glu2] _ _ , Structure oflocally compact groups and the fifth problem ofHilbert,
Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 12 (1957),3-41 (in Russian).
[Gd] Graev, M.I., Free topological groups, in Topology and Topological Algebra,
Translations Series 1, vol. 8, 1962, pp. 305-364, American Mathematical
Society, Russian original in: Izvestiya Akad. Nauk SSSR Sero Mat. 12 (1948),
279-323.
[Gr2] _ _ , Theory oftopological groups I, Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 5 (1950),3-56
(in Russian).
[Gr3] _ _ , On free products of topological groups, Izv. AN SSSR Sero Mat. 14
(1950),343-354 (in Russian).
[Gral] Grant, D.L., Topological groups which satisfy an open mapping theorem,
Pacific J. Math. 68 (1977), 411-423.
[Gra2] _ _ , Products of topological groups which satisfy an open mapping
theorem, Topology Proc. 17 (1992), 131-135.
[Gra3] _ _ , Sequentially compact cancellative topological semigroups: some
progress on the Wallace problem, in Papers on General Topology and
Applicationa, VlIth Summer Conference at the University of Wisconsin
(Madison, 1991), Annals of the New York Acad. Sci., vol. 704, 1993,
150--154.
[Gul] Gul'ko, S.P., On uniform homeomorphisms of spaces of continuous func-
tions, Proc. ofthe Steklov Institute ofMath., No. 3 (1993), 87-93. Russian
original in: Trudy Steklov. Inst. 193 (1992), 82-88.
[GuKh] Gul'ko, S.P. and Khmyleva, T.B., Compactness is not preserved by the
relation of t-equivalence, Mat. Zametky 39 (1986), 895-903 (in Russian).
[GuOk] Gul'ko, S.P. and Okunev, O.G., Local compactness and M-equivalence,
in Problems in Geometry and Topology, Petrozavodsk 1982, 14-23 (in
Russian).
[Gu1] Guran, 1., On topological groups close to being Lindelf, Soviet Math.
Dokl. 23 (1981),173-175.
[Gu2] _ _ , Topology of an infinite symmetric group and condensations,
Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 22 (1981), 311-316 (in Russian).
[Gu3] _ _ , An example of a non-metrizable minimal topological group of
countable pseudocharacter, Dokl. AN USSR no. 1 (1986),6-9 (in Russian).
[Haa] Haar, A., Der Mabegriff in der Theorie der kontinuierlichen Gruppen,
Ann. of Math. 34 (1933), 147-169.
[Hag] Hagler, 0., On the structure of Sand C(S) for S dyadic, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 214 (1975), 415-428.
[HaJu] Hajnal, A. and Jubasz, 1., A separable normal topological group need not
be Lindelf, General Topol. Appl. 6 (1976), 199-205.
[HaI] Halmos, P.R., Measure Theory, Van Nostrand, New York 1950.
[HMT] Hardy, J.P., Morris, S.A. and Thompson, H.B., Application of the Stone-
Cech compactification to free topological groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
55 (1976), 160--164.
[HvM1] Hart, K. and van Mill, J., A countably compact group H such that H x H
is not countably compact, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 323 (1991), 811-821.
[HvM2] _ _ , A separable normal topological group which is not Lindelf,
Topology Appl. 20 (1985), 279-287.
[HaHu] Hartman, S. and Hulanicky, A., Sur les ensembles de puissance minimum
dans les groupes topologiques, Colloq. Math. 6 (1958), 187-191.
[HaMi] Hartman, S. and Mycielski, J., On embeddings of topological groups into
connected topological groups, Colloq. Math. 5 (1958), 167-169.
[Hau] Hausdorff, F., ber innere Abbildungen, Fund. Math. 25 (1934), 279-291.
[Hay] Haydon, R., On a problem of PelczyDski: Milutin spaces, Dugundji spaces
and AE(O-dim), Studia Math. 52 (1974), 23-31.
[HeSa] Hemandez, S. and Sanchis, M., Ga-open functionally bounded subsets in
topological groups, Topology Appl. 53 (1993), 289-299.
[HST] Hemandez, S., Sanchis, M. and Tkacenko, M., Bounded sets in spaces and
[HeTk] Hemandez, C. and Tkacenko, M., Subgroups of R-factorizable groups,
Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 39 (1998), 371-378.
[Hew] Hewitt, E., A problem of set-theoretic topology, Duke Math. 1. 10 (1943),
309-333.
[HR] Hewitt, E. and Ross, K, Abstract Harmonic Analysis, vol. I, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin-Gttingen-Heidelberg 1979.
[Hof] Hofmann, KH., An essay on free compact groups, Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, vol. 915, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1982, 171-197.
[HM1] Hofmann, K.H. and Morris, S.A., Free compact groups I: Free compact
Abelian groups, Topology Appl. 23 (1986), 41-64; Errata 28 (1988), 101-
102.
[HM2] _ _ , Free compact groups TI: the center, Topology Appl. 28 (1988), 215-
231.
[HM3] _ _ , Free compact groups ill: Free semisimple compact groups, in Cat-
egorical Topology, J. Adamek and S. MacLane (eds.), World Scientific,
Singapore, pp. 208-219.
[HM4] _ _ , Weight and c, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 68 (1990), 181-194.
[HM5] _ _ , Free compact groups IV: Splitting the component and the structure
of the commutator group, 1. Pure Appl. Algebra 70 (1991), 89-96.
[HM6] _ _ , Free compact groups V: Remarks on projectivity, in Category The-
ory at Work, H. Herrlich and H.-E. Porst (eds.), Heldermann Verlag, Berlin
1991, 177-198.
[HM7] _ _ , The Structure of Compact Groups: A Primer for Students - A
Handbookfor Experts, Walter de Gruyter Pubi., Berlin 1998.
[HoMo] Hofmann, KH. and Mostert, P., Splitting in topological groups, Memoirs
of Amer. Math. Soc. 43, Providence, Rhode Island 1963.
[HuMo] Hunt, D.C. and Morris, S.A., Free subgroups of free topological groups,
in Proc. Second Internat. Conf. on the Theory of Groups 1973, M. F.
Newman (ed.), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 372, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin 1974, pp. 377-387.
[Hur] Hurwitz, A., ber die Erzeugung der Invarianten durch Integration, Nachr.
k. Ges. Gttingen, math.-phis. Kl. 1897,71-90.
[Hus] Husain, T., Introduction to Topological Groups, W.B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia and London 1966.
[Hush] Husek, M., Productivity of properties of topological groups, Topology Appl.

44 (1992), 189-196.
[ltz] Itzkowitz, G., On the density character of compact topological groups,
Fund. Math. 75 (1972), 201-203.
[Iva] IvanovskiI, L.N., On a hypothesis of P. S. Alexandrov, Dokl. AN SSSR 123
(1958),85-786 (in Russian).
[Iwal] Iwasawa, K., On some types of topological groups, Ann. ofMath. 50 (1949),
507-538.
[Iwa2] Iwasawa, K., Topological groups with invariant neighborhoods of the
identity, Ann. of Math. 54 (1951), 345-348.
[Jac] Jacoby, R., Some theorems on the structure of locally compact local groups,
Ann. of Math. 66 (1957), 36-69.
[Joi] Joiner, c., Free topological groups and dimension, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
220 (1976), 401-418.
[Joh] Johasz, 1., Cardinal Functions in Topology - Ten Years Later, Math. Centre
Tracts, vol. 123, Amsterdam 1980.
[Jon] Junnila, H.J.K., Stratifiable preimages oftopological spaces, Colloq. Math.
Soc.1. Bolyai, vol. 23, Topology, Budapest 1978, pp. 689-703.
[KakI] Kakutani, S., ber die Metrization der topologischen Gruppen, Proc. Imp.
Acad. Tokyo 12 (1936), 82-84.
[Kak2] _ _ , On the uniqueness of Haar's measure, Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 14
(1938),27-31.
[Kak3] _ _ , On cardinal numbers related with a compact Abelian group, Proc.
Imperial Acad. Tokyo 19 (1943), 366-372.
[Kak4] _ _ , Free topological groups and direct product of topological groups,
Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 40 (1944), 595-598.
[Kaml] Kampen, E.R. van, Locally compact Abelian groups, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
USA 20 (1934), 434-436.
[Kam2] _ _ , Locally bicompact Abelian groups and their character groups, Ann.
of Math. 36 (1935), 448-463.
[Kapl] Kaplansky, 1., Lie Aigebras and Locally Compact Groups, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago and London 1971.
[KaMe] Kargapolov, M.1. and Merzlyakov, Yu.l., Fundamentals of the Group
Theory, Nauka, Moscow 1977 (in Russian).
[Kat] Kato, H., A note on embeddings of manifolds ioto topological groups
preserving dimensions, Czech. Math. J. 42 (1992), 619-622.
[Katz] Katz, G.I., Isomorphic mapping of topological groups to direct product
of groups satisfying the first axiom of countability, Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 8
(1953), 107-113 (in Russian).
[KaMo] Katz, E. and Morris, S.A., Free Abelian topological groups on countable
CW-complexes, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 41 (1990),451-456.
[KMN1] Katz, E., Morris, S.A. and Nickolas, P., A free subgroup of the free Abelian
topological group on the onit interval, Bull. London Math. Soc. 14 (1982),
399-402.
[KMN2] _ _ , Characterization of bases of subgroups of free topological groups,
J. London Math. Soc. 27 (1983), 421-426.
[KMN3] _ _ , Free abelian topological groups on spheres, Quart. J. Math. Oxford

35 (1984),173-181.
[KMN4] _ _ , Free subgroups of free Abelian topological groups, Math. Proc.
Cambr. Phi/os. Soc. 100 (1986),347-353.
[Kec] Kechris, AC., Topology and descriptive set theory, Topology Appl. 58
(1994), 195-222.
[Kel] Keldysh, L. V., Zero-dimensional open mappings, Izvestiya Akad. Nauk
SSSR Sero Mat. 23 (1959),165-184 (in Russian).
[Kim] Kimura, T., Dimensions of topological groups containing the bouquet of
two circles, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 114 (1992),1109-1113.
[Kis] Kister, I.M., Uniform continuity and compactness in topological groups,
[Kom] Komarov, Ju.A, Local structure of a lattice of subgroups of a topological
group, Dokl. AN USSR (I) 1983, 18-20 (in Russian).
[KoPr] Komarov, Yu.A and Protasov, I. V., Compactness in the lattice of subgroups
of a topological group, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 33 (1981), 184-188 (in Russian).
[Koo] Koosis, P., An irreducible unitary representation of a compact group is finite
dimensional, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1957), 712-715.
[Kor] Korovin, AV., Continuous actions of pseudocompact groups and axioms
oftopological groups, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 33 (1992), 335-343.
[Kul] Kulesza, J., Spaces which do not embed in topological groups of the same
dimension, Topology Appl. 50 (1993),139-145.
[Kuz] Kuz'minov, V., On a hypothesis of P.S. Alexandrov in the theory of
topological groups, Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 125 (1959), 727-729 (in
Russian).
[LMP] Leiderman, AG., Morris, S.A. and Pestov, V.G., The free Abelian topolog-
ical group and the free locally convex space on the unit interval, 1. London
Math. Soc. 56 (1997), 529-538.
[Leil] Leischner, M., An incomplete quotient of a complete topological group,
Arch. Math. 56 (1991), 497-500.
[Lei2] _ _ , Quotients of Raikov-complete topological groups, Note di Matem-
atica 13 (1993), 75-85.
[Lej] Leja, E, Sur la notion du groupe abstrait topologique, Fund. Math. 9 (1927),
37-44.
[Mac] Macbeath, AM., Groups of homeomorphisms of a simply connected space,
Ann. Math. 79 (1964), 473-488.
[MaSw] Macbeath, A.M. and Swierczkowski, S., Limits of lattices in a compactly
generated group, Canad. J. Math. 12 (1960), 427-437.
[MMO] Mack, J., Morris, S.A and Ordman, E.T., Free topological groups and the
projective dimension of locally compact Abelian group, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 40 (1973), 303-308.
[Mahl] Mahler, K, Lattice points in n-Qimensional star bodies 11, Nederl. Akad.
Wetensch. 49 (1946), 331-343; 444-454.
[Mah2] _ _ , On the criticallattices of arbitrary point sets, Canadian 1. Math. 1
(1949), 78-87.
[Mall] Malykhin, v.1., Extremally disconnected and similar groups, Soviet Math.
Dokl. 16 (1975),21-25.
[MaI2] _ _ , Topology and forcing, Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 38 (1983), 69-118.
[Mal3] _ _ , Nonpreservation of properties of topological groups at raising them
to square, Siberian Math. J. 28 (1987), 639-645. Russian original in: Sib.
Mat. Zh. 28 (1987), 154-161.
[MaPr] Malykhin, v.1. and Protasov, LV., Maximal resolvability ofbounded groups,
Topology Appl. 73 (1996), 227-232.
[Mam] Mamford, D., Aremark on Mahler's compactness theorem, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 28 (1971), 289-294.
[MarI] Markov, A.A., On free topological groups, Dokl. AN SSSR 31 (1941),299-
301 (in Russian).
[Mar2] _ _ , On free topological groups, in Topology and Topological Algebra,
Translation Series 1, vol. 8, 1962, 195-272. American Math. Soc. Russian
original in: Izvestiya Akad. Nauk SSSR 9 (1945), 3-64.
[Mau] Maurice, M.A., Compact Ordered Spaces, Math. Centre Tracts, vol. 6,
Math. Centrum, Amsterdam 1964.
[Megi] Megrelishvili, M.G., Group representations and construetion of minimal
topologie al groups, Topol. Appl. 62 (1995), 1-19.
[Meg2] Megrelishvili Levi, M., G-minimal topologieal groups, in Abelian Groups,
Module Theory and Topology, D. Dikranjan and L. Sake (eds.), Leeture
Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., vol. 201, Mareel Dekker Ine., New York,
1998,289-299.
[Mie] Michael, E., A quintuple quotient quest, General Topology Appl. 2 (1972),
91-138.
[Mil] Mill, J. van, A homogeneous Eberlein eompact spaee which is not
metrizable, Pacific J. Math. 101 (1982), 141-146.
[MiPo] Mironets, A.A. and Poletskih, V.M., The spaee of normal subgroups of a
nilpotent group, Dokl. AN Ukr. SSR (5) 1986, 19-22.
[MoZ1] Montgomery, D. and Zippin, L., Small subgroups of finite-dimensional
groups, Ann. Math. 56 (1952), 213-241.
[MoZ2] _ _ , Topological Transformation Groups, Interscienee Tracts in Pure
and Applied Mathematics, vol. 1, Interscienee Publishers, Ine., New York-
London 1955.
[Mol] Morris, S.A., Varieties of topological groups, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 1
(1969), 145-160.
[M02] _ _ , Varieties oftopologieal groups: a survey, Colloq. Math. 46 (1982),
147-165.
[Mo3] _ _ , Free Abelian topological groups, in Proc. Conf Toledo, Ohio 1983,
Helderman Verlag, Berlin 1984, 375-391.
[MoNi] Morris, S.A. and Niekolas, P., Loeally invariant topologies on free groups,
Pacific J. Math. 103 (1982), 523-537.
[MNPS] Morris, S.A., Nickolas, P., Pestov, v.G. and Svetliehny, S., Quotients of
free topological groups on metrizable spaces, preprint.
[MoPe] Morris, S.A. and Pestov, V.G., Open subgroups offree Abelian topological
groups, Math. Proc. Cambr. Philos. Soc. 114 (1993), 439-442.
[MoTl] Morris, S.A. and Thompson, H.B., Free topological groups with no small
subgroups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 46 (1974), 431-437.
[MoT2] _ _ , Metrizability of subgroups of free topological groups, Bull. Austral.
Math. Soc. 33 (1986),103-112.
[Mos] Mostert, P.S., Sections in principal fibre spaces, Duke Math. 1. 23 (1956),
57-72.
[MuTs] Mukherjea, A. and Tserpes, N.A., A note on countably compact semi-
groups, 1. Austral. Math. Soc. 13 (1972), 180-184.
[Muk] Mukhin, Yu.N., Topological groups, J. Soviet Math. 28 (1985),825-870.
[Nach] Nachbin, L., On the finite dimensionality of every irreducible representation
of a compact group, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1961), 11-12.
[Nag] Nagami, K., Dimension Theory, New York 1970.
[Nak] Nakayama, T., Note on free topological groups, Proc. Imp. Acad. Sei. 19
(1943),471-475.
[Neu 1] Neumann, J. von, Zum Raarschen Ma in topologischen Gruppen, Com-
positio Math. 1 (1934), 106-114.
[Neu2] _ _ , The uniqueness of Haar's measure, Mat. Sbomik, N. S. 43 (1936),
721-734.
[Nil] Nickolas, P., Free Topological Groups and Free Products 0/ Topological
Groups, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. ofNew South Wales, Australia 1976.
[Ni2] _ _ , Subgroups of the free topological group on [0, 1],1. London Math.
Soc. 12 (1976),199-205.
[Ni3] _ _ , A Kurosh subgroup theorem for topological groups, Proc. London
Math. Soc. 42 (1981), 461-477.
[Nob] Noble, N., The continuity offunctions on Cartesian products, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 149 (1970), 187-198.
[NST] Nogura, T., Shakhmatov, D. and Tanaka, Y., Metrizability of topological
groups having weak topologies with respect to good covers, Topology Appl.
S4 (1993), 203-212.
[Nov] Novak, 1., On the Cartesian product of two compact spaces, Fund. Math.
40 (1953), 106-112.
[Numa] Numakura, K., On bicompact semigroups, Math. 1. Okayama Univ. 1
(1952),99-108.
[Numm] Nummela, E.C., Uniform free topological groups and Samuel compactifi-
cations, Topology Appl. 13 (1982), 77-83.
[Nyi] Nyikos, P., Metrizability and the Frechet-Urysohn property in topological
groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 83 (1981), 793-801.
[Ok1] Okunev, O.G., A method for constructing examples of M -equivalent spaces,
Topology Appl. 36 (1990), 157-171, Correction, Topology Appl. 49 (1993),
191-192.
[0k2] _ _ , M-equivalence of products, Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. S6 (1995),
149-158. Russian original in: Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obsch. S6 (1995).
[Ok3] _ _ , Aremark on the tightness of products, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolin. 37 (1996), 397-399.
TOPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF TOPOLOGICAL aROUPS 1135
[OkTk] Okunev, o.a. and Tkacenko, M.a., On thin generated sets in topological
groups, Abelian Groups, Module Theory, and Topology, D. Dikranjan and
L. Salce (eds.), Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York 1998. pp. 327-342.
[OrTh] Ordman, E.T. and Smith-Thomas, B.V., Sequential conditions and free
topological groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 79 (1980), 319-326.
[Pas 1] Pasynkov, B.A., On coincidence of different definitions of dimension
for locally compact groups, Dokl. AN SSSR 132 (1960), 1035-1037 (in
Russian).
[Pas2] _ _ , On coincidence of different definitions of dimension for quotient
spaces oflocally compact groups, Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 17 (1962),129-135
(in Russian).
[Pas3] _ _ , Almost metrizable topological groups, Dokl. AN SSSR 161 (1965),
[Pas4] _ _ , On spaces with a compact group of transformations, Soviet Math.
Dokl. 17 (1976), 1522-1526.
[Pas5] _ _ , On the relative cellularity of Lindelf subspaces of topological
groups, Topology Appl. 57 (1994), 249-258.
[PaVa] Pasynkov, B.A. and Valov, V.M., On free groups of topological spaces,
Dokl. Bulgar. Acad. Sei. 34 (1981), 1049-1052.
[Pavi] PavlovskiI, D.S., On spaces of continuous functions, Dokl. AN SSSR 253
(1980), 38-41.
[Pav2] _ _ , On spaces having linearly homeomorphic spaces of continuous
functions in the topology of pointwise convergence, Russian Math. Surveys
37 (1982). Russian original in: Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 37 (1982), 185-186.
[Pea] Pears, A.R., Dimension Theory ofGeneral Spaces, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge 1975.
[PSW] Pelant, J., Shakhmatov, D.B. and Watson, S., A universal complete metric
Abelian group of a given weight, in Topology with Applications, Szekszard
(Hungary), Bolyai Soeiety Mathematical Studies, 4 (1993), 431-439.
[Pel] Pelczynski, A., Linear Extensions, Linear Averagings and their Applica-
tions, Diss. Math. 58. Warsaw, PWN 1968.
[PeWe] Peter, F. and Weyl, H., Die Vollstndigkeit der primitiven Darstellungen
eigen geschlossenen kontinuierlichen Gruppe, Math. Ann. 97 (1927), 737-
755.
[pe 1] Pestov, v.a., Some properties of free topological groups, Moscow Univ.
Math. Bull. 37 (1982), 46-49.
[Pe2] _ _ , On embeddings and condensations of topological groups, Math.
Notes 31 (1982), 228-230.
[Pe3] _ _ , The coincidence of the dimensions dim of l-equivalent topological
spaces, Soviet Math. Dokl. 26 (1982), 380-382.
[pe4] _ _ , Relations between classes of almost metrizable, projectively metriz-
able, and ~o-representable topological groups, in: Topoi. Spaces and Their
Mappings, Latvian Univ. Press, Riga 1983, pp. 80-86 (in Russian).
[Pe5] _ _ , Topological groups and algebraic envelopes oftopological spaces,
Ph.D. thesis, Moscow Univ., Moscow 1983 (in Russian).
[pe6] Some topological properties preserved by the relation of M-

equivalence, Russian Math. Surveys 39 (1984), 223-224. Russian original
in: Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 39 (1984), 203-204.
[Pe7] _ _ , Neighbourhoods of unity in free topological groups, Mosc. Univ.
Math. Bull. 40 (1985),8-12.
[Pe8] _ _ , The class of almost metrizable topological groups is not closed
under extensions, Moscow Univ. Math. Bull. 40 (1985), 74-76.
[Pe9] _ _ , An example of a nonmetrizable minimal topological group whose
unity has a type Ga, Ukrainian Math. J. 37 (1986),655-656.
[Pe 10] _ _ , Free topological abelian groups and the Pontryagin duality, Moscow
Univ. Math. Bull. 41 (1986), 1-4.
[Pell] _ _ , Free Banach spaces and representations of topological groups,
Funct. Anal. Appl. 20 (1986), 70-72.
[Pe 12] _ _ , On compact1y generated topologie al groups, Math. Notes 40 (1986),
880-882.
[Pe13] _ _ , On a theorem of M.M. Choban on extension of pseudometries to
free universal algebras, in: Continuous Functions on Topological Spaces,
Latvian Univ. Press, Riga 1986, pp. 142-146 (in Russian).
[Pe 14] _ _ , The eategory of Tyehonoff spaees embeds into the eategory of
topological groups as a subcategory, Bull. Acad. Sei. Georgian SSR 128
(1987), 257-259 (in Russian).
[Pe15] _ _ , On uneonditionally closed sets and a eonjeeture of AA Markov,
Siberian Math. 1. 29 (1988), 260-266.
[Pe 16] _ _ , Free Banaeh-Lie algebras, eouniversal Banaeh-Lie groups, and
more, Pacific 1. Math. 157 (1993), 137-144, Erratum: ibid., 171 (1995),
585-588.
[Pe 17] _ _ , Universal arrows to forgetful funetors from eategories of topologieal
algebra, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 48 (1993), 209-249.
[Pe18] _ _ , Free abelian topologieal groups and the Pontryagin-van Kampen
duality, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 52 (1995), 297-311.
[PeYa] Pestov, V.G. and Yamada, K., Free topological groups over metrizable
spaees and induetive limits, Topoi. Appl. 98 (1999), 291-301.
[Pet] Pettis, B.J., On eontinuity and openness of homomorphisms in topological
groups, Ann. 0/ Math. 52 (1950), 293-308.
[Pfi] Pfister, H., Continuity of the inverse, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 95 (1985),
312-314.
[Pi1] Piskunov, AG., Cardinality of open a-compaet sets in the spaee of non-
eompaet subgroups of a topological group, Ukr. Matern. 1. 40 (1988),803-
807.
[Pi2] Piskunov, AG., Reeonstruetion of the Vietoris topology by eompaet sets
in the spaee of closed subgroups, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 42 (1990), 789-794.
[Pla] Platonov, v.P., Loeally projeetively nilpotent groups and nilelements in
topologieal groups, lzvestiya Akad. Nauk SSSR Sero Mat. 30 (1966), 1257-
1274.
[PP] Pol, E. and Pol, R., A hereditarily normal strongly zero-dimensional

space containing subspaces of arbitrary large dimensions, Fund. Math. 102
(1979), 137-142.
[Pom] Pommer, H., Complete lattices of subgroups in compact groups, Arch.
Math. 22 (1971), 205-208.
[Poni] Pontryagin, L.S., Der allgemeine Dualittssatz fr abgeschlossene Men-
gen, Verhandlungen des Internat. Math.- Kongr. Zrich, 1932, Orell Fssli,
Zrich u. Leipzig: Bd. 11, 195-197.
[Pon2] _ _ , The theory of topological commutative groups, Ann. 0/ Math. 35
(1934), 361-388.
[Pon3] _ _ , Linear representations of compact topological groups, Matern. Sb.
(Nov. Ser.) 1 (43) (1936), 267-271.
[Pon4] _ _ , Continuous Groups, Moscow, 1938. English translation: Topologi-
cal Groups, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1939.
[PoHu] Pourezza, I. and Hubbard, J., The space of closed subgroups of ]R2,
Topology 18 (1979), 143-146.
[PrSt] Prodanov, I.R. and Stoyanov, L.N., Every minimal Abelian group is
precompact, Dokl. Bulg. Acad. Sei. 37 (1984), 23-26.
[Prl] Protasov, LV., Local theorems for topological groups, Izv. AN SSSR Sero
Mat. 43 (1979), 1430-1440 (in Russian).
[Pr2] _ _ , On dualisms oftopological Abelian groups, Ukr. Mat. 1. 31 (1979),
[Pr3] _ _ , Topological groups with a compact lattice of c10sed subgroups, Sib.
Mat. J. 20 (1979), 378-385 (in Russian).
[Pr4] _ _ , Topological properties of the lattice of subgroups, Ukr. Mat. 1. 32
(1980), 355-360 (in Russian).
[Pr5] _ _ , On topologies for a lattice of subgroups, Dokl. AN Ukr. SSR Sero A
(2) (1981), 29-32.
[Pr6] _ _ , Local method and the compactness theorem for topological
algebraic systems, Sib. Mat. Zh. 23 (1982), 136-143 (in Russian).
[Pr7] _ _ , Topological groups with a-compact space of subgroups, Ukr. Mat.
J. 37 (1985), 93-98 (in Russian).
[Pr8] _ _ , Zero-dimensional groups with the a-compact space of subgroups,
Mat. Zarnetky 37 (1985), 483-490 (in Russian).
[Pr9] _ _ , Limits of compact subgroups in topological groups, Dokl. AN Ukr.
SSR Sero A (10) (1986), 64-66 (in Russian).
[Pr 10] _ _ , On the Souslin number of the space of subgroup of a locally
compact group, Ukr. Mat. 1. 40 (1988), 654-658 (in Russian).
[Pr11] _ _ , To the theory ofresolvable groups, Dokl. NAN Ukr. (5) (1996),1-3
(in Russian).
[PrI2] _ _ , Absolutely resolvable groups, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 48 (1996), 383-392
(in Russian).
[PrI3] _ _ , Absolute resolvability of the group of rationals, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 48
(1996), 1703-1707 (in Russian).
[Pr14] _ _ , Partitions of direct products of groups, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 49 (1997),
1385-1395 (in Russian).
[PrI5] _ _ , Resolvability of free groups, Dokl. NAN Ukr. (8) (1997), 38-40 (in
Russian).
[pr16] _ _ , Resolvability of groups, Mat. Stud. 9 (1998), 130--148 (in Russian).
[Pr17] _ _ , Nonresolvable topologies on groups, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 50 (1998),
1646-1655 (in Russian).
[PrCh] Protasov, LV. and Charin, V.S., On the projection of topological groups,
Mat. Zametky 24 (1978), 383-389 (in Russian).
[PrCha] Protasov, LV. and Charyev, A., Bourbaki spaces oftopological groups, Ukr.
Mat. Zh. 42 (1990), 542-549 (in Russian).
[PrSa] Protasov, LV. and Saryev, A., Topological Abelian groups with a locally
compact lattice of closed subgroups, Dokl. AN Ukr. SSR Sero A (3) (1980),
29-32 (in Russian).
[PrStu] Protasov, LV. and Stukotilov, V.S., Ochan's topologies on the space of
closed subgroups, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 41 (1989), 1337-1342 (in Russian).
[PrTsl] Protasov, LV. and Tsybenko, Yu.V., Connectedness in the space of sub-
groups of a topological group, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 35 (1983), 382-385 (in
Russian).
[PrTs2] _ _ , Chabauty topology in the lattice of closed subgroups, Ukr. Mat. Zh.
36 (1984), 207-213 (in Russian).
[Przl] Przymusitiski, T., Normality and paracompactness in finite and Cartesian
products, Fund. Math. 105 (1980), 87-104.
[Prz2] _ _ , On the dimension of product spaces and an example of M. Wage,
[Rai] Ralkov, D.A., On completion of topological groups, Izv. AN SSSR 10
(1946),513-528 (in Russian).
[Rem] Remus, D., A short solution of Markov's problem on connected group
topologies, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 110 (1990), 1109-1110.
[ReSt] Remus, D. and Stoyanov, L., Complete minimal and totally minimal groups,
Topoi. Appl. 42 (1991), 57-69.
[Rez] Reznichenko, E.A., Extensions of functions defined on products of pseu-
docompact spaces and continuity of the inverse in pseudocompact groups,
Topology Appl. 59 (1994), 233-244.
[Rib] Ribes, L., Introduction to Profinite Groups and Galois Cohomology,
Queen's Papers Pure Appl. Math. 1970, No. 2.
[RoSv] Robbie, D. and Svetlichny, S., An answer to A.D. Wallace's question about
countably compact cancellative semigroups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124
(1996), 325-330.
[Rob] Robinson, D.J.F., A Course in the Theory 0/ Groups, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin 1982.
[RoDi] Roelcke, W. and Dierolf, S., Uniform Structures on Topological Groups and
their Quotients, McGraw-Hill International Book Company, New York-
Toronto 1981.
[Roy] Roy, P., Failure of equivalence of dimension concepts for metric spaces,
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 68 (1962), 609-613.
[Rud] Rudin, M.E., Lectures on Set-Theoretic Topology, Conf. Sero in Math.,
No. 23, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence 1975.
[Sapl] SapirovskiI, B.E., On embedding extremally disconnected spaces in com-

pact Hausdorff spaces. b-points and weight of pointwise normal spaces,
Soviet Math. Dokl. 16 (1975), 1056-1061. Russian original in: Doklady
Akad. Nauk SSSR 223 (1975),1083-1086.
[Sap2] _ _ , Maps onto Tikhonov cubes, RussianMath. Surveys 35 (1980),145-
156. Russian original in: Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 35 (1980), 122-130.
[Sar] Saryev, A., Periodic topological groups with a locally compact lattice of
c10sed subgroups, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 33 (1981), 267-270 (in Russian).
[Scei] Scepin, E.V., Topology of limit spaces of uncountable inverse spectra,
Russian Math. Surveys 31 (1976), 175-207. Russian original in: Uspekhy
Mat. Nauk 31 (1976), 191-226.
[Sce2] _ _ , On K-metrizable spaces, Math. USSR Izvestia 14 (1980), 407-440.
Russian original in: Izvestiya AN SSSR Ser. Mat. 43 (1980), 442-478.
[Scho] Schochetman, J., Nets of subgroups and amenability, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 29 (1972),397-402.
[Sehr] Schreier, 0., Abstrakte kontinuierliche Gruppen, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ.
Hamburg 4 (1925), 15-32.
[Schul Schur, I., Neue Anwendungen der Integralrechnung auf Probleme der In-
variantentheorie. I, 11, ID. Sitzungsberg. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., phis.-math.
lrl. 1924, 189-208,297-321,346-355.
[Ser] Serre, J.-P., Cohomologie galoisienne, Lecture Notes in Mathematics,
vol. 5, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1994.
[Shl] Shakhmatov, D.B., Imbeddings into topological fields and a construction
of a field the space of which is not normal, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin.
24 (1983), 525-540 (in Russian).
[Sh2] _ _ , Character and pseudocharacter in minimal topological groups,
Math. Notes 38 (1985), 1003-1006.
[Sh3] _ _ , A problem of coincidence of dimensions in topological groups,
Topology Appl. 33 (1989), 105-113.
[Sh4] _ _ , Zerodimensionality of free topological groups and topological
groups with noncoinciding dimensions, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sei. 37 (1989),
497-506.
[Sh5] _ _ , Dugundji spaces and topological groups, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolin. 31 (1990), 129-143.
[Sh6] _ _ , Imbeddings into topological groups preserving dimensions, Topol-
ogy Appl. 36 (1990), 181-204.
[Sh7] _ _ , A survey of current researehes and open problems in the dimension
theory of topological groups, Q & A in General Topology 8 (1990), 101-
128.
[Sh8] _ _ , aj-properties in Frechet-Urysohn topological groups, Topology
Proc. 15 (1990), 143-183.
[Sh9] _ _ , A direct proof that every infinite compact group G contains
{O, l}w(G), in Papers on General Topology and Applications (Eight Sum-
mer Conference at Queens College), Annals ofthe New York Academy of
Sciences, vol. 728, 1994, 276-283.
[She] Shelah, S., On P-points, w and other results in general topology, Notices
Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1978), A-365,87T-G49.
[Shil] Shirokov, L., On bicompacta which are continuous images of dense sub-
spaces of topological products, manuscript deposited by VINITI (Moscow,
1981),2946-81 Dep. (in Russian).
[Shi2] _ _ , An external characterization of Dugundji spaces and /C-metrizable
compact Hausdorff spaces, Soviet Math. Dokl. 25 (1982), 507-510. Russian
original in: Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 263 (1982), 1073-1077.
[Sil] Sipacheva, O.V., Zerodimensionality and completeness in free topological
groups I, n Serdica 15 (1989), 119-140; 141-154 (in Russian).
[Si2] _ _ , On free topological groups with the inductive limit topologies,
Annals 0/ New York Acad. 0/ Sei. 788 (1996), 188-196.
[Si3] _ _ , Free topological groups of spaces and their subspaces, Topology
Appl. 101 (2000), 181-212.
[SiTk] Sipacheva, O.V. and Tkacenko, M.G., Thin and bounded subsets of free
[Sius] Sipacheva, O.v. and UspenskiI, V.V., Free topological groups with no small
subgroups and Graev metrics, Moscow Univ. Math. Bull. 42 (1987), 24-29.
[Siw] Siwiec, E, Generalizations of the first axiom of countability, Rocky
Mountain J. Math. 5 (1975), 1-60.
[SkI] SkIyarenko, B.G., On topological structure of locally compact groups and
their quotient groups, Matem. Sb. 60 (1963),63-88 (in Russian).
[SS] SkIyarenko, B.G. and Smirnov, Ju.M., Some problems of dimension the-
ory, Trans. IVth All-Union Math. Congress I (plenary papers) (Leningrad,
1961), 219-226 (in Russian).
eSte] Stephenson, R.M., Minimal topological groups, Math. Ann. 192 (1971),
193-195.
[Stil Stieglitz, A., Chabauty und Weil-Raume topologischer Gruppen, Math.
Nachr. 85 (1978), 215-233.
[Sto] Stone, M.H., On the compactification of topological spaces, Ann. Soc.
Polon. Math. 21 (1948), 153-160.
[Sul] Sully, L., A note on B- and Br-complete topological groups, Proc. Camb.
Phil. Soc. 66 (1969), 275-279.
[Tho] Thompson, H.B., Aremark on free topological groups with no small
subgroups, J. Austral. Math. Soc. 18 (1974), 482-484.
[THVR] Tkacenko, M.G., Hernandez, C., Villegas, L.M. and Rend6n, 0., Topo-
logical Groups. Universidad Aut6noma Metropolitana, Mexico 1998 (in
Spanish).
[Tkl] Tkacenko, M.G., On the completeness of free Abelian topological groups,
Soviet Math. Dokl. 27 (1983), 341-345. Russian original in: Dokl. AN SSSR
269 (1983), 299-303.
[Tk2] _ _ , The Souslin property in free topological groups over compact
spaces, Mat. Notes 34 (1983), 790-793.
[Tk3] _ _ , Free topological groups and related topics, Colloq. Math. 41 (1983),
609-623.
[Tk4] _ _ , On zero-dimensional topological groups, in Proc. Leningrad In-

ternat. Topoi. Conf 1982, Leningrad, Math. Inst. Publ. 1983, 113-118 (in
Russian).
[Tk5] _ _ , On topologies offree groups, Czech. Math. 1. 34 (1984), 541-551.
[Tk6] _ _ , Zero-dimensionality offree topological groups, C. R. Acad. Bulgar.
Acad. Sei. 38 (1985),173-174 (in Russian).
[Tk7] _ _ , Strong collectionwise normality and countable compactness in free
topological groups, Siberian Math. J. 28 (1987),824-831. Russian original
in: Sib. Mat. Zh. 28 (1987),167-177.
[Tk8] _ _ , On pseudocompact topological groups, in: Interim Report of the
Prague Topological Symposium, Math. Institute Czech. Acad. Sei., Prague,
vol. 2, 1987, p. 18.
[Tk9] _ _ , Compactness type properties in topological groups, Czech. Math.
1. 38 (1988), 324-341.
[TklO] _ _ , Generalization of a theorem of Comfort and Ross I, Ukr. Math. 1.
41 (1989), 334-338.
[Tk11] _ _ , On dimension oflocally pseudocompact groups and their quotients,
Comment. Math. Univ. CaroTin. 31 (1990), 159-166.
[TkI2] _ _ , Factorization theorems for topological groups and their applica-
tions, Topology Appl. 38 (1991), 21-37.
[Tk13] _ _ , Subgroups, quotient groups and products of ~-factorizable groups,
Topology Proc. 16 (1991), 201-231.
[TkI4] _ _ , On subgroups of pseudocompact topological groups, Q &A in
General Topology 10 (1992), 41-50.
[TkI5] _ _ , On cardinal invariants of continuous images oftopological groups,
Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar 62 (1993), 189-198.
[TkI6] _ _ , Free topological groups and inductive limits, Topology Appl. 60
(1994), 1-12.
[Tk17] _ _ , M -mappings make their images less cellular, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolin. 35 (1994), 553-563.
[TkI8] _ _ ,Introduction to topological groups, Topology Appl. 86 (1998),179-
231.
[TkI9] _ _ , Generating dense subgroups oftopological groups, Topology Proc.
22 (1997), 533-582.
[Tkal] Tkachuk, v.v., On a method for constructing examples of M-equivalent
spaces, Russian Math. Surveys 38 (1983), 135-136. Russian original in:
Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 38 (1983), 127-128.
[Tka2] _ _ , On cardinal invariants of the Souslin number type, Soviet Math.
Dokl. 27 (1983),681-684. Russian original in: Dokl. AN SSSR 270 (1983),
795-798.
[Tka3] _ _ , On a supertopological cardinal invariant, Moscow Univ. Matematika
39 (1984), 26-29. Russian original in: Vestnik Moskov. Univ. (4) 1984,
26-29.
[Tka4] _ _ , Duality with respect to the functor C p and cardinal invariants of
the type of the Souslin number, Math. Notes 37 (1985), 247-252. Russian
original in: Mat. Zametky 37 (1985), 441-151.
[Tka5] _ _ , Homeomorphisms of free topologieal groups do not preserve

eompaetness, Matk. Notes 42 (1987), 752-756.
[Tod] Todorcevic, S., Some applieations of S- and L-spaees, in Proc. Summer,
1991, Wisconsin ConJ Honoring M. E. Rudin, New York Aead. Sei., New
York 1993.
[TomI] Tomita, AH., A group under M Acountable whose square is eountably
eompaet but the eube is not, Topoi. Appl. 98 (1999), 91-104.
[Tom2] _ _ , The Wallaee problem: a eounterexample from M Acountable and p-
eompaetness, Canad. Matk. Bull. 39 (1996), 486-498.
[TT] Tomita, AH. and Trigos-Arrieta, F.J., Suitable sets in produets oftopologi-
eal groups and in groups equipped with the Bohr topology, Abelian Groups,
Module Theory, and Topology, D. Dikranjan and L. Salce (eds.), Mareel
Dekker, Ine., New York 1998, 389-402.
[TrI] Trigos-Arrieta, F.J., Normality and the weak topology on a locally eompaet
Abelian groups, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sei. 728 (1994), 290-295.
[Tr2] _ _ , Pseudocompaetness on groups, in General Topology and Appli-
cations, S. J. Andima, R. Kopperman, P. R. Misra, J. Z. Reichman and
AR. Todd (eds.), pp. 369-378. Mareel Dekker, Ine., New York-Basel-
Hong Kong 1991.
[Ur] Ursul, I.M., Embeddings of locally preeompaet groups in locally pseudo-
eompaet ones, 1zv. Akad. Nauk Moldav. SSR Sero Fiz.-Tekkn. Mat. Nauk 3
(1989), 54-56 (in Russian).
[Uryl] Urysohn, P., Sur un espaee metrique universei, C. R. Acad. Sei. Paris 180
(1925), 803-806.
[Ury2] _ _ , Sur un espaee metrique universei, Bull. Sei. Matk. 51 (1927),43-64.
[Uspl] UspenskiI, v.v., A topological group generated by a Lindelf E-spaee has
the Souslin property, Soviet Matk. Dokl. 26 (1982), 166-169.
[Usp2] _ _ , Charaeterization of eompaetness in terms of a uniform strueture on
a spaee offunetions, Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 34 (1982),183-184 (in Russian).
[Usp3] _ _ , On the topology of free locally eonvex spaee, Dokl. AN SSSR 270
(1983), 1334-1337 (in Russian).
[Usp4] _ _ , Extensions of topologie al groups with a eountable net, Moscow
Univ. Matk. Bull. (5) 39 (1984), 84-85.
[Usp5] _ _ , On eontinuous images ofLindelftopologieal groups, Soviet Matk.
Dokl. 32 (1985), 802-806.
[Usp6] _ _ , On subgroups of free topologieal groups, Soviet Matk. Dokl. 32
(1985), 847-849. Russian original in: Dokl. AN SSSR 285 (1985), 1070-
1072.
[Usp7] _ _ , To the theory of free topologieal groups, XVIII All-Union Al-
gebraic Conference, Kishinev, September 16-18, 1985. Abstracts of the
Conference, Part n, p. 229 (in Russian).
[Usp8] _ _ , A universal topological group with a countable base, Funct. Anal.
Appl. 20 (1986), 160-161. Russian original in: Funktz. Analis y ego
Prilozkeniya 20 (1986), 76-87.
[Usp9] _ _ , Compact quotient spaees oftopological groups and Haydon spectra,
Matk. Notes oftke Acad. Sei. USSR 42 (1987),827-831 (In Russian).
[UsplO] _ _ , Why compact groups are dyadic, in Proc. ofthe Vlth Prague Topo-
logical Symposium 1986, Frolfk Z. (ed.), Heldermann Verlag, Berlin 1988,
601-610.
[Usp11] _ _ , Topological groups and Dugundji compacta, Math. USSR Sbomik
67 (1990), 555-580. Russian original in: Matem. Sbomik 180 (1989), 1092-
1118.
[UspI2] _ _ , On the group of isometries of the Urysohn universal metric space,
Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 31 (1990), 181-182.
[Usp13] _ _ , Free topological groups ofmetrizable spaces, Math. USSR Izvestiya
37 (1991), 657-680. Russian original in: Izvestiya Akad. Nauk SSSR Sero
Mat. 54 (1990), 1295-1319.
[UspI4] _ _ , On the Souslin number of subgroups of products of countable
groups, Acta Univ. Carolin. Math. Phys. 36 (1995), 85-87.
[UspI5] _ _ , On sequentially continuous homomorphisms oftopological groups,
preprint.
[UspI6] _ _ , On subgroups ofminimal topological groups, preprint.
[ViI] Vilenkin, N.Y., On the theory of weakly separable topological groups, Mat.
Sbomik 22 (1948),135-177 (in Russian).
[Vi2] _ _ , On the dyadicity of the group space of bicompact commutative
groups, Uspekhy Mat. Nauk 13 (1958), 79-80 (in Russian).
[Vill] Villegas-Silva, L.M., On resolvable spaces and groups, Comment. Math.
Univ. Carolin. 36 (1995), 579-584.
[Wal] Wallace, A.D., The structure of topological semigroups, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 61 (1955), 95-112.
[Wanl] Wang, S.P., On the limits of subgroups in a group, Amer. 1. Math. 92 (1970),
708-724.
[Wan2] _ _ , Limits of lattices in a Lie group, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 133
(1968),519-526.
[Wel] Weil, A., La mesure invariante dans les espaces de groupes et les espaces
homogenes, Enseingment Math. 35 (1936), 24l.
[We2] _ _ , Sur les groupes topologiques et les groupes mesures, C. R. Acad.
Sei. Paris 202 (1936), 1147-1149.
[We3] _ _ , Sur les espaces a structure uniforme et sur la topologie generale,
Hermann & Cie, Paris. Publ. Math. Univ. Strasbourg 1937.
[We4] _ _ , L'integration dans les groupes topologiques et ses applications,
Hermann & Cie, Paris. Actualites Scientifiques et Industrielles, Publ. Math.
Institut Strasbourg 1941 and 1951.
[Will Willis, G., The structure of totally disconnected locally compact groups,
Math. Ann. 300 (1994), 341-361.
[Yal] Yamabe, H., On conjecture of Iwasawa and Gleason, Ann. of Math. 58
(1953), 48-54.
[Ya2] _ _ , A generalization of a theorem of Gleason, Ann. of Math. 58 (1953),
351-365.
[Yaml] Yamada, K., Characterizations of a metrizable space X such that every
An (X) is a k-space, Topology Appl. 49 (1993), 75-94.
[Yam2] _ _ , Free Abelian topologieal groups and k-spaees, Glas. Mat. Sero 3 1
(1996), no. 1,83-91.
[Yama] Yamanoshita, T., On the dimension of homogeneous spaees, J. Math. Soc.
Japan 6 (1954),151-159.
[YI] Yosida, K. and lwamura, T., Equivalenee of two topologies of Abelian
groups, Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 20 (1944), 451-453.
[Yur] Yur'eva, A.A., Countably eompaet sequential topologieal semigroup is a
topologieal group, Math. Stud. 2 (1993),23-24 (in Russian).
[Zam] Zambahidze, L.G., On relationships between dimensions of free bases of
free topologie al groups, Soobshch. AN Gruz. SSR 97 (1980), 569-572 (in
Russian).
[Zar] Zarelua, A.v., Equality of dimensions and eompaet extensions, Dokl. AN
SSSR 144 (1962), 713-716 (in Russian).
[Zell Zelazko, w., A theorem on Bo division algebras, Bult. Acad. Polon. Sei. 8
(1960), 373-375.
[Zele] Zelenyuk, E.G., Resolvability of topological groups, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 51
(1999), No. 1 (in Russian).
[ZePr] Zelenyuk, E.G. and Protasov, LV., Nonresolvable and extremally diseon-
neeted topologies on groups, Dokl. NAN Ukr. 1997,7-11 (in Russian).
HISTORY OF SHAPE THEORY AND ITS
APPLICATION TO GENERAL TOPOLOGY
SIBE MARDESIC (smardes@math.hr)

Department of Mathematics
University of Zagreb
Bijenicka cesta 30
10002 Zagreb, P.O. Box 335, Croatia
AND
JACK SEGAL (segal@math. washington . edu)
Department of Mathematics
University of Washington
P.O. Box 354350, Seattle, WA 98195-4350, USA
Abstract
This paper consists of a short his tory of shape theory and of a survey of
the various applications of shape theory. In particular, the paper describes
applications in several areas of general topology (topology of continua, hy-
perspaces, compactifications, fixed points) and in dynarnical systems (Conley
index, attractors).
The Development of Shape Theory
Shape theory can be viewed as an extension of homotopy theory from CW-

complexes to arbitrary topological spaces. More precise1y, let H(Top) denote
the homotopy category, i.e., the category whose objects are topological spaces
X and whose morphisms are homotopy c1asses [J] of (continuous) mappings
f : X -+ Y. Homotopy theory studies the restrietion H(HPol) of H(Top) to
the c1ass HPol of spaces having the homotopy type of polyhedra. This c1ass
inc1udes CW-complexes and ANR's for metric spaces. Shape theory studies the
shape category Sh(Top), which is a modification of H(Top). Its objects are all
topological spaces. The morphisms are obtained by a process of approximation
which uses the morphisms from H(HPol). Shape theory also studies the shape
1145
C. E. Aull and R. Lowen (eds.), Handbook ofthe History ofGeneral Topology, Volume 3, 1145-1177.
2001 Kl,lwer Academic Publishers.
1146 SIBE MARDESIC AND JACK SEGAL
funetor S : H(Top) -+ Sh(Top). This functor keeps objects fixed, i.e., SeX) =
X, and on HPol, it is an isomorphism. Consequently, for spaces having the
homotopy type of polyhedra, shape theory reduces to standard homotopy theory.
It is generally considered that shape theory is the correct substitute for homotopy
theory when one works with spaces beyond the dass HPol.
The above mentioned approximation process involves the replacing oftopo-
10gical spaces X by suitable inverse systems of spaces having the homotopy type
ofpolyhedra X = (X).., Pw, A). One views the terms X).. as better and better
approximations of X as A progresses within the directed index set A. If one
adopts this point of view, one can trace the origins of shape theory to the early
papers on inverse systems by P.S. Aleksandrov [4], [5], [6], A. Kurosh [171],
S. Lefschetz [177] and H. Freudenthal [99]. Ceeh homology and cohomology
groups are shape invariants and undoubtedly belong to shape theory. They were
developed by Aleksandrov [5], L. Vietoris [274], E. Cech [48], A. Kolmogoroff
[156], 1.W. Alexander [2], C.H. Dowker [77], [78], K. Morita [220] and others.
The shape-theoretic analogue of the fundamental group was defined already
in 1937 by A. Komatu [157]. The corresponding higher dimensional groups,
called shape groups, were introduced by D.E. Christie in 1944 in bis paper
[63], which contains the beginnings of a theory of ordinary and strong shape.
In 1959 E.L. Lima defined the stahle shape eategory [180]. Cell-like spaees
and cell-like mappings (as weIl as UVn-spaces and UVn-mappings) are further
examples of early shape-theoretic notions (see [172]). They were preceded by
the notion of cellular set, introduced in 1960 by M. Brown in [46].
Modem shape theory begins in 1968, when K. Borsuk published his paper:
Coneeming homotopy properties of eompaeta [29]. In that paper he defined the
shape category Sh(CM), for the dass CM of metric compacta, and the shape
functor S : H(CM) -+ Sh(CM). He used the name shape for the first time in
[30]. Borsuk's technique of fundamental sequenees was based on embedding
metric compacta in the Hilbert cube Q and approximating them by open neigh-
borhoods, which are ANR's. This technique was improved and generalized to
arbitrary metric spaces by R.H. Fox in 1972 [95].
In 1970 S. Mardesic and 1. Segal noticed that inverse systems represent
the right tool for approximating spaces in shape theory. Their approach was
applicable to compact Hausdorff spaces [200], [201]. In 1973, several authors
used natural transformations to extend the shape category to arbitrary topo-
10gical spaces [188], [179], [278]. It was K. Morita who in 1975 defined the
same shape category using the inverse system technique. He associated with
every space X suitable inverse systems X = (X).., [p)..)../], A) in the homotopy
category H(HPol) and suitable morphisms of systems [p] = ([p)..]) : X -+ X
referred to as homotopy expansions [219]. The following Morita conditions
must be satisfied. (MI) Every homotopy dass [f] : X -+ P to a polyhedron
factors through X. (M2) This factorization is unique in the following sense: If
mSTORY OF SHAPE THEORY 1147
[fAJ, [fD : XI.. ~ P are homotopy c1asses such that [JA][PA] = [fD[PA]' then
[fA][PAA'] = [J{][PAA']' for some )..' 2: )... The Cech system gives an example
of a polyhedral homotopy expansion [220]. Shape morphisms F : X ~ Y are
given bytriples ([p], [q], [f]), where [p] : X ~ X and [q] : Y ~ Y are HPol-
homotopy expansions (the terms of X and Y belong to HPol) and [I] : X ~ Y
is a morphism of the pro-category pro-H(Top). For an arbitrary category 'fb, the
category pro-'fb was defined by A. Grothendieck in 1959 in his work on algebraic
geometry [106].lts objects are inverse systems in 'fb. If X = (XI.., Pu', A) and
Y = (YJ.L' PJ.LJ.L' , M) are two objects ofpro-'fb, one considers increasing functions
J : M ~ A and collections of morphisms JJ.L : Xf(J.L) ~ YJ.L such that, for
/Lo ::: /LI, the following diagram commutes.
P f(J.LO)f(J.L 1)
I I
X f(J.LO) X f(J.L
JJ.LO JJ.Ll
(1)
Morphisms [f] : X ~ Y of pro-'fb are equivalence c1asses of collections

I = (f, JJ.L)' where I '" I ' = (f', J~) if there exists an increasing function
J" 2: J, J' such that JJ.LP f(J.L)f"(J.L) = J~P f'(J.L)fl/(J.L) If [p] : X ~ X and
[q] : Y ~ Y are HPol-homotopy expansions, then the Morita conditions allow
one to associate with every homotopy c1ass of mappings [f] : X ~ Y a unique
morphism [I] : X ~ Y such that [f][p] = [q][f]. By definition, the tripie
([p], [q], [I]) determines the value of the shape functor at [f]. If X and Y
belong to the c1ass HPol, one ean take for [p] and [q] the identity expansions
[p] = [id] : X ~ X = X and [q] = [id] : Y ~ Y = Y and one can put
[f] = [f]. Consequently, S[f] gets identified with [f].
One of the first successful applications of shape theory was Fox's theory
of overlays [95]. Overlays are special covering mappings, which for 10cally
connected base-spaees coincide with covering mappings. Fox proved that for
arbitrary metric spaces s-sheeted overlay structures are c1assified by conjugacy
c1asses of transitive representations of the fundamental pro-group of the base-
space to the symmetrie group of order s. Pro-groups are inverse systems of
groups. In particular, if (X, *) = XI.., *), [pw], A) is an HPol-homotopy
expansion of a pointed space (X, *), then the application of the fundamental
group functor yields the pro-group 1Tl (X, *) = (1Tl (XI.., *), [Pu']#, A). This is
thefundamental pro-group 1T 1 (X, *) of (X, *). It depends on the space (X, *),
but not on the particular choice of the expansion [p] : (X, *) ~ (X, *). Fox's
result was recently generalized to arbitrary topological spaces [152], [119],
[197].
Further significant successes of shape theory, obtained in the seventies, were

the shape-theoretic versions ofthe theorems ofWhitehead, Hurewicz and Smale.
The statements of these results also use pro-groups. Application of the singular
homology functor H m ( . ; G) to X yields an inverse system of abelian groups
Hm(X; G) = (Hm(X).; G), [Pu/]*, A), called the m-th homology pro-group
of X. For systems of pointed spaces (X, *), the m-th homotopy pro-group
Jrm(X, *) is defined similarly. By definition, homology pro-groups .!Ln(X; G)
of aspace X are the pro-groups Hm(X; G), where [p] : X -4 Xis any HPol-
homotopy expansion of X. These groups depend only on the space X and not
on the chosen expansion [p]. The inverse limit Hm(X; G) = lim.!Ln(X; G)
is the Cech homology group of X. In a similar way one defines the homotopy
pro-groups l!.m(X, *) and the shape groups ifm(X, *) = liml!.m(X, *). The
Cech homology groups and the shape groups carry less information about the
space than the corresponding homology and homotopy pro-groups. Therefore,
in shape theory one often uses the pro-groups and not their limits.
The most general version of the Whitehead theorem in shape theory was
obtained by K. Morita [218]. It asserts that a morphism of pointed shape
F : (X, *) -4 (Y, *) between finite-dimensional topological spaces is a shape
equivalence, i.e., an isomorphism of pointed shape if and only if it induces
isomorphisms of all homotopy pro-groups F# : l!.m(X, *) -4 l!.m(Y, *). In
contrast to the c1assical Whitehead theorem, there are no restrictions on the local
behavior of the spaces involved. Morita's result was preceded by less general
versions of the theorem, obtained by M. MoszyTIska [224] and S. Mardesic
[189]. The restrietion to finite dimensions cannot be omitted. A counterexample
was obtained in [80], using a metric continuum defined by D.S. Kahn [128].
The needed properties of the Kahn continuum are consequences of deep results
in homotopy theory [267], [1].
In the above mentioned Whitehead theorem the restriction to finite-dimen-
sional spaces can be replaced by the weaker restriction to spaces of finite shape
dimension sd (also calledfundamental dimension and denoted by Fd). This is
a numerical shape invariant introduced by Borsuk [31]. An extensive study of
this notion was carried out by S. Nowak [232] and S. Spiez [261], [262].
The shape-theoretic Hurewicz theorem involves homology pro-groups. One
assumes that X is a (n -1)-shape connected space, n ~ 2, i.e., its homotopy pro-
groups l!.m(X, *) vanish, for m ~ n - 1. One conc1udes that the corresponding
homology pro-groups .!Ln (X; Z) vanish and there exists a natural isomorphism
tPn : !J...n(X, *) -4 ll.n(X; Z) of the n-th pro-groups. The general result was
obtained by Morita [218]. Earlier vers ions involving shape groups were obtained
by M. Artin and B. Mazur [8] and K. Kuperberg [170]. A Hurewicz theorem
involving Steenrod homology was obtained by Y. Kodama and A. Koyama [153]
and by Yu. T. Lisitsa [186].
The c1assical Smale theorem is the homotopy version of a homology theorem

of Vietoris [274] and it concerns cell-like mappings of metric compacta [260].
The shape-theoretic Smale theorem was proved by 1. Dydak [81], [83] and
asserts that, for metric compacta, every cell-like mapping f : X ~ Y induces
isomorphisms of homotopy pro-groups /# : 7l'n(X, *) ~ 7l'n(Y, *), for all n
and a11 base-points. Consequently, if sd X, sd Y < 00, the Whitehead theorem
applies and f is a shape equivalence.
Already in his 1969 papers on shape theory [31], [32] Borsuk defined two
important shape invariant c1asses of metric compacta, the fundamental absolute
neighborhood retracts, abbreviated as FANR's, and movable compacta. FANR's
generalize compact ANR's and are the shape analogues ofthe latter. A compact
metric space X, embedded in the Hilbert cube Q, is movable provided suffi-
ciently small neighborhoods of X can be deformed arbitrarily c10se to X within
given neighborhoods of X. An alternative definition of movability based on
ANR-systems was given in [200]. Every continuum in the plane:IR? is movable
[32]. Solenoids are examples of nonmovable continua. FANR's coincide with
metric compacta which are shape dominated by compact ANR's. Every FANR
is movable. In fact, in [33] FANR's were characterized by a strong form of
movability.
In 1976 D.A. Edwards and R. Geoghegan proved that connected pointed
FANR's coincide with stable continua, i.e., have the shape of an ANR [88],
[90], which in general is not compact. In fact, for FANR's X, Edwards and
Geoghegan have defined a Wall obstruction O"(X), which is an element of the
reduced projective c1ass group j(DCih (X, * of the first shape group jh (X, *)
and they have shown that X has the shape of a compact ANR (equivalently, of
a compact polyhedron) if and only if its Wall obstruction 0" (X) = O. Moreover,
they have exhibited examples ofFANR's X with O"(X) =1= 0 [89]. The results of
Edwards and Geoghegan linked shape theory to K -theory. The appearence of
FANR's led to the study ofvarious c1asses of generalized absolute neighborhood
retracts, introduced by a number of authors. In partieular, we mention absolute
weak neighborhood retracts of S. Bogatyr [25], ealm compaeta ofZ. Cerin [50],
fundamental approximative absolute neighborhood retraets of J.M.R. Sanjurjo
[248] and approximative absolute neighborhood retraets AANR of M.H. Clapp
[64]. In [276] T. Watanabe studied noneompact generalizations.
In various constructions and theorems one considers pointed FANR's. E.g.,
if the interseetion of two pointed FANR' s is a pointed FANR, then their union is
also a pointed FANR [85]. A pointed metrie continuum of finite shape dimension
is a pointed FANR if and only if its homotopy pro-groups are stable, i.e., are iso-
morphie to groups. An important result was the diseovery of H.M. Hastings and
A. Heller that every FANR is a pointed FANR [116]. The proof used earlier work
of P. Mine and 1. Dydak (see [82]) and of P. Freyd and A. Heller (unpublished).
The analogous problem whether movable eontinua are always pointed movable
1150 SffiE MARDESI<: AND JACK SEGAL
is still open [87]. Using 3-manifolds, A. Kadlof has determined the structure of
pointed I-movable continua embedded in R 3 . In particular, he proved that every
FANR in R 3 has the shape of a compact polyhedron [127].
For movable spaces various shape-theoretic results assume a simpler form.
E.g., if J : (X, *) ~ (Y, *) is a pointed shape morphism between pointed
movable metric continua, which induces isomorphisms of shape groups h :
7rk(X, *) ~ 7rk(Y, *), for all k, and if the spaces X, Y are finite-dimensional,
then J is a pointed shape equivalence. This is a consequence of the shape-
theoretic Whitehead theorem and the fact that such an J induces isomorphisms
ofhomotopy pro-groups !I.k(X, *) ~ !I.k(y, *) [140], [83].
Borsuk also introduced the notion of n-movability. A metric compactum
X ~ Q is n-movable provided every neighborhood U of X in Q admits
a neighborhood U' of X so small that every mapping J : K ~ U' of a
metric compactum K of dimension dim K ~ n can be deformed within U
arbitrarily elose to X. Every LC n - 1 compactum is n-movable [34]. The notion
of movability and n-movability was quickly generalized to compact Hausdorff
spaces [200], [160] and to arbitrary spaces [161]. In particular, G. Kozlowski
and 1. Segal proved that every paracompact LCn - 1 space is n-movable [161].
In aseries ofpapers J.E. Keesling studied the structure ofthe Cech cohomology
groups iIk(X) (integer coefficients) of movable and n-movable compacta and
spaces. In particular, in [139] he proved that for a movable compact Hausdorff
space X the group iIk(X)/Tor (iIk(X)) is an ~l-free abelian group. Keesling
used his algebraic criteria for n-movability to show the existence of metric
LCn - 1 continua X, which do not have the shape of any n-movable para-
compact space [141]. The notion of n-movability was the beginning of the
n-shape theory, which was developed in aseries of papers by A. Chigogidze
(see [60]). The n-shape theory proved to be especially useful in the theory
of n-dimensional Menger manifolds, a theory initiated by M. Bestvina [20]
(see [62]).
In 1972 T.A. Chapman applied infinite-dimensional topology to the shape
ofmetric compacta [57], [59]. In particular, he proved that two compacta X, Y,
embedded in the Hilbert cube Q as Z-sets, have the same shape if and only
if their complements Q\X, Q\Y are homeomorphic (for a different proof see
[257]). Chapman also exhibited an isomorphism of categories T. The domain of
T is the weak proper homotopy category W9P, whose object are complements
M = Q\X of Z-sets X of Q. The morphisms ofW9P are equivalence elasses
of proper mappings J : M ~ N = Q\Y, where two such mappings J, g :
M ~ N are considered equivalent provided every compact set B ~ N admits
a compact set A ~ M and a homotopy H : M x I ~ N such that H connects
J to g and HM\A) x /)) ~ N\B. The codomain of T is the restriction of
the shape category Sh(CM) to Z-sets X of Q. On objects M = Q\X ofW9P,
T(M) = X.
HISTORY OF SHAPE THEORY 1151
Subsequently, Chapman published a second paper, which contained a finite-

dimensional complement theorem, where the ambient space was the Euclidean
space ~n [58]. The paper immediately attracted the attention of a number of
specialists in geometrie topology, in particular in PL-topology, who produced
aseries of finite-dimensional complement theorems. In these theorems one
assurnes that X and Y are "nicely" embedded in the Eudidean space ~n and
satisfy certain dimensional conditions. The most general complement theorems
were obtained in [126], where one assurnes that X and Y are shape r-connected.
The "niceness" condition is the inessential loops condition ILC. Let sdX =
sdY = k and assurne that n :::: max {2k + 2 - r, 5}. Then, for n - k :::: 4, ~n \X ~
~n\y implies sh (X) = sh (Y). Conversely, for n - k :::: 3, sh (X) = sh (Y)
implies ~n\x ~ ~n\y. The ILC condition was introduced by G.A. Venema
[271]. It had various precedents, in particular McMillan's cellularity criterion
CC [207]. Complement theorems in more general ambient spaces and different
categories were studied extensively by P. Mrozik (see[228], [229]).
A compact metric space X embeds up to shape in aspace Y provided Y
contains ametrie compactum X' such that sh(X) = sh(X'). L.S. Husch and
I. Ivansic obtained several interesting results conceming this notion. In partic-
ular, they showed that every r-shape connected and pointed (r + 1)-movable
continuum X with sd(X) = k, k :::: 3, embeds up to shape in ~2k-r [124]. J.E.
Keesling and D.C. Wilson showed that, for the n-torus r n = SI x ... X SI,
every rn-like continuum embeds in ~n+2 up to shape [148].
Using a suitable approximate homotopy lifting property, D.S. Coram and
P.P. Duvall have introduced approximate fibrations as mappings f : X ~ Y
between ANR's, which generalize cell-like mappings and share many homoto-
py-theoretic properties with fibrations [67]. This dass of mappings proved very
useful in the study of mappings between manifolds. Coram and Duvall have also
characterized approximate fibrations using a movability condition for mappings
[68]. For mappings between metric compacta, approximate fibrations had to
be replaced by shape fibrations [199]. Their characterization by appropriate
movability conditions of mappings was obtained in [285]. A strengthening of
cell-like mappings is the hereditary shape equivalences, i.e., proper mappings
f : X ~ Y such that, for every dosed subset B S; Y, the restrietion of f
to A = f- I (B) is a shape equivalence flA : A ~ B. It was proved by G.
Kozlowski [159] that the image of a compact ANR under a hereditary shape
equivalence is always an ANR.
It took some time before it was realized that between homotopy theory
and ordinary shape theory there is an intermediate theory, known as strong
shape theory. More precisely, there exists a category SSh(Top), called the
strong shape category, and a functor S : H(Top) ~ SSh(Top) , called the
strong shape Junctor. The morphisms of the strong shape category have arieher
structure than the morphisms of ordinary shape and there exists a forgetful
Junctor E : SSh(Top) -+ Sh(Top) such that S = ES, Le., the shape functor S
factors through the strong shape category.
The strong shape category was first introduced by J.B. Quigley in 1973
[241] and in a somewhat more general form in 1979 by Y. Kodama and 1. Ono
[154]. The objects of his category are c10sed subsets of the Hilbert cube Q.
The morphisms X -+ Y are homotopy c1asses of approaching mappings, where
the latter are mappings </J : Q x [0, (0) -+ Q such that, for sufficiently large
r ::: 0 and sufficiently small neighborhood U of X in Q, </J(U x [r, (0 is
arbitrarily c10se to Y. In 1976 D.E. Edwards and H.M. Hastings independently
discovered the category SSh(CM) [91] (also see [92]). They first endowed the
category pro-Top with the structure of a c10sed model category in the sense of
D.G. Quillen [242]. Localizing pro-Top at weak homotopy equivalences, they
obtained a homotopy category, which they denoted by Ho(pro-Top). Using this
category instead ofpro-H(Top), they obtained the category SSh(CM). Edwards
and Hastings showed that the analogue of Chapman's category isomorphism
theorem in the case of strong shape assumes a much simpler form, because the
role of weak proper homotopy category is taken up by the proper homotopy
category of the complements of Z-sets of Q. It was later proved by T. Porter
that Ho(pro-Top) can also be obtained by localizing pro-Top at level homotopy
equivalences [238].
F. W. Bauer was the first to define a strong shape category for arbitrary
topological spaces [14]. In his approach he used 2-categories. Bauer's theory
was further developed by his student B. Gnther, who used the technique of
simplicial sets [107]. Z. Miminoshvili [211], [212] and Yu.T. Lisitsa [184],
[185] made the first steps towards defining the strong shape category using
the inverse system approach. What was missing in these papers was the right
method of approximating spaces by polyhedra. An adequate tool was developed
independently by K. Morita, for topologically complete spaces [219], and by
S. Mardesic, for arbitrary topological spaces [190]. This tool is the resolution
of spaces (also see [202]). Resolutions p : X -+ X can be viewed as special
inverse limits of inverse systems in Top, satisfying conditions (Rl), (R2), which
strengthen Morita's conditions (MI), (M2). In particular, (Rl) requires that every
mapping ! : X -+ P to a polyhedron can be factored through some member
XI.. of X up to a given covering 'V of P, i.e., the mappings !APA and! are 'V-
near mappings. Condition (R2) refers to uniqueness of this factorization. It was
proved in [191] that every space admits an ANR-resolution. In the definition of
the shape category F.W. Cathey and 1. Segal have replaced Morita's expansions
by ANR-resolutions and have replaced the category pro-H(Top) by the Edwards-
Hastings category Ho(pro-Top). In this way they have obtained the strong shape
category SSh(Top) [47].
In aseries of papers published from 1983 (see [181], [182]), Lisitsa and
Mardesic have defined a coherent homotopy category CH(pro-Top), whose
objects are cofinite inverse systems (every element of the index set has a fi-
nite number of predecessors). Morphisms are homotopy c1asses of coherent
mappings f : X ~ Y. The latter consist of an increasing function I and
of mappings I J.LO : X! (J.LO) ~ Y J.Lo such that, for J1,0 ~ J1, t, the diagram (1)
is commutative up to homotopy. Homotopies f J.LOJ.Ll' which realize this com-
mutativity must be chosen and make up part of the structure of f. Similarly,
for increasing sequences J1,0 ~ .. ~ J1,n, one has homotopies of higher order
IJ.Lo.J.Ln : X!(J.Ln) X .n ~ YJ.LO' which also belong to the structure of f. The
strong shape category was defined using ANR-resolutions and CH(pro-Top).
It was proved in 1991 by Gnther [108] that the categories Ho(pro-Top) and
CH(pro-Top) are isomorphie, because each ofthem is isomorphie to a category
he defined using simplicial sets [109]. A direct proof that the two categories are
isomorphie is given in [195]. A consequence of these results is that the strong
shape categories of [47] and of [181] are also isomorphie. More general versions
of coherent homotopy categories are present in the literature since the work of
J.M. Boardman and R.M. Vogt [24], [275] and J.M. Cordier and T. Porter [69],
[12], [13].
Even though resolutions can be used to develop strong shape theory, it soon
became c1ear that this is too fine a tool for the task and that the right notion
to develop strong shape is that of a strong expansion. A mapping of systems
p : X ~ X is a strong expansion if it has Morita's property (MI) and the
following property (S2), which strengthens property (M2). For every polyhedron
P, mappings 10, ft : XA ~ P and homotopy F : X x I ~ P, whieh connects
10PA and ItPA' there exist a 'A' ~ 'A and a homotopy H : X A, x I ~ P, which
connects 10PAA' and ItPw, and thehomotopies H(PA' xl) and F are connected
by a homotopy (X x 1) x I ~ P, which is fixed on X x aI. Strong expansions
were first introduced in Gnther's 1989 Ph.D. thesis [107]. Independently, J.
Dydak and S. Nowak introduced the more general notion of a strong shape
equivalence p : X ~ Y between inverse systems [84]. It was proved in [193]
that resolutions are strong expansions. Moreover, strong expansions of spaces
from the c1ass HPol coincide with coherent expansions, abasie notion in the
Lisitsa-Mardesic strong shape theory [192], [194], [196].
Appropriate variations of the basic ideas of shape led to new types of shape
theories. In particular, there is fibered shape [133], [284], equivariant shape
[7], [54], stable shape [233], [19], proper shape [11], [9], [53], uniform shape
[255], [215], extension shape [61], [125].
Applications of Shape Theory
The number of areas of mathematics where shape theory found application is

constantly growing and it is our belief that the importance of shape theory will
keep increasing. There are direct applications to various areas of topology and
mathematics, where one needs to consider global behaviour of irregular spaces,

especia11y, metric compacta. There are also areas of mathematics where shape-
theoretic techniques led to the development of new techniques applicable to
those areas. Because of the large number and variety of applications of shape
theory, we will here only indicate areas of such applications and give a few basic
references. However, in the case of general topology and dynamical systems,
which belong to the topics considered in the present Handbook, we will describe
these applications in more detail.
In shape theory categorical methods are very much present. Therefore, it is
not a surprise that a new discipline, categorical shape theory has emerged. It
started with the papers of A. Deleanu and P. Hilton [76], A. Frei [97], A. Frei
and H. Kleisli [98] and J.L. MacDonald [187]. The 1989 book by 1.-M. Cordier
and T. Porter is entirely devoted to categorical shape theory [71].
In algebra andfunctional analysis one encounters applications to group the-
ory [187], [209], [102], [22], [21], the theory ofmodules [98], c10sure algebras
[236], [237], and especia11y applications to C*- algebras [23], [93], [94], [75],
[74], [55]. In particular, in 1996 M. Bestvina in [21] formallzed the concept
of the boundary 0/ a group as a metric compactum with certain properties.
He proved that any two boundaries have the same shape. At the origins of the
shape theory 0/ C*-algebras was the observation by O. Bratelli that the colimit
of an increasing sequence of finite-dimensional C* -algebras An is completely
determined by the homotopy c1asses of the injections An -+ An+l [43]. E.G.
Effros and 1. Kaminker [93] generalized finite-dimensional C* -algebras by
defining semiprojective C* -algebras. They showed that many C* -algebras A
can be expressed as colimits of increasing sequences of semiprojective C*-
algebras An. Duallzing constructions from ordinary shape theory, where metric
compacta are expressed as inverse limits of ANR's, they developed the first
shape theory 0/ C* -algebras A. It inc1uded results of Bratelli as special cases. In
1985 B. Blackadar [23] modified (restricted) the definition of a semiprojective
C*-algebra in such a way that, for metric compacta X, the algebra C(X) of
continuous complex-valued functions is a semiprojective C* -algebra if and only
if X is an ANR. Therefore, ordinary shape theory of metric compacta became
a special case of the shape theory of C* -algebras.
Homotopy and homology pro-groups as well as shape groups and Cech
homology groups represent applications of shape theory to algebraic topology.
Due to shape theory new light has been shed on exact homologies (also ca11ed
Steenrod or strong homologies), which originated in 1940 with the work of N.
Steenrod [263]. The main contributions to Steenrod homology which followed
over the years are described in the survey papers of E.G. Sklyarenko [258],
[259]. The definition of strong homology for arbitrary topological spaces and
the proof of its strong shape invariance was given in 1983 by YU.T. Lisitsa and
S. Mardesic [181], [183]. Exact K -homology for metric compacta first appeared
in the work of L.G. Brown, R.G. Douglas and P.A. Fillmore [45]. Then D.S.
Kahn, J. Kaminker and C. Schochet constructed exact homologies, which on
finite CW-complexes coincide with arbitrary extraordinary homologies [130],
[129], [131]. In aseries of papers F.W. Bauer considered extraordinary strong
homology for compact metric and arbitrary spaces and proved their strong shape
invariance [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. To the same topic are devoted the papers
[12] by A.V Batanin and [240] by M.A. Prasolov. The relation between shape
theory and proper homotopy is described in [239].
Shape theory also has applications to pattern recognition. Contacts between
these areas were established in the books by M. Pavel [235] and by Cordier and
Porter [71], as weIl as in some artic1es, e.g., [234], [70] and [104].
There are four main areas of general topology, where shape theory has been
successfully applied. These are continua, compactifications, hyperspaces and
fixed points. We will now describe some of the results obtained in these areas.
Continua. Most applications of shape theory to continua theory refer to the
notion of movability and its variants. In [163] J. Krasinkiewicz proved that a
circ1e-like continuum X is movable if and only if its Cech cohomology group
iI1(X) equals 0 or Z, or equivalently, iI1(X) is finitely divisible (no element
different from 0 is divisible by arbitrarily large natural numbers). Hence, by a
theorem ofM.C. McCord [206], a circ1e-like continuum X embeds in the plane if
and only if it is movable. In the same paper Krasinkiewicz also proved that every
nonmovable circ1e-like continuum is indecomposable. Finally, he answered a
question ofG.W. Henderson [118] by characterizing continua X, which cannot
be mapped onto any non-planar circ1e-like continuum, as continua whose Cech
cohomology group iI 1(X) is finitely divisible.
In [169] J. Krasinkiewicz and M. Smith showed that a hereditarily in-
decomposable continuum X, which is the limit of an inverse sequence of
locally connected unicoherent continua, must be tree-like and thus, of dimension
dim X ~ 1. This implies that hereditarily indecomposable continua of trivial
shape must be tree-like.
In [208] D.R. McMillan, Jr. obtained the result that pointed movable con-
tinua coincide with continua which are movable and pointed I-movable. He
proved that a continuous image of a pointed l-movable continuum is again such
a continuum and every subcontinuum of a 2-manifold is pointed movable. These
results were obtained independently by Krasinkiewicz in his paper [165], which
contains a detailed study of (pointed) movability and (pointed) l-movability
of continua. In particular, Krasinkiewicz characterizes pointed I-movable con-
tinua as continua whose fundamental pro-group has the Mittag-Leffler property.
Since for I-dimensional continua movability and pointed l-movability coincide
[270], it follows that al-dimensional continuous image of al-dimensional
movable continuum is itself a movable continuum. Krasinkiewicz also showed
that a continuum which is not pointed I-movable contains an indecomposable
subeontinuum which is not pointed I-movable and thus, every hereditarily

deeomposable eontinuum must be pointed l-movable. It was proved by S.
Mazurkiewicz that the dimension of a hereditarily deeomposable eontinuum
is at most 1 [205]. Consequently, every hereditarily deeomposable eontinuum
is pointed movable.
In 1979 in [168] J. Krasinkiewiez and P. Mine defined joinable continua
as shape analogues of pathwise eonneeted eontinua. Let X = (X n , Pn,n+ be
an inverse sequenee of eompaet ANR's with limit X = lim X and projeetions
Pn : X -+ X n . X is joinable between its points a, b provided, for every n,
there exists a path Wn in X n , which eonneets Pn(a) to Pn(b), and Pn,n+lWn+l is
homotopie to Wn rel aI. A eontinuum X is joinable if it is joinable between any
pair of its points. Krasinkiewicz and Mine proved that a eontinuum is joinable if
and only if it is pointed l-movable. It is easy to see that a eontinuous image of a
joinable eontinuum is again a joinable eontinuum. This gives a new proof of the
earlier result that pointed l-movability is preserved under continuous mappings.
A eontinuum X is said to be a shape representative of a continuum Y if
sh X = sh Y. In [164] it was shown that a eontinuum has a loeally connected
shape representative if and only if it is pointed I-movable. On the other hand
every metric eontinuum has an indecomposable shape representative [39]. The
analogous question for hereditarily indeeomposable shape representatives was
solved in [166]. Every I-dimensional eontinuum has such a (pointed) shape
representative. In eontrast with this result, for n ~ 2, the n-sphere sn does not
admit a hereditarily indeeomposable shape representative.
In 1991 Geoghegan and Krasinkiewicz [103] studied the set SSh({*}, X)
of strong shape morphisms of a one-point spaee {*} to ametrie continuum X.
They referred to these morphisms as the strong shape components of X and
they proved that pointed I-movable eontinua have exactly one strong shape
eomponent. All other eontinua have 2~o strong shape eomponents. Clearly, the
strong shape funetor S induees a funetion ax from the set of path-components
of X to the set of strong shape eomponents. Denoting by E(X) the set of strong
shape components lying in the eomplement of the image ofax ,.they gave
eonditions on the fundamental pro-group of X, which imply that E(X) = 0 as
well as conditions, which imply that E(X) is of cardinality 2~o.
Hyperspaces. These are spaces whose elements are certain subsets of a
given spaee X. Of special interest are the spaces 2 x of compact (or closed)
nonempty sub sets of X and its subspace C (X), which consists of subcontinua of
X. Hyperspaces have been studied extensively since the twenties. The simplest
case is when X is a compaet metric space. In this ease 2 x is endowed with
the Hausdorff metric [117]. In 1923 L. Vietoris showed that 2 x is compact
[272]. Moreover, if Xis a Peano continuum, so is also 2 x [273]. T. WaZewski
proved the converse, if2 x (or C(X is a Peano continuum, then so is X [277].
S. Mazurkiewiez proved that 2 x (or C(X is the continuous image of the
Cantor fan whenever X is a continuum [204]. M. Wojdyslawski showed that if

X is a Peano continuum, then both 2 x and C(X) are contractible and locally
contractible [282]. In [283] he showed that 2 x is an absolute retract if and
only if X is a Peano continuum. It was in that paper that he first raised the
question, whether the hyperspace of a Peano continuum is homeomorphic to
the Hilbert cube. This remained unanswered until the 1970's when D.W. Curtis,
R. M. Schori and J.E. West [72], [253], using newly devised techniques of
infinite-dimensional topology, made an important breakthrough, by giving a
positive answer to Wojdyslawski's question. Finally, H. Torunczyk [268] gave
an amazingly short proof of this result using his characterization of Q-manifolds
and T.A. Chapman's [59] result that every compact contractible Q-manifold is
homeomorphic to the Hilbert cube.
For a compact Hausdorff space X, 2x is endowed with the finite or Vi-
etoris topology [272]. If X = limX, where X = (X).., PH', A) is an inverse
system of compact polyhedra, then 2 X = lim2 X , C(X) = limC(X), where
2X = (2 X 2 P/ , A) and C(X) = (C(X)..), C(P)..)../), A) with the maps 2 P '
and C(pw) induced by P)..)..I [254]. Since for connected compact polyhedra X)..
the spaces 2 x and C(X)..) are AR's and therefore of trivial shape, it follows
from the continuity of the shape functor for compact spaces that 2 x and C(X)
are of trivial shape. The special case of C(X), for compact metric X, was
obtained by J. Krasinkiewicz in [162]. For arbitrary Hausdorff compact spaces
X, Y. Kodama, S. Spiez and T. Watanabe showed that sh (2 x ) = sh (2 c (X
and sh (C(X = sh (c(X, where c(X) denotes the space of components of
X [155]. In the noncompact case, T. Miyata and J. Segal [216] have shown
that if X is a connected, completely regular Hausdorff space, then the space of
compact subsets of X is of trivial shape.
For metric continua X, a very useful notion in the hyperspace theory is
that of the Whitney map. This idea, originally due to H. Whitney [279], was
first applied to hyperspaces by J.L. Kelley [149] and was used as a unifying
concept in the theory ofhyperspaces by S.B. Nadler, Jr. [230]. A Whitney map
in C(X) is a map w : C(X) -+ [0, w(X)] such that: w({x}) = 0, for each
x E X, and whenever A is a proper subset of B, then w(A) < w(B). It is
weH known that w-1(t) is a continuum, for each t ~ O. A property P is said
to be a Whitney property provided that whenever a continuum X has property
P, so does w-1(t), for each t < w(X) and each Whitney map w. For various
shape-theoretic properties it was established that they are Whitney properties
[167]. For example, in [134] H. Kato showed that pointed I-movability is such
a property.
A topological property P is called a strong Whitney-reversible property
provided that, if X is a continuum such that there exists a Whitney map w
for C(X) such that w-1(t) has property P, then X has property P. To obtain
the sequential strong Whitney-reversible property, it suffices to assume that
w- 1 (t) has property P, for all t belonging to a decreasing sequence (tn ) -+ O.

These concepts were introduced by S. Nadler in [230] and [231]. Since then,
for many topological properties it has been proved that they are (sequential)
strong Whitney-reversible properties. In [158], A Koyama showed that to be
an FAR is a strong Whitney-reversible property. In [135] H. Kato proved that
if ~ is a family of compact connected ANR's, then the property of being ~
like is a sequential strong Whitney-reversible property. Moreover, to have zero
surjective (semi) span is a sequential strong Whitney-reversible property and
so is pointed I-movability [136]. In [137] Kato gave an upper bound of the
fundamental dimension of the Whitney continua of a graph.
Generalizing the metric of continuity [28], K. Borsuk introduced another
metric for hyperspaces, called the fundamental metric [38]. In its definition
he used fundamental sequences instead of maps. This metric has some useful
properties concerning shape. For example, if An is a sequence of movable
compacta converging to A in this metric, then A is also movable. Borsuk's
fundamental metric has been further studied by L. Boxer and RB. Sher [42] and
by Z.T. Cerin and AP. Sostak [56]. In aseries ofpapers Cerin endowed function
spaces of various c1asses of compacta with new metrics, where convergence of
sequences is equivalent to regular convergence [51], [52]. V.E Laguna, M.A
Mor6n, Nguyen To Nhu and J.M.R Sanjurjo [173] have introduced the shape
metric on 2 x . In this metric the property of being a limit of a sequence of
polyhedra is a shape invariant. Moreover, they showed that a compactum in the
Hilbert cube is movable if and only if it is the limit of a sequence of polyhedra
with respect to the shape metric. In [222], Mor6n and ER Ruiz deI Portal
continued the study of this metric and obtained finiteness theorems in shape
theory and compactness conditions for equimovable families of sets. These
results were motivated by some c1assical theorems in Riemannian geometry
related to the Gromov-Hausdorff metric. Using techniques developed in [221],
[222], [73] and an example from [80], Mor6n and Ruiz deI Portal showed that
the category of pointed uniformly movable continua is not balanced, i.e., it
admits morphisms which are monomorphisms and epimorphisms, but fail to be
isomorphisms [223].
Compactifications of spaces are present in general topology since its begin-
nings. The simplest is the one-point compactijication X* = X U {*} of a locally
*
compact Hausdorff space X, obtained by adjoining to X a single point ~ X [3].
In 1930 A Tychonoff [269] constructed the largest of all the compactifications of
a completely regular space X. This compactification was studied extensively by
E. Cech [49] (who introduced its present notation X) and by M.H. Stone [264]
and has become known as the Cech-Stone compactijication. It is characterized
by the property that maps X -+ Y to compact spaces Y extend to maps X -+ Y.
Another c1assical compactification is the Freudenthai compactijication F X of
separable metric rim-compact spaces X [100]. Its remainder E(X) = F(X)\X
is the O-dimensional set of ends of X. If the space Q(X) of quasicomponents

of Xis compact, F(X) is metrizable.
The first study of compactifications using methods of shape theory goes
back to 1974 and was carried out by B.J. Ball and R.B. Sher [11]. First they
generalized Borsuk's shape theory of metric compacta to a proper shape theory
of separable metric locally compact spaces. Then they showed that, whenever
two separable locally compact metric spaces X, Y have the same proper shape,
the shapes of their one-point compactifications are the same. Conceming the
Freudenthal compactification, they considered locally compact separable metric
spaces, whose space of quasicomponents Q(X) is compact. They showed that
the shape of the pair (F(X), E(X)) depends only on the proper shape of X.
Analogous questions, in the more general situation, when Q(X) is only locally
compact, were later studied in [10].
Study of the Cech-Stone compactification and its remainder, using tech-
niques of shape theory, was initiated by J.E. Keesling and R.B. Sher [147].
In particular, Keesling obtained a number of new results on the geometric
nature of subcontinua contained in X\X [142], [143]. In the statement of
some of the results shape itself does not appear, but shape theory is used in an
essential way in their proofs. For example, if X is a realcompact space, K is
a continuum contained in X\X and f : K ---+ Y is an onto map such that
f* : JiI(y) ---+ JiI(K) is an isomorphism, then f is a homeomorphism. Of
the same nature is A. Winslow's result that there are 22~O compacta in ]R3\]R3
no two of which have the same shape [281]. In [144] Keesling showed that for
X Lindelf and K ~ (X) \X an infinite dimensional continuum, there exists
a map f : K ---+ (SI )2~O, which is homotopically onto. This implies that such
an infinite dimensional continuum K must be strongly infinite dimensional. In
fact, it has dimension 2~o (in the sense of essential families).
More recently Keesling has used shape theory to study the Higson com-
pactijication and its corona (remainder) [145]. This compactification had been
applied to Riemannian manifolds and in geometrie group theory. It is used in
the study of limit properties of balls at infinity (see [245], [246]). In [145]
Keesling showed that for X uniformly contractible, the I-dimensional Cech
cohomology of the Higson compactification is never zero. In particular, this is
the case if X = ]Rn with the usual Euclidean metric and disproves Higson's
conjecture (see [245]) that all cohomology groups are zero. The proof makes
use of methods developed by Keesling in [142], [143] and [144]. In [146] it
is proved that, for X a noncompact, locally compact metric space with proper
metric and A a a -compact subset of its Higson corona, the closure of A in the
Higson corona is the Cech-Stone compactification of A.
The paper [79] shows how the Higson compactification can be used in
answering certain questions related to Novikov's conjecture. In particular, it is
proved that, if X is a locally compact noncompact space with proper metric

such that the asymptotic dimension of Gromov is finite, then the dimension of
the Higson corona does not exceed this asymptotic dimension.
Recently, shape theory has been related to N-compactness. In particular, for
topological spaces X, Y, the set Sh (X, Y) of all shape morphisms F : X ---+ Y
has been endowed with a Tychonoff topology of small inductive dimension o.
If X = * is a point and Y is a Tychonoff space of nonmeasurable cardinality
and small inductive dimension ind Y = 0, then the space Sh (*, Y) is just the
N-compactification of Y [73].
Fixed points. In aseries of papers beginning in 1909, L.E.J. Brouwer
defined the degree of a map between n-dimensional manifolds. By using this
notion he obtained his well-known fixed point theorem, which says that the
n-cell D n has the fixed point property, i.e., for every mappping f : D n ---+ D n ,
there exists a point x E D n such that f(x) = x [44]. In 1929 B. Knaster,
K. Kuratowski and S. Mazurkiewicz [151] gave a short and elegant proof of
Brouwer's theorem, based on a combinatorial result of E. Sperner. The devel-
opment of homology theory in the 1920's allowed S. Lefschetz to obtain his
famous fixed point theorem [174]. In [175] and [176] he extended it to larger
c1asses of spaces. In 1928 H. Hopf [123] gave a simple proof for polyhedra.
Finally, in 1937 Lefschetz [178] extended the result to compact ANR's.
A mapping f : X ---+ X of a compact ANR X of dimension n into it-
self induces homomorphisms of rational homology groups fr : Hr(X; Q) ---+
Hr(X; Q), for 0 ~ r ~ n. If tr(fr) denotes the trace of fr, then A(f) =
L~=o( -lYtr(fr) is the Lefschetz number of f. The Lefsehetz theorem asserts
that if A (f) i= 0, then f has a fixed point. A corollary of this theorem is
the assertion that every compact AR has the fixed point property. There exist
metric continua of trivial shape which do not have this property in spite of
the fact that A(f) = 1 [27]. In 1975 Borsuk introduced the rather large c1ass
of nearly extendable mappings and showed that, for continua of trivial shape
X, every nearly extendable mapping f : X ---+ X has a fixed point [36]. He
then generalized this result to a Lefsehetz type fixed point theorem for nearly
extendable selfmappings of FANR's [37].
In [249] J.M.R. Sanjurjo used Borsuk's fundamental metrie to eharacterize
eompaeta X lying in an AR M and having the proximate fixed point property.
The characterization is given by astability property, which is stronger and more
geometrie than V.L. Klee' s stability of the fixed point property [150].
A map f : X ---+ Y is called universal if for every map g : X ---+ Y
there exists a point of coincidence x E X, f(x) = g(x), [213]. In [120] W.
Holsztynski proved that, for any normal spaee X, dim X 2: n if and only if there
exists a universal map f : X ---+ r. He also showed that X has the fixed point
property if and only if the identity map id : X ---+ X is universal. So, universal
maps relate the fixed point property to the eovering dimension. Holsztynski
studied the properties of universal maps in aseries of papers of which we eite

[121] and [122].
In 1989-90 J. Segal and T. Watanabe generalized the notion of universality
from mappings to approximate resolutions by introdueing the notion of a cosmic
approximate resolution [256]. They showed that this is a categorical condition
for approximate inverse systems which implies that the limit of the system has
the fixed point property. Approximate inverse systems were introduced in [198].
Approximate resolutions [203] can be viewed as speeiallimits of approximate
inverse systems, which overcome some defects that inverse limits exhibit for
nonmetrlc compacta.
With every mapping f : X ~ Y and cofinite polyhedral approximate
resolutions p : X ~ X, q : Y ~ Y, one assoeiates approximate mappings
J : X ~ Y. In [256] Segal and Watanabe show that two mappings J, g :
X ~ Y have a "V -coineidence, for every normal covering "V of Y, if and only
if the corresponding approximate mappings J, q : X ~ Y satisfy a certain
approximate nearness condition (AN). Most applications refer to the compact
Hausdorff case, where "V -coineidence, for all "V, is equivalent to the existence
of points of coineidence of f and g. They also introduce the cosmic property
(AMC) of approximate polyhedral resolutions J : X ~ Y of a mapping f :
X ~ Y. Property (AMC) implies that, for any mapping g : X ~ Y, J
and an approximate resolution q : X ~ Y of g satisfy condition (AN) and
therefore, f and g have a "V -coineidence point, for any normal covering "V
of Y. In particular, if a compact Hausdorff space X is cosmic, i.e., admits a
cosmic approximate polyhedral resolution p : X ~ X, then X has the fixed
point property. Segal and Watanabe give several applications of their theory. In
particular, they consider the n-dimensional complex projective space p n (C) and
study compact Hausdorff spaces X, which are p n (C)-like. They show that, for
n even and X nonmovable, X has the fixed point property.
Another application refers to the hyperspaces 2 x of all nonempty closed
subsets of a Hausdorff continuum X and the hyperspace C(X) of all nonempty
subcontinua of X. They show that approximate resolutions of X induce approx-
imate resolutions of the hyperspaces. In the case when the induced resolutions
are cosmic ANR-resolutions, one obtains the conclusion that the hyperspace has
the fixed point property. In particular, if Xis a Hausdorff arc-like or circle-like
continuum, then C(X) has the fixed point property. Moreover, if Xis a locally
connected Hausdorff continuum, then also 2 x and C (X) have the fixed point
property. Such results were previously lrnown only for metrlc continua X (see
[230]).
Dynamical systems. Cech cohomology (homology) groups have been often
used in dynamical systems (see e.g., [65], [217], [41], [96], [225], [226]). Since
these groups are shape invariants, their use can be considered an application of
shape theory in the theory of dynamical systems.
It appears that [244] was the first paper, which explicitly linked differential
equations to shape theory. In that paper J.T. Rogers, Jr. used various facts from
shape theory to analyze which continua can appear as cross-sections of the
solution funnel of an ordinary differential equation. E.g., he showed that a
necessary condition for a continuum to be such a cross-section is that it be
pointed l-movable.
By a dynamical system we mean a continuous system (flow), i.e., an action
x 1---+ Xl, X E X, t E ~,ofthe group ~ ofreals or adiscrete system (cascade), i.e.,
an action x 1---+ x n , x EX, n E Z, of the group Z of integers. The phase space X
is assumed to be locally compact, usually a manifold. A semi-dynamical system,
is an action ofthe semigroups ~+ = {t E ~ : t 2: O} and Z+ = {t E Z : t 2: O},
respectively. In the discrete case this amounts to iterates fn of a homeomorphism
(of a self-mapping) f : X --+ X, for n E Z (for n E Z+). Here we discuss
more c10sely two areas of application: the Conley index and the attractors of a
dynamical system.
Originally, the Conley index, introduced by e.e. Conley under the name
Morse index, was defined for isolated invariant sets S of a fiow [66]. It provides
useful information conceming the dynamical structure of S. To define the Conley
index one considers index pairs for S, Le., compact pairs (N, L) in X such that
N is an isolating neighborhood of S and L is the exit set, Le., every orbit which
exits N, goes through L first. Moreover, L is positively invariant relatively
to N. Index pairs exist and, for all of them, the quotient space N / L has the
same homotopy type, which is that of a compact polyhedron. By definition, that
homotopy type is the Conley index h(S).
In [243] J.W. Robbin and D. Salamon generalized the Conley index by
introducing the shape index s(S) of an isolated invariant set S. This notion
is weH defined for both, differentiable fiows and diffeomorphisms on smooth
manifolds. Robbin and Salamon first defined an index pair for S as a compact
pair (N, L) in X such that N\L is an isolating neighborhood for S and the
induced semi-dynamical system on N / L is continuous. The action on N / L
gives rise to an inverse system, whose limit W#(S) is a pointed compactum,
which does not depend on the choice of the pair (N, L) and is a one-point
compactification of the unstable manifold W U (S) of S (the set of all points
of X, whose orbit tends to S in backwards time), endowed with a particular
topology, called intrinsic. The shape index s(S) is the shape type of W#(S). In
the case of fiows, the shape index coincides with the Conley index. If S is an
attractor, s(S) is just the shape of S [113]. M. Mrozek [227] has generaHzed the
work of Robbin and Salamon by introducing a shape index for locally defined
mappings of locally compact Hausdorff spaces. His theory unifies several earlier
index theories, inc1uding his own cohomological Conley index [225]. Mrozek's
theory essentially uses basic shape theory of compact spaces. In his paper [227]
Mrozek raised the question whether the shape index can be constructed for
mappings on spaces which are not locally compact, but satisfy the Rybakowski
conditions. The difficulty lies in the fact that in noncompact situations the inverse
limit functor and the shape functor do not necessarily commute. In [247] ER.
Ruiz deI Portal and J.M. Salazar have overcome this difficulty by successfully
using resolutions (in the sense of Mardesic). Arecent survey of the Conley
index theory is contained in [214].
In [252] lM.R. Sanjurjo applied the shape-theoretic Lusternik-Schnirel-
mann category TJ (in the sense of [40]) to the study of the Conley index and
obtained simpleInequalities which involve the categories of isolated invariant
sets, of isolating neighborhoods, of the exit sets and of the unstable manifolds
of invariant sets and Morse sets. Por example, if {MI, ... , Mn} is a Morse
decomposition of a regular isolated invariant set K and W U is the unstable
manifold of K, then TJ(W U ) ~ TJ(Mt> + ... + ,,(Mn). The obtained inequalities
yield useful information conceming the dynaiiiics of K. In particular, one can
obtain lower bounds for the number of Morse sets in a given decomposition,
one can detect the presence of connecting orbits in an attractor-repeller pair and
prove the existence of critical points. One can also obtain criteria for K to be a
saddle set or criteria for the non-triviality of shape of an attractor (repeller) in
an attractor-repeller decomposition.
Attractors of a dynamical system are defined as compact subsets A ~ X,
which are invariant and positively asymptotically stahle. The first papers on
shape and attractors are H.M. Hastings' papers [114], [115], inspired by the
celebrated Poincare-Bendixson theorem. In the classical version of this theorem,
one considers an annulus M embedded in the plane R 2 and a Cl fiow, which has
the property that orbits through the boundary of M enter Int(M) as t increases
and the fiow has no rest points. Then there exists a limit cycle K in Int(M).
Hastings' theorem refers to a compact n-dimensional submanifold M ~ Rn and
a continuous semi-dynamical system such that orbits through the boundary of
M enter Int(M) as t increases. The theorem asserts that there exists an attractor
K ~ Int(M) such that the inclusion K ~ M is a shape equivalence.
Using different methods, several authors proved that every attractor of a fiow
has the shape of a compact polyhedron (see [26], for differentiable fiows, and
[113] and [250], for continuous fiows). Using more sophisticated shape theory,
in particular, the finite-dimensional Chapman complement theorem [58], B.
Gnther and J. Segal have also proved the converse implication. More precisely,
they showed that every finite-dimensional compactum A, which has the shape
of a compact polyhedron, can be embedded in Rn in such a way that it is the
attractor of some fiow on Rn [113]. Subsequently, Gnther proved that the same
result also holds for differentiable fiows of class er, 1 ~ r < 00 [111].
The above characterization of compacta which appear as attractors does not
hold for discrete systems. B.g., the dyadic solenoid is the attractor of a discrete
system in spite of the fact that it does not have the shape of a compact polyhedron
(it falls to be movable). On the other hand, Gnther exhibited a class of solenoids,
which cannot be embedded as attractors of a discrete system and cannot even be
attractors of a self-mapping [110]. Recently, H. Kato gave a characterization of
compacta, which are attractors of a discrete system on a manifold [138]. These
are compacta K, which admit a homeomorphism I : K ~ K and admit a
mapping g : P ~ P of a compact polyhedron P such that I : K ~ K is
topologically conjugate to the shift map on the compactum
lim(P !- P !- ... ). (2)

Gnther's paper [112] is devoted to discrete systems, and studies the rela-
tionship between the shape of a global attractor A and the homotopy type of the
phase space X, which is assumed to be a manifold. More precisely, Gnther
considers two such pairs (X, A), (Y, B), where the corresponding discrete
systems are generated by homeomorphisms I : X ~ X and g : Y ~ Y.
He also considers open domains of attraction P with I(P) ~ P and Q with
g(Q) ~ Q, respectively. His main results assert that the existence of a homotopy
equivalence cI> : X ~ Y and an integer n ~ 1, such that gn cI> ::::: rpIn is
equivalent to the existence of a shape equivalence \11 : A ~ B and an integer
n ~ 1, such that (gn IB)\II = \IIS(fnIA), where S denotes the shapefunctor. Fur-
thermore, these conditions are equivalent to the assertion that In IP : P ~ P
and gn IQ : Q ~ Q are shift equivalent up to homotopy in the sense of
R.E Williams [280]. This result generalized results of C. Tezer [266], who
showed that topological conjugacy of homeomorphisms I IA and giB implies
shift equivalence of the mappings f IP and gl Q.
In [251] Sanjurjo studied attractors A of a flow on a locally compact ANR
and established properties similar to robustness in the sense of [210]. More
precisely, if n is a flow and K is an attractor of n, then every T > 0 and e > 0
admita8 > 0 such thateveryotherflow n' withd(n(x, t), n'(x, t)) < 8, fort E
[0, T] and x E X, admits an attractor K' such that K' is in the e-neighborhood
of K and its shape sh(K') = sh(K).
B.M. Garay considered global attractors of flows in Banach spaces and
proved that they have trivial shape, more precisely, they are cellular sets [101]. In
[105] it is proved that in several important cases the global structure of positively
invariant compacta of a flow is rather simple. In particuar, when the ambient
space is an AR and the flow has a global attractor K, then every I-dimensional
positively invariant continuum has trivial shape. If dim K = n, n ~ 2, then the
cohomotopy group nm(L), m ~ n, of any positively invariant continuum L is
trivial. Invariant compacta which contain the attractor have trivial shape. For
flows in ANR's any positively invariant compactum from the region of strong
attraction of a positively invariant compact 2-dimensional manifold is movable.
Recently, L. Kapitanski and I. Rodnianski [132] studied shape properties
of attractors in the more general case of semi-dynamical systems on complete
HIS TORY OF SHAPE THEORY 1165
metric spaces. In particular, they considered attractors which admit a Morse

filtration. With every such filtration they associate certain Morse equations
involving polynomials with coefficients given in terms of Cech homology and
cohomology ofthe members ofthe filtration. Using shape-theoretical techniques
they evaluated these coefficients.
Acknowledgements
In the preparation of this paper we consulted many colleagues and received

from them valuable information. To all of them we express our sincere thanks.
References
[1] Adams, J.F., On the groups J(X) - IV, Topology 5 (1966), 21-71.
[2] Alexander, I.W., A theory of connectivity in terms of gratings, Ann. Math. 39
(1938),883-912.
[3] Alexandroff, P.S., ber die Struktur der bikompakten topologischen Rumen,
Math. Ann. 92 (1924), 267-274.
[4] _ _ , Simpliziale Approximationen in der allgemeinen Topologie, Math. Ann.
96 (1926), 489-511.
[5] _ _ , Une definition des nombres de Betti pour un ensemble ferme quel-
conque, C. R. Acad. Sei. Paris 184 (1927),317-320.
[6] _ _ , Untersuchungen ber Gestalt und Lage abgeschlossener Mengen
beliebiger Dimension, Ann. Math. 30 (1929), 101-187.
[7] Antonian, S.A. and Mardesic, S., Equivariant shape, Fund. Math. 127 (1987),
213-224.
[8] Artin, M. and Mazur, B., Etale Homotopy, Lecture Notes in Math. vol. 100,
Springer, Berlin 1969.
[9] Ball, B.I., Alternative approaches to proper shape theory, in Studies in Topology
(Charlotte conference, 1974), Academic Press, New York 1975, pp. 1-27.
[10] _ _ , Quasicompactifications and shape theory, Pacific J Math. 84 (1979),
251-259.
[11] Ball, B.I. and Sher, R.B., A theory of proper shape for locally compact metric
spaces, Fund. Math. 86 (1974), 163-192.
[12] Batanin, M.A., On the coherent prohomotopy category 0/ Lisica-Mardesic and
generalized steenrod homology theories (in Russian), USSR Academy of Sei.,
Siberian Section, Novosibirsk 1986, preprint, pp. 1-23.
[13] _ _ , Coherent categories with respect to monads and coherent prohomotopy
theory, Cahiers Topoi. Geom. Diff. Categor. (4) 34 (1993), 279-304.
[14] Bauer, F.w., A shape theory with singular homology, Pacific J. Math. 64 (1976),
25-65.
[15] _ _ , Duality in manifolds, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 136 (1984), 241-302.
[16] _ _ , Extensions of generalized homology theories, Pacific J Math. 128
(1987), 25-61.
1166 SillE MARDESIC AND JACK SEGAL
[17] _ _ , Generalized homology theories and chain complexes, Ann. Mat. Pura
Appl. 155 (1989), 143-191.
[18] _ _ , The existence of strong homology theory, Comm. Algebra (9) 22, 3419-
3432.
[19] _ _ , A strong shape theory admitting an S-dual, Topology Appl. 62 (1995),
207-232.
[20] Bestvina, M., Characterizing k-dimensional universal Menger compacta, Mem.
Amer. Math. Soc. (380) 71 (1988), pp. 1-110.
[21] _ _ , Local homology properties of boundaries of groups, Michigan Math. 1.
(1) 43 (1996), 123-139.
[22] Bestvina, M. and Mess, G., The boundary of negatively curved groups, 1. Amer.
Math. Soc. 4 (1991), 469~81.
[23] Blackadar, B., Shape theory for C*-algebras, Math. Scand. 56 (1985), 249-275.
[24] Boardman, J.M. and Vogt, R.M., Homotopy Invariant Aigebraic Structures on
Topological Spaces, Lecture Notes in Math. vol. 347, Springer, Berlin 1973.
[25] Bogatyl, S.A., Approximate and fundamental retracts (in Russian), Mat. Sbomik
(135) 93 (1974), 90-102 (Math. USSR Sbomik 22 (1974), 91-103).
[26] Bogatyi, S.A. and Gutsu, V.I., On the Structure of attracting compacta (in
Russian), Differentsial'nye Uravneniya 25 (1989), 907-909.
[27] Borsuk, K., Sur un continu acyclique qui se laisse transformer topologiquement
en lui meme sans points invariants, Fund. Math. 24 (1935),51-58.
[28] _ _ , On some metrization of the hyperspace of compact sets, Fund. Math.
41, (1954), 168-202.
[29] _ _ , Concerning homotopy properties of compacta, Fund. Math. 62 (1968),
223-254.
[30] _ _ , Conceming the Notion 0/ the Shape 0/ Compacta, in Proc. Internat.
Symp. Topology and its App. (Herceg-Novi 1968), D. Kurepa, (ed.), Savez
Drustava Mat. Fiz. Astronom., Beograd 1969, pp. 98-104.
[31] _ _ , Fundamental retracts and extensions of fundamental sequences, Fund.
Math. 64 (1969), 55-85.
[32] _ _ , On movable compacta, Fund. Math. 66 (1969),137-146.
[33] _ _ , A note on the theory of shape of compacta, Fund. Math. 67 (1970),
265-278.
[34] _ _ , On the n-movability, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sei. Ser. Sei. Math. Astronom.
Phys. 20 (1972),859-864.
[35] _ _ , Theory 0/ Shape, Polish Scientific Publishers Warszawa 1975.
[36] _ _ , On nearly extendable maps, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sei. Sero Sei. Math.
Astronom. Phys. 23 (1975), 753-760.
[37] _ _ , On the Lefschetz-Hopf fixed point theorem for nearly extendable maps,
Bull. Acad. Polon. Sei. Ser. Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 23 (1975), 1273-1279.
[38] _ _ , On a metrization of the hyperspace of ametrie space, Fund. Math. 94,
(1977), 191-207.
[39] _ _ , Aremark on shape of continua, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sei. Ser. Sei. Math.
Astronom. Phys. 25 (1977), 1141-1147.
[40] _ _ , On the Lusternik-Schnirelmann category in the theory of shape, Fund.
Math. 99 (1978), 35~2.
[41] Bowen, R and Franks, J.M., Homology for zero-dimensional non-wandering

sets, Ann. Math. 106 (1977), 73-92.
[42] Boxer, L. and Sher, RB., Borsuk's fundamental metric and shape domination,
Bull Acad. Polon. Sei. 26 (1978),849-853.
[43] Bratelli, 0., Inductive limits of finite dimensional C*-algebras, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 171 (1972), 195-234.
[44] Brouwer, L.EJ., ber Abbildungen von Mannigfaltigkeiten, Math. Ann. 71
(1912),97-115.
[45] Brown, L.G., Douglas, RG. and Fillmore, P.A., Extensions of C*-algebras,
operators with compact self-commutators, and K -homology, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 79 (1973), 973-978.
[46] Brown, M., A proof of the generalized Schoenflies theorem, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 66 (1960), 74-76.
[47] Cathey, F.W. and Segal, J., Strong shape theory and resolutions, Topology Appl.
15 (1983), 119-130.
[48] Cech, E., Theorie generale de l'homologie dans un espace quelconque, Fund.
Math. 19 (1932), 149-183.
[49] _ _ , On bicompact spaces, Ann. Math. 38 (1937),823-844.
[50] Cerin, Z., Homotopy properties of locally compact spaces at infinity-calmness
and smoothness, Pacific l. Math. 79 (1978), 69-91.
[51] _ _ , ~-movably regular convergence, Houston 1. Math. 6 (1980), 471-490.
[52] _ _ , ~p-movably regular convergence, Fund. Math. 119 (1983), 249-268.
[53] _ _ , Proper shape theory, Acta. Sci. Math. Szeged (3,4) 59 (1994), 679-711.
[54] _ _ , Equivariant shape theory, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 117 (1995),
303-320.
[55] _ _ , Shape theory for arbitrary C* -algebras, Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 788
(1996),57-68.
[56] Cerin, Z.T. and Sostak, A.P., Some remarks on Borsuk's fundamental metric,
Colloq. Math. Soc. lanos Bolyai 23, Budapest, 1978,233-252.
[57] Chapman, T.A., On some applications of infinite-dimensional manifolds to the
theory of shape, Fund. Math. 76 (1972), 181-193.
[58] _ _ , Shapes of finite-dimensional compacta, Fund. Math. 76 (1972), 261-
276.
[59] _ _ , Lectures on Hilbert Cube Manifolds, CBMS Regional Conference Series
in Math. vol. 28, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI. 1976.
[60] Chigogidze, A., Theory of n-shape (in Russian), Uspehi Mat. Nauk 44 (1989),
117-140.
[61] _ _ , Infinite dimensional topology and shape theory, in Handbook 0/
Geometric Topology, North-Holland, Amsterdam (to appear).
[62] Chigogidze, A., Kawamura, K. and Tymchatyn, E.D., Menger manifolds in
Continua with the Houston Problem Book, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl.
Math. vol. 170 (1995), pp. 37-88.
[63] Christie, D.E., Net homotopy for compacta, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 56 (1944),
275-308.
[64] Clapp, M.H., On a generalization of absolute neighborhood retracts, Fund.
Math. 70 (1971),117-130.
[65] Conley, C. and Easton, R, Isolated invariant sets and isolating blocks, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soe. 158 (1971), 35-61.
[66] Conley, C.C., Isolated invariant sets and the Morse index, CBMS Regional
Conference Series in Math. 38, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. 1978.
[67] Coram, D.S. and Duvall, P.F., Approximate fibrations, Roeky Mountain 1. Math.
7 (1977), 275-288.
[68] _ _ , Approximate fibrations and a movability condition for maps, Paeifie 1.
Math. 72 (1977), 41-56.
[69] Cordier, J.M. and Porter, T., Vogt's theorem on categories ofhomotopy coherent
diagrams, Math. Proe. Cambridge Phil. Soe. 100 (1986),65-90.
[70] _ _ , Pattern recognition and categorical shape theory, Pattern Reeognition
Letters 7 (1988), 73-76.
[71] _ _ , Shape Theory - Categorieal Methods of Approximation, EIlis Horwood,
Chichester 1989.
[72] Curtis, D.W. and Schori, RM., 2x and C(X) are homeomorphic to the Hilbert
cube, Bull. Amer. Math. Soe. 80 (1974),927-931.
[73] Cuchillo-Ibafiez, E., Mor6n, M.A., Ruiz deI Portal, F.R and Sanjurjo, lM.R,
A topology for the sets of shape morphisms, Topology and its Appl. 94 (1999),
51-60.
[74] Dadarlat, M., Shape theory and asymptotic morphisms for C*-algebras, Duke
Math.1. 73 (1993), 687-711.
[75] Dlidrlat, M. and Nemethi, A., Shape theory and connective K -theory, 1. Oper.
Theory 23 (1990), 207-291.
[76] Deleanu, A. and Hilton, P., On the categorical shape of a functor, Fund. Math.
97 (1977), 157-176.
[77] Dowker, C.H., Cech cohomology theory and the axioms, Ann. Math. 51 (1950),
278-292.
[78] _ _ , Homology groups of relations, Ann. Math. 56 (1952), 84-95.
[79] Dranishnikov, A., Keesling, J.E. and Uspenskij, V.V., On the Higson corona of
uniformly contractible spaces, Topology 37 (1998), 791-803.
[80] Draper, J. and Keesling, J.E., An example concerning the Whitehead theorem
in shape theory, Fund. Math. 92 (1976), 255-259.
[81] Dydak, J., Some remarks on the shape of decomposition spaces, Bull. Aead.
Polon. Sei. Sero Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 23 (1975), 561-563.
[82] _ _ , A simple proof that pointed FANR-spaces are regular fundamental re-
tracts of ANR's, Bull. Aead. Polon. Sei. Sir. Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 25
(1977), 55-62.
[83] _ _ , The Whitehead and the Smale theorems in shape theory, Dissertationes
Math. 156 (1979), 1-55.
[84] Dydak, J. and Nowak, S., Strong shape for topological spaces, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soe. 323 (1991), 765-796.
[85] Dydak, J., Nowak, S. and Strok, S., On the union of two FANR-sets, Bull. Aead.
Polon. Sci. Sb: Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 24 (1976), 485--489.
[86] Dydak, J. and Segal, J., Shape Theory. An Introduetion, Lecture Notes in Math.
vol. 688, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1978.
[87] _ _ , A list of open problems in shape theory, in Open Problems in Topology, J.

van Mill and G.M. Reed (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 457-467.
[88] Edwards, D.A and Geoghegan, R, The stability problem in shape and a
Whitehead theorem in pro-homotopy, Trans. Amer. Math. Soe. 214 (1975),
261-277.
[89] _ _ , Shapes of eomplexes, ends of manifolds, homotopy limits and the Wall
obstruetion, Ann. Math. 101 (1975), 521-535. Correetion 104 (1976), 389.
[90] _ _ , Stability theorems in shape and pro-homotopy, Trans. Amer. Math. Soe.
222 (1976), 389-403.
[91] Edwards, D.A and Hastings, H.M., Ceeh and Steenrod Homotopy Theories with
Applieations to Geometrie Topology, Leeture Notes in Math. vol. 542, Springer,
Berlin 1976.
[92] _ _ , Ceeh theory: its past, present and future, Roeky Mountain 1. Math. 10
(1980),429-468.
[93] Effros, E.G. and Karninker, J., Homotopy eontinuity and shape theory for C*-
algebras, in Geometrie Methods in Operator Algebras, H. Araki and E.G. Effros
(eds.), Pitman Res. Notes Math. VOL 123, Longman Sei. Teeh. Harlow, 1986,
152-180.
[94] _ _ , Some homotopy and shape ealeulations for C*-algebras, in Group Rep-
resentations, Ergodie Theory, Operator Aigebras and Mathematieal Physies,
C.C. Moore (ed.), Math. Sei. Res. lost. Publ. vol. 6, Springer, New York 1987,
69-119.
[95] Fox, RH., On shape, Fund. Math. 74 (1972), 47-71.
[96] Franks, J.M., Homology and Dynamieal Systems, CBMS Regional Conferenee
Series in Math. vol. 49, Amer. Math. Soc., Providenee, RI. 1982.
[97] Frei, A, On eategorieal shape theory, Cahiers Top. Geom. Dijf. 17 (1976),
261-294.
[98] Frei, A and Kleisli, H., Shape invariant funetors: applieation in module-theory,
Math. Z. 164 (1978),179-183.
[99] Freudenthai, H., Entwicklungen von Rumen und ihren Gruppen, Compositio
Math. 4 (1937), 145-234.
[100] _ _ , Neuaufbau der Endentheorie, Ann. 0/ Math. 43 (1942), 261-279.
[101] Garay, B.M., Strong eellularity and global asymptotie stability, Fund. Math. 138
(1991), 147-154.
[102] Geoghegan, R, The shape of a group, in Geometrie and Aigebraie Topology, H.
TOruDezyk (ed.), Banaeh Center Publ., vol. 18, PWN Warsaw 1986, pp. 271-280.
[103] Geoghegan, R and Krasinkiewicz, J., Empty eomponents in strong shape theory,
Topology and its Appl. 41 (1991), 213-233.
[104] Giraldo, A, Gross, A and Lateeki, L.J., Digitizations preserving shape, Pattern
Reeognition 32 (1999), 365-376.
[105] Giraldo, A and Sanjurjo, J.M.R, On the global strueture of invariant regions of
flows with asymptotically stable attraetors, Math. Z. 232 (1999), 739-746.
[106] Grothendieek, A, Teehnique de deseentes et theoremes d' existenee en geometrie
algebrique 1I, Seminaire Bourbaki, vol. 12 eme annee, 1959/60, expose 190-
195.
[107] Gnther, B., Starker Shapefiir beliebige topologisehe Rume, Dissertation, J.w.
Goethe-Universitt, Frankfurt a.M. 1989.
[108] _ _ , Comparison of the coherent pro-homotopy theories of Edwards-Ha-
stings, Lisica-Mardesic and Gnther, Glasnik Mat. 26 (1991), 141-176.
[109] _ _ , The use of semisimplicial complexes in strong shape theory, Glasnik
Mat. (47) 27 (1992), 101-144.
[110] _ _ , A compactum that cannot be an attractor of a selfmap on a manifold,
Proe. Amer. Math. Soe. 120 (1994), 653--655.
[111] _ _ , Construction of differentiable fiows with prescribed attractor, Topology
Appl. 62 (1995), 87-91.
[112] _ _ , On the homotopic structure of dynamical systems containing global
attractors, in Continua with the Houston Problem Book, H. Cook et al. (ed.), M.
Dekker, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. vol. 170, (1995), 227-248.
[113] Gnther, B. and Segal, J., Every attractor of a fiow on a manifold has the shape
of a finite polyhedron, Proe. Amer. Math. Soe. vol. 119, (1993), 321-329.
[114] Hastings, H.M., Shape Theory and Dynamieal Systems. The Strueture ofAttrae-
tors in Dynamieal Systems (Proc. Conf., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, N.D.,
1977), pp. 150-159, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 668, Springer, Berlin, 1978.
[115] _ _ , A higher dimensional Poincare-Bendixson theorem, Glasnik Mat. 14
(1979),263-268.
[116] Hastings, H.M. and Heller, A., Homotopy idempotents on finite-dimensional
complexes split, Proe. Amer. Math. Soe. 85 (1982), 619--622.
[117] Hausdorff, F., Grundzuge der Mengenlehre, von Weit, Leipzig, 1914.
[118] Henderson, G. W., Continua which cannot be mapped onto any non-planar circle-
like continuum, Colloq. Math. 23 (1971), 241-243.
[119] Hemandez-Paricio, L.J., Fundamental pro-groupoids and covering projections,
Fund. Math. 156 (1998), 1-31.
[120] Holsztytiski, w., Une generalization du theoreme de Brouwer sur les points
invariants, Bull. Aead. Polon. Sei. Ser. Sei. Math. Astronom Phys. 12 (1964),
603--606.
[121] _ _ , Universal mappings and fixed point theorems, BUll' Aead. Polon. Sei.
ser. Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 15 (1967), 433-438.
[122] _ _ , Aremark on the universal mappings of I-dimensional continua, Bull.
Aead. Polon. Sei. Ser. Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 15 (1967), 547-549.
[123] Hopf, H., New proof of the Lefschetz formula on invariant points, Proe. Nat.
Aead. Sei. 14 (1928), 149-153.
[124] Husch, L.S. and Ivansic, 1., Embedding compacta up to shape, in Shape Theory
and Geometrie Topology, Lecture Notes in Math. vol. 870, Springer, Berlin
1981, pp. 119-134.
[125] Ivansic, 1., Rubin, L.R. and Schapiro, P.J., Extension shape theory, Kyungpook
Math.1. 40 (2000),157-172.
[126] Ivansic, 1., Sher, R.B. and Venema, G.A., Complement theorems beyond the
trivial range, Illinois 1. Math. 25 (1981), 209-220.
[127] Kadlof, A., On the shape of pointed compact connected subsets of E3, Fund.
Math. 115 (1983), 163-193.
[128] Kahn, D.S., An example in Cech cohomology, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (1965),
584.
[129] Kahn, D.S., Kaminker, J. and Schochet, c., Generalized homology theories on
compact metric spaces, Michigan Math. J. 24 (1977), 203-224.
[130] Kaminker, J. and Schochet, C., Steenrod homology and operator algebras, Bull.
Amer. Math. Soc. 81 (1975), 431-434.
[131] _ _ , K -theory and Steenrod homology: Applications to the rown-Douglas-
Fillmore theory of operator algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 227 (1977), 63-
107.
[132] Kapitanski, L. and Rodnianski, I., Shape and Morse theory of attractors, Comm.
Pure Appl. Math. 53 (2000), 218-242.
[133] Kato, H., Fiber shape categories, Tsukuba J. Math. 5 (1981), 247-265.
[134] _ _ , Shape properties ofWhitney maps for hyperspaces, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 297 (1986), 529-546.
[135] _ _ , On some sequential strong Whitney-reversible properties, Bull. Polish
Acad. Sei. Math. 37 (1989), 517-524.
[136] _ _ , Movability and strong Whitney-reversible properties, Topology Appl. 31
(1989), 125-132.
[137] _ _ , A note on fundamental dimensions of Whitney continua of graphs, J.
Math. Soc. Japan 41 (1989), 243-250.
[138] _ _ , Attractors in euclidean spaces and shift maps on polyhedra, Houston J.
0/ Math. 24 (1998), 671-679.
[139] Keesling, J.E., An algebraic property of the Cech cohomology groups which
prevents local connectivity and movability, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 190 (1974),
151-162.
[140] _ _ , On the Whitehead theorem in shape theory, Fund. Math. 92 (1976),
247-253.
[141] _ _ , The Cech cohomology ofmovable and n-movable spaces, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 219 (1976), 149-167.
[142] _ _ , The Stone-Cech compactification and shape dimension, Topology
Proceedings 2 (1977), 483-508.
[143] _ _ , Decomposition of the Stone-Cech compactification which are shape
equivalences, Pacific J. Math. 75 (1978), 455-466.
[144] _ _ , The dimension of closed sets in the Stone-Cech compactification, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 299 (1987),413-428.
[145] _ _ , The one-dimensional Cech cohomology ofthe Higson compactification
and its corona, Topology Proceedings 19 (1994), 129-148.
[146] _ _ , Subcontinua ofthe Higson corona, Topology Appl. 80 (1997),155-160.
[147] Keesling, J.E. and Sher, R.., Shape properties of the Stone-Cech compactifi-
cation, General Top. Appl. 9 (1978), 1-8.
[148] Keesling, J.E. and Wilson, D.C., Embedding Tn-like continua in Euclidean
space. Topology Appl. 21 (1985),241-249.
[149] Kelley, J.L., Hyperspaces of a continuum, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 52 (1942),
22-36.
[150] Klee, V.L., Stability of the fixed point property, Colloq. Math. 8 (1961), 43-46.
1172 SffiE MARDESIC AND JACK SEGAL
[151] Knaster, B., Kuratowski, K and Mazurkiewicz, S., Ein Beweis des Fixpunkt-
satzes fr n-dimensionale Simplexe, Fund. Math. 14 (1929), 132-137.
[152] Ko~ak, ~., On the fundamental theorem of overlays, Note di Matematica, Lecce
10 (1990), 355-362.
[153] Kodama, Y. and Koyama, A, Hurewicz isomorphism theorem for Steenrod
homology, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1979),363-367.
[154] Kodama, Y. and Ono, J., On fine shape theory, Fund. Math. 105 (1979), 29-39.
[155] Kodama, Y., Spiez, S. and Watanabe, T., On shape o/hyperspaces, Fund. Math.
100 (1978), 59-67.
[156] Kolmogoroff, A, Les groupes de Betti des espaces localement bicompacts, C.R.
Acad. Sei. Paris 202 (1936), 1144-1147.
[157] Komatu, A, Bemerkungen ber die Fundamentalgruppe eines Kompakturns,
Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 13 (1937), 56-58.
[158] _ _ , A note on some strong Whitney-reversible properties, Tsukuba 1. Math.
4 (1980), 313-316.
[159] Kozlowski, G., Images 0/ ANR's, Mimeographed notes, Seattle 1974.
[160] Kozlowski, G. and Segal, J., n-movable compacta and ANR-systems, Fund.
Math. 85 (1974), 235-243.
[161] _ _ , Locally well-behaved paracompacta in shape theory, Fund. Math. 95
(1977),55-71.
[162] Krasinkiewicz, J., Certain properties ofhyperspaces, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sei. Sero
Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 21 (1973),705-710
[163] _ _ , Mappings onto eircle-like continua, Fund. Math. 91 (1976), 39-49.
[164] _ _ , Local connectedness and pointed I-movability, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sei.
Sero Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 25 (1977), 1265-1269.
[165] _ _ , Continuous images of continua and 1-movability, Fund. Matk. 98
(1978), 141-164.
[166] _ _ , Hereditarily Indecomposable Representatives 0/ Shapes, Proc. Internat.
Conf. on Geometrie Topology, Polish Sei. Publ., Warszawa 1980, pp. 245-252.
[167] Krasinkiewicz, J. and Nadler, S.B., Jr., Whitney properties, Fund. Math. 98
(1978), 165-180.
[168] Krasinkiewicz,1. and Mine, P., Generalized paths and pointed movability, Fund.
Math. 104 (1979), 141-153.
[169] Krasinkiewicz, J. and Smith, M., Hereditarily indecomposable continua with
trivial shape, Fund. Math. 119 (1983), 133-134.
[170] Kuperberg, K, An isomorphism theorem of Hurewicz type in Borsuk's theory
of shape, Fund. Math. 77 (1972), 21-32.
[171] Kurosch, AG., Kombinatorischer Aufbau der bikompakten topologischen
Rumen, Compositio Math. 2 (1935), 471-476.
[172] Lacher, R.C., Cell-like mappings and their generalizations, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 83 (1977), 495-552.
[173] Laguna, V.P., Mor6n, M.A, Nguyen To Nhu and Sanjurjo, J.M.R., Movability
and limits of polyhedra, Fund. Math. 143 (1993), 191-201.
[174] Lefschetz, S., Interseetions and transformations of complexes and manifolds,
[175] _ _ , Manifolds with a boundary and their transformations, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soe. 29 (1927), 429-462.
[176] _ _ , Topology, Coll. Publ. vol. 12, Amer. Math. Soc., New York 1930.
[177] _ _ , On compact spaces, Ann. Math. 32 (1931), 521-538.
[178] _ _ , On the fixed point formula, Annals 0/ Math. 38 (1937),819-822.
[179] LeVan, J.H., Shape Theory, Thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ken-
tucky 1973.
[180] Lima, E.L., The Spanier-Whitehead duality in new homotopy categories, Summa
Brasiliensis Math. (3) 4 (1959), 91-148.
[181] Lisica, Ju.T. and Mardesic, S., Steenrod-Sitnikov homology for arbitrary spaces,
Bull. Amer. Math. Soe. 9 (1983), 207-210.
[182] _ _ , Coherent prohomotopy and strong shape theory, Glasnik Mat. (39) 19
(1984),335-399.
[183] _ _ , Strong homology of inverse systems of spaces, 11, Topology Appl. 19
(1985), 45-64.
[184] Lisitsa, Yu.T., Duality Theorems and Dual Shape and Coshape Categories
(Russian), Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR no. 3, vol. 263, 532-536 (Soviet Math.
Dokl. no.2, vol. 25 (1982), 373-378).
[185] _ _ , Strong shape theory and the Steenrod-Sitnikov homology (Russian),
Sibirski Mat. Z. 24 (1983),81-99.
[186] _ _ , The theorems ofHurewicz and Whitehead in strong shape theory, Dokl.
Akad. Nauk SSSR vol. 283, no. I, (1985), 31-35.
[187] MacDonald, J.L., Categorical shape theory and the back and forth property, J.
Pure Appl. Algebra 12 (1978), 79-92.
[188] Mardesic, S., Shapes of topological spaces, General Topology Appl. 3 (1973),
265-282.
[189] _ _ , On the Whitehead theorem in shape theory I, Fund. Math. 91 (1976),
51-64.
[190] _ _ , Approximate polyhedra, resolutions ofmaps and shape librations, Fund.
Math. 114 (1981), 53-78.
[191] _ _ , Inverse limits and resolutions, in Shape Theory and Geometrie Topology,
Proc. Conference, Dubrovnik 1981, Lecture Notes in Math. vol. 870, Springer
Verlag, Berlin, pp. 240-253.
[192] _ _ , Strong expansions and strong shape theory, Topology Appl. 38 (1991),
275-291.
[193] _ _ , Resolutions of spaces are strong expansions, Publ. Inst. Math. Beograd
(63) 49 (1991),179-188.
[194] _ _ , Coherent and strong expansions of spaces coincide, Fund. Math. 158
(1998),69-80.
[195] _ _ , Coherent homotopy and localization, Topology Appl. 94 (1999), 253-
274.
[196] _ _ , Strong shape and homology, Springer monographs in mathematics,
Berlin-Heidelberg-New York 2000, XII.
[197] Mardesic, S. and Matijevic, V., Classifying overlay structures of topological
spaces, Topology Appl. (to appear).
[198] Mardesic, S. and Rubin, L.R., Approximate inverse systems of compacta and
covering dimension, Pacijic J. Math. 138 (1989), 129-144.
[199] Mardesic, S. and Rushing, T.B., Shape fibrations I, Topology Appl. 9 (1978),
193-215.
[200] Mardesic, S. and Segal, J., Movable compacta and ANR-systems, Bull. Acad.
Polon. Sei. Sero Sei. Math. Astronom. Phys. 18 (1970), 649-654.
[201] _ _ , Shapes of compacta and ANR-systems, Fund. Math. 72 (1971), 41-59.
[202] _ _ , Shape Theory. The Inverse System Approach, North-Holland, Amster-
dam 1982.
[203] Mardesic, S. and Watanabe, T., Approximate resolutions of spaces and
mappings, Glasnik Mat. 24 (1989), 587-637.
[204] Mazurkiewicz, S., Sur l'hyperespace d'un continu, Fund. Math. 18 (1932), 171-
177.
[205] _ _ , Sur l'existence des continus indecomposables, Fund. Math. 25 (1935),
327-328.
[206] McCord, M.C., Embedding (l}I-like compacta in manifolds, Canad. 1. Math. 19
(1967), 321-332.
[207] McMillan, D.R., Jr., A criterion for cellularity in a manifold, Ann. Math. 79
(1964), 327-337.
[208] _ _ , One-dimensional shape properties and three-manifolds, in Studies in
Topology, N.M. Stavrakas and KR. Allen (eds.), Academic Press, New York
1975.
[209] Mihalik, M.L., Ends of fundamental groups in shape and proper homotopy,
Pacijic 1. Math. 90 (1980), 431~58.
[210] _ _ , On the concept of attractor, Commun. Math. Phys. 99 (1985),177-195.
[211] Miminoshvili, Z., On the strong homotopy in the category oftopological spaces
and its applications to the theory of shape (in Russian), Soobsc. Akad. Nauk
Gruzin. SSR 98 (1980), 301-304.
[212] _ _ , On a strong spectral shape theory (in Russian), Trudy Tbilissk. Mat. Inst.
Akad Nauk Gruzin. SSR 68 (1982), 79-102.
[213] Mioduszewski, J. and Rochowski, M., Remarks on fixed point theorem for
inverse limit spaces, Colloq. Math. 9 (1962), 67-71.
[214] Mischaikow, K, Conley Index Theory. Dynamical Systems (Montecatini Terme,
1994), Lecture Notes in Math., 1609, Springer, Berlin, 1995, 119-207,
[215] Miyata, T., Uniform shape theory, Glasnik Mat. (49) 29 (1994), 123-168.
[216] Miyata, T. and Segal, J., Shape and uniform properties of hyperspaces of
noncompact spaces, Glasnik Mat. 32 (1997), 99-124.
[217] Montgomery, J. T., Cohomology of isolated invariant sets under perturbation, 1.
Differential Equations 13 (1973), 257-299.
[218] Morita, K, The Hurewicz and the Whitehead theorems in shape theory, Sei.
Reports Tokyo Kyoiku Daigaku, Sec. A 12 (1974), 246-258.
[219] _ _ , On shapes oftopological spaces, Fund. Math. 86 (1975),251-259.
[220] _ _ , Cech cohomology and covering dimension for topological spaces, Fund.
Math. 87 (1975),31-52.
[221] Mor6n, M.A. and Ruiz deI Portal, ER., Ultrametrics and infinite dimensional
Whitehead theorems in shape theory, Manuscripta Math. 89 (1996), 325-333.
[222] _ _ , Shape as a Cantor completion process, Math. Z. 225 (1997), 67-86.

[223] _ _ , On weak shape equivalences, Topology Appl. 92 (1999), 225-236.
[224] MoszyDska, M., The Whitehead theorem in the theory of shapes, Fund. Math.
80 (1973), 221-263.
[225] Mrozek, M., Leray functor and the cohomological Conley index for discrete
dynamical systems, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 318 (1990),149-178.
[226] _ _ , A cohomological Conley index for maps on metric spaces, 1. DijJ. Equ.
90 (1991), 143-171.
[227] _ _ , Shape index and other indices of Conley type for local maps on locally
compact Hausdorff spaces, Fund. Math. (1) 145 (1994), 15-37.
[228] Mrozik, P., Chapman's complement theorem in shape theory: Aversion for the
infinite product oflines, Arch. Math. 42 (1984), 564-567.
[229] _ _ , Hereditary shape equivalences and complement theorems, Topology
Appl. 22 (1986), 61-65.
[230] Nadler, S.B., Jr., Hyperspaces of Sets, Pure Appl. Math. vol. 49, M. Dekker,
New York 1978.
[231] _ _ , Whitney-reversible properties, Fund. Math. 109 (1980), 235-248.
[232] Nowak, S., Aigebraic theory of the fundamental dimension, Dissertationes
Math. 187 (1981), 1-59.
[233] _ _ , On the relationship between shape properties of subcompacta of sn and
homotopy properties of their complements, Fund. Math. 128 (1987), 47-60.
[234] Pavel, M., Shape theory and pattern recognition, Pattern recognition 16 (1983),
349-356.
[235] _ _ , Fundamentals ofpattern recognition, M. Dekker, New York 1989.
[236] Pop, I., A K. Morita type theorem for closure algebras, An. ~tint. Univ. Iai 26
(1980),369-380.
[237] _ _ , A shape theory for closure algebras, An. ~tint. Univ. Iai 27 (1981),
279-286.
[238] Porter, T., On the two definitions of Ho(pro-C), Topology Appl. 28 (1988),
283-293.
[239] _ _ , Proper homotopy theory in Handbook ofAigebraic Topology, I.M. James
(ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam 1995, pp. 127-167.
[240] Prasolov, A.V., Extraordinary strong homology, Topology Appl. (to appear).
[241] Quigley, J.B., An exact sequence from the n-th to (n - l)st fundamental group,
Fund. Math. 77 (1973), 195-210.
[242] Quillen, D.G., Homotopical Algebra, Lecture Notes in Math. vol. 43, Springer,
Berlin 1967.
[243] Robbin, J.W. and Salamon, D., Dynamical systems, shape theory and the Conley
index, Ergod. Th. & Dynamic. Sys. 8 (1988),375-393.
[244] Rogers, J. T., Jr., The shape of a cross-section of the solution funnel of an ordinary
differential equation, Illinois J. Math. 21 (1977), 420-426.
[245] Roe, J., Coarse Cohomology and Index Theory on Complete Riemannian
Manifolds, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 497, American Mathematical Society,
Providence, 1991.
[246] _ _ , Index theory, coarse geometry, and topology of manifolds. CBMS
Regional Conference Series in Math. 90, American Mathematical Society, 1996.
1176 SIBE MARDESI<: AND JACK SEGAL
[247] Ruiz deI Portal, F.R. and Salazar, J.M., Shape index for discrete dynamical
systems on metric spaces (to appear).
[248] Sanjurjo, J.M.R., On fundamental approximative absolute neighborhood re-
tracts, Canadian Math. Bull. 27 (1984), 134-142.
[249] _ _ , Stability of the fixed point property and universal maps, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 105 (1989), 221-230.
[250] _ _ , Multihomotopy, Cech spaces of loops and shape groups, Proc. London.
Math. Soc. 69 (1994), 330-344.
[251] _ _ , On the structure of uniform attractors, J. Math. Analysis and Appl. 192
(1995),519-528.
[252] _ _ , Lustemik-Schnirelmann category and Morse decompositions Mathe-
matika (to appear).
[253] Schori, R.M. and West, J.E., The hyperspace of the closed unit interval is a
Hilbert cube, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 213 (1975), 217-235.
[254] Segal, J. Hyperspaces of the inverse limit space, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 10
(1959), 706-709.
[255] Segal, J., Spiez, S. and Gnther, B., Strong shape of uniform spaces, Topology
and Appl. 49 (1993), 237-249.
[256] Segal, J. and Watanabe, T., Cosmic approximate limits and fixed points, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 333 (1992), 1-61.
[257] Siebenmann, L.C., Chapman's classification of shapes - a proofusing collapsing,
Manuscripta Math. 16 (1975), 373-384.
[258] Sklyarenko, E.G., Homology and Cohomology of General Spaces (Rus-
sian), Itogi nauki i tehniki, Series - Contemporary problems of Mathematics,
Fundamental directions, vol. 50, (1989), Acad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow, pp.
125-228.
[259] _ _ , Hyper (co) homology left exact covariant functors and homology theory
of topological spaces (Russian), Uspehi Mat. Nauk (3) 50 (1995), 109-146.
[260] Smale, S., A Vietoris mapping theorem for homotopy, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
8 (1957), 604-610.
[261] Spiez, S., An example of a continuum X with Fd(X x SI) = Fd(X) = 2, Bull.
Acad. Polon. Sei. Sero Sei. Math. 27 (1979), 923-927.
[262] _ _ , On the fundamental dimension of the cartesian product of compacta
with fundamental dimension 2, Fund. Math. 116 (1983), 17-32.
[263] Steenrod, N.E., Regular cycles of compact metric spaces, Ann. Math. Soc. 41
(1940), 833-851.
[264] Stone, M.H., Applications of the general theory of Boolean rings to general
topology, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 41 (1937), 375-481.
[265] Taylor, J.L., A counterexample in shape theory, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 81
(1975),629-632.
[266] Tezer, C., Shift equivalence in homotopy, Math. Z 210 (1992), 197-201.
[267] Toda, H., On unstable homotopy of spheres and classical groups, Proc. Nat.
Acad. Sei. 46 (1960), 1102-1105.
[268] Torwiczyk, H., On CE-images of the Hilbert cube and characterization of Q-
manifolds, Fund. Math. 106 (1980), 31-40.
[269] Tychonoff, A., ber die topologische Erweiterung von Rumen, Math. Ann. 102
(1930),544-561.
[270] Trybulec, A., On Some Properties of Movable Continua (in Polish), Thesis,
Warszawa 1974.
[271] Venema, G.A., Embeddings of compacta with shape dimension in the trivial
range, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 55 (1976), 443-448.
[272] Vietoris, L., Bereiche zweiter Ordnung, Monatsh. fr Math. und Phys. 32 (1922),
258-280.
[273] _ _ , Kontinua zweiter Ordnung, Monatsh. fr Math. und Phys. 33 (1923),
49-62.
[274] _ _ , ber den hheren Zusammenhang kompakter Rume und eine Klasse
von zusammenhang streuen Abbildungen, Math. Ann. 97 (1927), 454-472.
[275] Vogt, R.M., Homotopy limits and colimits, Math. Z. 134 (1973), 11-52.
[276] Watanabe, T., Approximative shape II-Generalized ANR's, Tsukuba J. Math.
11 (1987), 303-339.
[277] Waiewski, T., Sur un continu singulier, Fund. Math. 4 (1923),214-235.
[278] Weber, C., La forme d'un espace topologique est une completion, CR. Acad.
Sei. Paris 277 (1973), A7-A9.
[279] Whitney, H., Regular families of curves, I, Ann. Math. 34 (1933), 244-270.
[280] Williams, R.F., Classification of one-dimensional attractors, Proc. Symp. Pure
Math., Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1970), 341-361.
[281] Winslow, A., There are 2c nonhomeomorphic continua in rin - rin , Pacific J.
Math. 84 (1979),233-239.
[282] Wojdyslawski, M., Sur la contractilite des hyperespaces des continus localement
connexes, Fund. Math. 30 (1938), 247-252.
[283] _ _ , Retractes absolus et hyperespaces des continus, Fund. Math. 32 (1939),
184-192.
[284] Yagasaki, T., Fiber shape theory, Tsukuba J. Math. 9 (1985), 261-277.
[285] _ _ , Movability of maps and shape fibrations, Glasnik Mat. 21 (1986), 153-
177.
A mSTORY OF THE NORMAL MOORE SPACE PROBLEM
PETERJ.NYIKOS
Department 01 Mathematics
University 01 South Carolina
Columbia sc 29208
Contents
1 Moore Spaces and the Metrization Problem ........................... 1181

1.1 General problem ........................................ 1182
2 The Jones Lemma and Separable Normal Moore Spaces ................ 1182
2.1 The normal Moore space problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1182
3 Trees, Bubble Spaces, and Road Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1183
4 Parallel Developments in Set Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1187
5 Collectionwise Normal, Collectionwise Hausdorff, and Metacompact
Spaces; Set-Theoretic Equivalences .................................. 1190
5.1 Heath's tangent v space .................................. 1193
6 The Forcing Revolution and Martin's Axiom .......................... 1194
7 The Collectionwise Hausdorff Property Again;
Special Classes of Moore Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1196
8 Universal Moore Spaces; Collectionwise Normality
and Large Cardinals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1199
8.1 The product measure extension axiom (PMEA) .............. 1202
9 Normal Moore Spaces from CH and from Very Weak Assumptions ....... 1202
10 Aftermath ....................................................... 1204
11 What's Left? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1206
1179
C. E. Aull and R. Lowen (eds.), Handbook ofthe History ofGeneral Topology, Volume 3, 1179-1212.
A mSTORY OF THE NORMAL MOORE SPACE PROBLEM 1181
This is a thematic history of the normal Moore space problem, which was
for many years the general topology problem whose solution was most eagerly
sought after. This was partly due to the dominance of the RL Moore school
of point-set topology, and partly due to the fact that it became enmeshed in set
theory from the beginning, and gave rise to a whole area of topology that has
been, in the words ofTall [1984] "at the cutting edge of set-theoretic topology,
very frequently being the first topological consumer of a new set-theoretic
technique" .
It is the second factor which predominates in the account that follows. I
leave it to those more experienced in historical writing than myself to fiesh
out the varlous personal infiuences that helped make the normal Moore space
problem the unique thing it was in the years between its statement and solution.
[Paradoxically, Moore himself does not seem to have infiuenced people in this
direction: see Tall [1981] where it is said, "Burton [Jones] later toId me Moore
was not fond of the normal Moore space problem".] While the chronological
order of events is generally followed below, the primary focus is on the pro-
gression of mathematical ideas that shaped research on the problem; and so,
the narrative will sometimes spring forward and sometimes fall back a good
number of years.
In Section 11 there is a list of problems which are referred to by number
from time to time. There are many problems and results that could have been
mentioned but were not inc1uded due to lack of space. A good source for others
is Tall [1984].
Throughout this account, "space" will mean "Hausdorff topological space"
with the exception of one comment on Frechet spaces-L in Section 2.
1. Moore Spaces and the Metrization Problem
Moore spaces are a generalization of metrizable spaces in which explicit dis-

tances are replaced by a more abstract measure of size, embodied in the follow-
ing concept.
Definition 1.1. A development for aspace is a family {OUn}~l where each

OUn is a cover of X by open sets, such that if p is a point of X, and open
sets U n containing p are taken from each OUn , then (Un)~l is a base for the
neighborhoods of p. A Moore space is a regular space with a development.
In a metric space we can let OUn be the set of all open disks of radius 1/ n, and
it is an easy exercise to show that this gives a development. Moore spaces were
named after R.L. Moore, the well-known founder of what came to be known as
the Texas school of topology. They are the spaces given by the first three parts
ofhis lengthy Axiom 1 in Moore [1932]. The whole axiom gave the definition
1182 PETER J. NYIKOS
of a complete Moore space, and was one of a set ofaxioms in Moore [1935]
characterizing the Euc1idean plane in an intrinsic way. The history ofAxiom 1
has been recounted in Volume 1 by Iones [1997].
As the supply of Moore spaces increased, it became natural to ask:
1.1. GENERAL PROBLEM
What 'natural' extra property is needed to make a Moore space metrizable?
Or, to use the words of Iones [1966], what is the "right reason" that non-
metrizable Moore spaces fail to be metrizable? What was wanted was a property
that is strong enough to apply to all Moore spaces, not just certain c1asses such
as separable Moore spaces or locally compact Moore spaces. At the same time,
"overkill" was to be avoided: it should be as simple and general a property as
possible, just strong enough to make all Moore spaces satisfying it metrizable
without also making, say, all regular spaces metrizable. And so, as the store-
house of nonmetrizable Moore spaces grew, it was only a matter of time before
someone focused on the elementary separation axiom of normality:
Definition 1.2. Aspace is normal if for every pair Fl, F2 of disjoint closed
sets, there are disjoint open sets Ui such that Fi C Ui for i = 1, 2.
All metrizable spaces are normal. This is a fact whose easy proof appears
in most textbooks of general topology. On the other hand, as if by accident (hut
as we now know, it was no accident), all the nonmetrizable Moore spaces found
up to 1933 (and a good way beyond) failed to be normal.
2. The Jones Lemma and Separable Normal Moore Spaces
It was on October 28, 1933 that F. Burton Iones, then a student of R.L. Moore,
public1y announced, at an AMS meeting, both the following problem and a
tantalizing partial solution:
2.1. THE NORMAL MOORE SPACE PROBLEM
Is every normal Moore space metrizable?
The Normal Moore Space Conjecture (NMSC) was that the answer to this
problem is Yes. This conjecture sounded at first like many other questions
circulating in R.L. Moore's c1asses, and no one suspected for a long time that
it was inextricably bound up with set-theoretic independence results, let alone
large cardinal axioms, despite Jones's use of the natural-Iooking set-theoretic

axiom 2~o < 2~1 in Jones [1937]. In this paper, Jones showed how this axiom
could be used to show that every separable normal Moore space is metrizable.
[A separable space is one with a countable dense sub set.] One part of the proof
was an improvement on an earlier metrization theorem of R.L. Moore, wbich
stated that if every subspace of a Moore space is separable, then the whole
space is metrizable. Jones showed that it is enough to assume that every c10sed
discrete subspace is countable. Then, in a result frequently referred to as "Jones 's
Lemma", he showed, in effect,
Lemma 2.1. If X is anormal space, and D is a dense subspace of X while C

is a closed discrete subspace of X, then 2 1C1 ~ 2 1D1 .
The special case ID I = ~o is what J ones explicitly proved, but he pointed out
immediately that the argument, with slight changes, also shows that the axiom
2~o < 2~1 implies that no separable normal space can have an uncountable
c10sed discrete subspace, and the argument can also be used to show Lemma 2.1
with similarly slight changes. Jones also showed, in the IDI = ~o case, that a
separable normal space cannot have a c10sed discrete subspace of cardinality
c = 2~o; this is immediate from Lemma 2.1 and the fact that 2K > K for an
cardinal numbers K. Applications of this will be given in the next seetion.
When Jones first obtained bis result, he had no inkling that 2~o < 2~1 might
not follow from the usual (ZFC) axioms of set theory. In fact, as an obedient
student of R.L. Moore, he had done almost no reading of the papers of set
theorists, and so the following exchange took place between them one day,
as recounted by J ones many years later. Jones said to Moore, "There must be
something wrong with me. Ijust can't seem to prove that 2/oto is less than 2/otl".
Moore responded, "Ha, ha, ha. Neither can Sierpinski". Jones also wrote in his
1937 paper, "The author has tried for some time without success to prove that
2~o < 2~1". This was not, however, the real explanation for the long delay
between his 1933 presentation and the publication. The real reason was that
Jones was trying to settle the normal Moore space problem outright; he would
have been happy to try any reasonable-looking axiom if it would achieve that
goal, one way or the other. But about forty years were to elapse before that was
to happen.
3. Trees, Bubble Spaces, and Road Spaces
In addition to his normality theorems, Jones [1937] gave, in effect, the first
example of a nonmetrizable pseudonormal Moore space.
Definition 3.1. Aspace is pseudonormal if for every pair FI, F2 of disjoint

c10sed sets, one of which is countable, there are disjoint open sets Vi such that
Fi C Vi for i = 1, 2.
Jones actually phrased his example in terms of "Frechet spaces-L", which

represented an early effort to generalize the concepts of "convergence" and
"continuity" from analysis, in a different way than the concept of a topology
does. What Jones accomplished in topological terms can best be seen from
a historical perspective by first looking at aspace, designated r by Willard
[1970], that is variously called "the [Niemitzky] tangent disk space" or "the
Moore plane". This well-known example has the c10sed upper half plane as its
underlying set, and a topology finer than the Euclidean topology. In the open
upper half plane ("y > 0") the two topologies coincide, while a point on the
x-axis has a base of c10sed neighborhoods consisting ofthe c10sed disks that are
tangent to the x-axis at that point. The r -interior of any of these c10sed disks
is the union of the Euc1idean interior with the singleton whose member is the
point of tangency.
The x-axis is readily seen to be a c10sed discrete subspace of cardinality c
in r, while the doubly rational points in the open upper half plane constitute
a countable dense subspace. It then follows from Jones's Lemma that r is not
normal. However, it is a Moore space: it is obviously regular, and if we let GUn
consist ofthe r -interiors of disks wholly contained in r and of radius l/n, then
{GUn}~I is easily shown to be a development. Subspaces of r that meet the
x-axis in a countable set are second countable, hence metrizable by Urysohn's
metrization theorem; on the other hand, since every separable metrizable space
is second countable, no separable subspace meeting the x-axis in an uncountable
set can be metrizable. I have told one half of the story of whether any of them
can be normal; the other half comes later, and is a natural outgrowth of the
pseudonormal subspace Jones produced, in effect. This he did with the help of
an uncountable A-set:
Definition 3.2. A subset L of lR is a A-set if every countable subset of L is a

Go subset (that is, a countable intersection of open sets) in the relative topology
of L.
A familiar application of the Baire Category Theorem is that Q is not a

Go subset of lR and hence the real line is not a A-set. The concept of a A-set
was introduced by Kuratowski [1933], who showed that there exist uncountable
A-subsets of R Jones [1937] also constructed one and used it to construct a
Frechet space-L that was normal and separable and had an uncountable discrete
(but not c10sed discrete) subspace. His arguments can be adapted to show:
Theorem 3.3. lf L is a '}..-set, and the corresponding subset 01 the x-axis is

added to the open upper half plane, with the whole given the relative topol-
ogy from r, then the resulting space is a pseudonormal nonmetrizable Moore
space.
There are some c10sely related spaces which can be used in place of r in
this theorem. One is the Cantor tree, with the points on its top level identified
with the Cantor set.
Definition 3.4. A tree is a partially ordered set (T, ~) in which the set; =
{x E T : x ~ t} is well-ordered for each t E T. Given an ordinal number a, the
Jull binary tree 01 height a is the tree of all transfinite sequences 1 : ~ K,
for some ordinal < a, and the order on the tree is end extension: 1 ~ g iff
dom 1 c dom g and g r dom 1 = I. The Cantor tree is the full binary tree of
height w + 1.
Some have used the term "Cantor tree" for any uncountable sub set of the
full binary tree of height w + 1 that inc1udes the full binary tree of height w.
The points on the top level of what I here call the Cantor tree are identified
with the Cantor set by identifying each infinite sequence of O's and I 's with
the real number between 0 and I whose digits, in temary notation, are formed
by replacing all I 's in the sequence with 2's. There is a way of extending this
identification, matching the whole Cantor tree with a subset of the plane, given
in detail in Nyikos [1989]. The sequences of finite length are put directly above
the center points in the deleted middle thirds of the points of the Cantor set
in a systematic fashion. The empty sequence is matched up with (1/2,1/2).
Sequences with n terms are identified with points on the horizontalline 1/2n + 1
above the x-axis, and the two one-term extensions of each sequence (J' of n - 1
terms are matched up with points on this line that meet lines of slope 1 and -1
passing thru the point matched with (J'
The topology on the Cantor tree can be visualized by using this match-
up, along with the relative topology obtained by rotating the topology of the
Sorgenfrey plane 45 degrees counterc1ockwise. That is, we erect above each
point p on the x -axis a sequence of isosceles right triangles with horizontal
bases and with their apexes at the point p, of height 1/ n for each positive integer
n, and use those triangles as a base for the neighborhoods of p. All points except
those on the top level of the Cantor tree are isolated in this topology. Just as with
the tangent disk space, a subspace which exc1udes all points on the x-axis except
for an uncountable '}..-set gives a nonmetrizable pseudomormal Moore space. In
addition, this example is locally compact. In Nyikos [1989] it is explained how
this topology coincides with the interval topology on the Cantor tree.
Definition 3.5. The interval topology on a tree T is the one whose base is all
sets of the form (s, t] = {x E T : s < x ~ t}, together with all singletons {tl
such that t is a minimal member of T.
Also in the 1930's, Iones defined a completely different kind of tree in the
hope that it would be a nonmetrizable normal Moore space. He called it a "tin
can space" because of a visualization of it as aseries of (VI horizontal shelves
of tin cans, with countably many cans on each shelf. A lively exposition of this
example T, which Iones apparently never published (but which is a subspace
of aspace in Iones [1966]) can be found in Bing [1981]. Here is a bare-bones
description:
Example 3.6. Let S be the tree of functions whose domain is a countable

ordinal and whose range consists of rational numbers of the form 1j2 n where n is
a positive integer, ordered by end-extension: that is, f < g if dom(f) < dom(g)
and g r dom(f) = f. We define a subtree T of S by induction. All members of
S with finite domains are in T. If f E T, then all one-element extensions of f
that are in S are in T as well; otherwise, none are in T. If y is a limit ordinal and
all members of T with domains < y have been chosen, we pick, for each such
member P of T, and each positive integer n, a sequence a; = (Pn)~1 of such
members of T such that (1) PO = p; (2) each Pn extends the previous ones;
(3) the domains have supremum y, and (4) the sum of all the Pn(~) such that
~ 2': dom(p) is exactly 1j2 n . The union of each of these a; is added to T, and
the fact that this happened at earlier limit ordinals ins ures that these sequences
can be chosen at y also.
If Ci < (VI, then the set T r Ci + 1 of all members of T whose domain is

~ Ci is a c10pen (c1osed and open) subset of T with a countable c10pen base for
its topology, hence is easily shown to be metrizable. It is immediate from this
and normality of metrizable spaces that T is pseudonormal. Iones showed that
T is also a nonmetrizable Moore space, and hoped for many years that it was
normal. The answer appears in Seetions 6 and 7 below.
There is a c10sely allied space known as "the Iones road space" which Iones
[1965] obtained by adding a copy of (0, 1) in between successive members of T.
It sacrifices local compactness but gains local connectedness in compensation.
One can modify any tree in this way, with the same trade-off in the cases of
interest here. What might be called "the Cantor road space" is the first example
in Iones [1965]. It is also described in Steen and Seebach [1978], where it
is erroneously referred to as the "Cantor tree". This example is followed in
both places by a description of the Moore road space, which is obtained by
attaching a copy of (0, 1) to each terminal point of the Cantor road space. Both
of these spaces give nonmetrizable pseudonormal Moore spaces by the same
A-set technique which gives one in the case of the tangent disk space and the
Cantor tree. We will encounter these spaces again in Sections 5 and 6, where
similar things are done in the quest for normal subspaces.
4. Parallel Developments in Set Theory
Jones's hypothesis 2~o < 2~1 is a weakening of the venerable old Continuum
Hypothesis (CH), the truth or falsity of which was the first in a list of problems
singled out for special treatment by Hilbert in a famous lecture a hundred years
ago. This axiom, which can be stated as "2~o = ~1", had seen a lot of use by
the time Jones used its consequence 2~o < 2~1, but Jones still deserves credit
for first using 2~o < 2~1 itself in a proof which (as we now know) cannot be
done using just the usual (ZFC) axioms.
Another already-old problem, posed by Souslin [1920], was destined to
have a fascinating indirect effect on the normal Moore space problem. Souslin
took a characterization of ~ as the only separable, connected linearly ordered
space with no greatest or least point, and asked whether countable cellularity-
the condition that every disjoint collection of open sets is countable-could
be substituted for separability. An affirmative answer to this question came to
be known as Souslin's Hypothesis (SH). It turned out to be equivalent to the
nonexistence of a Souslin tree; see Kurepa [1935], [1942] where, in asense,
the whole modem theory of trees was born. Both Souslin trees and Jones's tin
can space T are examples of what is known as Aronszajn trees, another concept
introduced in Kurepa's articles.
Notation 4.1. If T is a tree, then T (0) is its set of minimal members. Given
an ordinal ol, if T() has been defined for a1l < ol, then T ra
= U{T() :
< ol}, while T(ot) is the set of minimal members of T \ T rot. The set T{ot)
is called the Ol-th level of T.
For example, in the case of Jones's T, the Ol-th level is simply the set of all
functions f E T with domain ol.
Definition 4.2. An antichain in a tree is a set of pairwise incomparable ele-

ments. A tree is special if it is a countable union of antichains. A tree is Souslin
if it is uncountable while every chain and antichain is countable. A tree is
Aronszajn if it is uncountable while every chain is countable and every level
T(Ol) is countable.
A highly readable and interesting introduction to Souslin's problem can

be found in Rudin [1969], while Todorcevic [1984] is a deep and thorough
treatment of the theory of trees. It ultimately turned out that, like the Continuum
Hypothesis, the Souslin Hypothesis is independent of the usual axioms of set
1188 PETER J. NYlKOS
theory. Of course, at the time Souslin posed his question, Gdel's incomplete-
ness theorems were yet to be discovered or even conjectured. Hilbert was still
optimistic about being able to put all of set theory, hence all of mathematics,
on a firm footing. But already in 1930, Gdel delivered the first of his blows
against the program with his incompleteness theorems. The first showed that any
recursively axiomatizable system sufficient to do "arithmetic" (more precisely:
elementary number theory) would have undecidable statements. Even more
devastating to the Hilbert program was the second, which stated that any such
system could not even be used to show its own consistency. Then Gdel [1939]
gave a partial answer to Hilbert's First Problem, by defining the universe L
of constructible sets, and showing that it satisfies eH along with all the usual
(ZFC) axioms. Taken together, these results told mathematicians that they could
apply eH with no more (or less!) fear of arriving at a contradiction than ifthey
did ordinary everyday mathematics. To some, this settled the status of eH, but
Gdel himself was not satisfied, and in a highly readable artic1e Gdel [1947]
gave reasons why he thought eH was an 'unreasonable' axiom.
Gdel's reasons would make no sense to a strict formalist, but then, such
people are rare if nonexistent. On the other hand, many mathematicians are
Platonists without even having thought about it, and some of the leading set
theorists are also Platonists. A rather common naIve view about eH and other
special axioms was expounded on by RH Bing in a colorful artic1e on the normal
Moore space problem Bing [1981], where he commented:
Mathematicians speak of the set of real numbers (or of the reals) rather
than some set of reals. This suggests the underlying assumption that there
is only one set of reals. If one c1ass in some school is studying the reals
and another c1ass somewhere else is studying them also, the two c1asses are
studying the same thing. However, we are told in axiomatic set theory that
there are many sets of reals.
For example, in a sufficiently complicated universe, the set of constructible
reals, which are the real numbers in the model L, is a countable set. Yet they are
the reals in Gdel's constructible universe L. [As we shall see in Seetion 9, any
universe where all normal Moore spaces are metrizable is such a "sufficiently
complicated" universe.] Bing was less pleasant in some of his oral public state-
ments, but one can hardly distike such homespun comments as the following
one, which occurs further down in the same page of Bing [1981] as the one just
quoted:
The terms uncountable, countable, infinite, finite have different meanings
to different people. These concepts are used to indicate how many elements
a set has. Would one call a drove of homets infinite or uncountable just
because it is impracticable (or impossible) to look inside their nest? I hope
not. An uncountable set has more elements than there are integers. To many
this would mean that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the

uncountable set and the positive integers. There is none whatsoever. It is not
enough that there exists none known to man or beasts or even in OUf list of
algorithms in the model. There must be none known to omnipotent powers
looking from outer space. There is no such 1-1 correspondence.
EIsewhere, Bing expressed the tentative hope that the NMSC could be sett1ed
by the help of an axiom that says that the set of reals is really uncountable.
Unfortunately, we have no way of even expressing such an axiom unequivocally
in the language of logic; even second-order logic only gives the illusion of doing
so. Bing [1981] sounds several pessimistic notes, for instance: ''To show that
the Normal Moore Space conjecture is true in the real world, one would be
faced with a formidable task-one with such scant promise of success that most
mathematicians would pass it by to try something more promising".
What many mathematicians are doing with set theory, and have been doing
since before Gdel's consistency proof for CH, is to apply consistent axioms,
and axioms they hope to be consistent, to various mathematical problems even
though they have no idea which axiom holds in "the real world". The best-known
axioms which fall under the "hope to be consistent" rubric are axioms involving
inaccessible cardinals. In the 1940's and 1950's there was also a remarkable
willingness on the part of the Moore school to apply axioms that had nothing
to do with inaccessible cardinals, but about whose consistency the researchers
had no idea. A dramatic example was the use of the axiom, ''There is a Souslin
tree" to construct anormal space whose product with [0, 1] is not normal by
Rudin [1955].
Earlier, unkbeknownst to the Moore school, Rothberger [1948] did some-
thing even bolder: he made use of the axiom 2~o = 2~1, and other axioms
wbicb negate eH even more strongly, despite the fact that nobody bad any idea
whether the negation of CH was consistent. It seems remarkable that he was able
to publish so many applications at the time, in the teeth of the consistency result
of Gdel [1939]. Even nowadays, there are very few papers like this that do not
have to do with inaccessible cardinals; if anything, there has been a falling off
of this kind of activity.
Among the many results ofRothberger [1948], the one that is relevant to the
NMSC is an application of an axiom he formulated to the existence of Q-sets:
Definition 4.3. A Q-set is an uncountable subset Y of R such that every sub set
of Y is a G li in the relative topology of Y.
[Some leave out the word "uncountable" in the definition, thus extending "Q-
set" to include every countable subset of R] The axiom Rothberger formulated
and applied is nowadays denoted l' > ~ 1, where l' is one of the standard
uncountable cardinal numbers systematically treated by van Douwen [1984].
It involves the idea of an infinite set being "almost contained" in every member
of a family of sets:
Definition 4.4. A pseudo-intersection of a family rgp of sub sets of a set X is an

infinite set A such that A \ F is finite for all F E rgp.
Some authors omit the word "infinite" in the preceding definition, thereby
allowing any finite sub setof X to be a pseudo-intersection of any filter on X.
Definition 4.5. Let qJ be the dass of all filters whose members are all infinite
subsets of a countable set. Then
p = min {I ~ I : ~ is a base for a member of qJ that has no pseudo-intersection}.
Theorem 4.6 (Rothberger [1948]). lfp > ~b there is a Q-set.
It is easy to show that the existence of a Q-set is already enough to imply

2~o = 2~1, so Rothberger [1948] was an extraordinarily bold paper. Yet it
attracted so little attention that the results of the next two sections, which
induded a re-proving of Theorem 4.6, were obtained in ignorance o~ it.
5. Collectionwise Normal, Collectionwise Hausdorff, and Metacompact

Spaces; Set-Theoretic Equivalences
Three years after Rothberger's paper appeared, Bing [1951] featured a similarly
bold theorem that applied Q-sets to the normal Moore space problem:
Theorem 5.1. Any subspace 0/ the Moore plane that meets the x-axis in a
Q-set is normal.
The Moore plane is separable, but no subset of it that meets the x-axis in
an uncountable subset is second countable; so the following is immediate from
Theorem 5.1 and the Urysohn metrization theorem:
Corollary 5.2. lf there is a Q-set, there is a separable nonmetrizable normal

Moore space.
This theorem obviously runs in the opposite direction from Jones's theorem,
and yet its use of a Q-set is just an extension of Jones's use of a -set to produce
his Frechet space-L. It is therefore interesting to speculate on how 10ng Bing
knew of Theorem 5.1 before he actually published it; perhaps he was waiting
to come up with related results that did not go out on a set-theoretic limb. And
come up with them he did! The second notable accomplishment ofBing [1951]
was the definitive metrization theorem for Moore spaces, using a concept that
is very similar to normality.
Definition 5.3. Let.stl be a collection of disjoint nonempty sets. A family OU of

sets expands .stl if for each A E .stl there exists UA E OU such that A C UA and
B n UA = 0 if B :j:. A. In case where .stl consists of singletons, we also say OU
expands U.stl.
Definition 5.4. A collection 2ll of subsets of aspace X is discrete if each point of

X has a neighborhood meeting at most one of them. Aspace X is collectionwise
Hausdorjf (often abbreviated cwH) if every c10sed discrete subspace expands
to a disjoint collection of open sets. Aspace X is collectionwise normal (often
abbreviated cwn) if every discrete collection of c10sed sets expands to a disjoint
(equivalently, discrete) collection of open sets.
Theorem 5.5. Aspace is metrizable if, and only if, it is a collectionwise normal
Moore space.
This beautiful theorem is a corollary of another theorem proven in Bing

[1951], which has come to be called the Bing Metrization Theorem.1t is Bing's
contribution to what has come to be called the Bing-Nagata-Smirnov theorem
or, justifiably, as "the solution to the metrization problem":
Theorem 5.6. Aspace is metrizable if, and only if, it is a regular space with a
a -discrete base.
As usual, the prefix a indicates countable union-a a -discrete collection

is a countable union of discrete subcollections. The Nagata-Smirnov theorem
has "a-Iocally finite" where Bing's has "a-discrete". Theorem 5.5 is almost
immediate from the sufficiency direction ofTheorem 5.6, which is the easier of
the two directions, and the following lemma.
Lemma 5.7. Every Moore space is subparacompact; that is, every open cover
has a a -discrete closed refinement.
The word "subparacompact" was introduced later, and often it is defined us-
ing "a-Iocally finite" in place of"a-discrete". The two definitions are equivalent,
cf. Theorem 3.1 Burke [1984a], which inc1udes another equivalent condition
from which Lemma 5.7 follows immediately.
Another major achievement in Bing [1951] was the first ZFC construction
of anormal space that is not collectionwise normal, widely known as "Bing's
Example G". This space is obtained by isolating all but ~1 carefully chosen
points in the product of2~1 two-point discrete spaces; these ~1 points are chosen
so that they will be a a (c1osed) discrete subspace. Since each neighborhood of
a nonisolated point contains a neighborhood that is open in the usual product
topology, we cannot expand these uncountably many points to disjoint open
sets. So Example G is not even collectionwise Hausdorff. An interesting way

to see this is to use the usual product measure on {O, 1}2l't1 , which makes every
nonempty open set have positive measure.
Definition 5.8. The product measure on a product of copies of {O, I} is the one
that assigns to each basic dopen set B the measure 2-n , where n is the number
of coordinates in which B is restricted.
For example, if B is the set B(4In) of all elements of the product {O, l}lR
that take on the value 0 at 4 and the value 1 at n, then the product measure of
B(4In) is 1/4. The entire product has measure 1, and every nonempty open set
has positive measure, so that there cannot be uncountably many disjoint open
sets.
The year before, Arens and Dugundji [1950] had introduced a concept that
would playa signmcant indirect role in the normal Moore space problem:
Definition 5.9. Aspace is metacompact if every open cover has a point-finite

open refinement.
Of course, this property simply substitutes "point-finite" for "locally finite"

in the definition of paracompactness, and for a while metacompact spaces were
even referred to as "pointwise paracompact", but it is a considerably more
general property than paracompactness; for one thing, it does not imply nor-
mality. Michael [1955] showed that aspace is paracompact if. and only if. it
is collectionwise normal and metacompact. Michael [1955] also showed that
collectionwise normality could not be weakened to normality here. This he did
by showing that the subspace of Bing's Example G consisting of all functions
of finite support was normal and metacompact, yet was not collectionwise
Hausdorff.
A remarkable pair of concepts implying metacompactness were introduced
by Alexandroff [1960] and Arhangel'skil [1962] and eventually helped spark
interest in the normal Moore space problem in the Soviet Union. Alexandroff
introduced the concept of a uniform base, and showed that spaces having them
are metacompact, while Arhangel'skil showed that the spaces which have one
are precisely the images of metrizable spaces under continuous compact open
maps.
Definition 5.10. A base ga for aspace X is uniform if each infinite subfamily

either has empty intersection or is a local base at some point of X.
Alexandroff [1960] posed the question whether every normal space with a
uniform base is metrizable. In effect, he was asking:
A HISTORY OF THE NORMAL MOORE SPACE PROBLEM 1193
Problem 5.11. Is every metacompact normal Moore space metrizable?
Indeed, Heath [1964], and, independently, Arhangel'skll showed every reg-

ular space with a uniform space is a metacompact Moore space, and vice versa.
Heath gave a neat illustration of this characterization by introducing aspace
whose definition is reminiscent of the tangent disk space and also of the Cantor
road space as embedded in the plane:
5.1. HEATH' S TANGENT V SPACE
The undedying set of the tangent V space is the c10sed upper half plane. Points
above the x-axis are isolated, while a point p on the x-axis has a neighborhood
base whose members are the union of two line segments with slopes of 1 and
-1, ending in the point p.
It is easy to see that Heath's tangent V space has a uniform base: just take
the basic neighborhoods of height 1/ n as n ranges over the positive integers.
Thus, by Heath's theorem, it is a nonmetrizable metacompact Moore space.
Also, Heath [1964] showed that the subspace formed by removing a11 but a
Q-set of points on the x -axis is normal, and also gave the definitive solution
to the "separable normal Moore space problem" by showing the converse of
Corollary 5.2, thus giving:
Theorem 5.12. There is a separable normal nonmetrizable Moore space if,

and only if, there is a Q-set.
Not long after, Bing [1964] gave a somewhat complicated set theoretic
characterization of when there is a normal Moore space that is not collectionwise
Hausdorff. Despite the title of Bing [1964] he gave no translation of the normal
Moore space problem itself into set theory, and we do not have a convenient
translation of it even now. But Bing's characterization was significant for the
reason that he also showed the set-theoretic property in question to be equivalent
to the existence of a first countable normal space that is not collectionwise
Hausdorff. [A space is first countable if every point has a countable base for its
neighborhoods.] In other words, Bing showed:
Theorem 5.13. The following are equivalent:

There is a normal Moore space that is not collectionwise HausdorJf.
There is a first countable normal space that is not collectionwise Hausdorff.
Since the c1ass of first countable spaces is far more extensive than the c1ass
of Moore spaces, this result had the effect of diverting a lot of attention from
the normal Moore space problem to:
Problem 5.14. Is there a first countable normal space that is not collectionwise
normal?
We lack a set-theoretic translation for this problem too. Tall [1972] has
come as elose as any, giving a set-theoretic translation for a related problem
that applies to all first countable spaces. It involves the following concepts.
Definition 5.15. A family :t of subsets of aspace X is normalized if, whenever
:t' c :t then there are disjoint open sets U and V such that U:t' c U and
U :t \:t' c V. :t is completely separated if it expands to a disjoint collection
of open sets.
What Tall [1972] succeeded in doing was to find a set-theoretic character-
ization of the statement, ''There is a first countable space in which there is a
normalized collection of elosed sets that is not completely separated" . As with
Bing's result, one can substitute "Moore" for "first countable". Naturally, this
led to some more speculation that Problem 5.14 is equivalent to the normal
Moore space problem, but this is still not settled (Seetion 11, Problem 7). These
ideas were further developed in Tall [1974] where the construction in Bing
[1965] was modified to produce a nonmetrizable metacompact normal Moore
space in any model where there is a normal first countable (or: Moore) space
that is not collectionwise Hausdorff.
6. The Forcing Revolution and Martin's Axiom
Now we return to the early 1960's to recall the revolution in set theory begun
by Cohen' s revolutionary discovery that the negation of CH is consistent if ZFC
is consistent. Credit for the Promethean task of generalizing Cohen's method
(known as "forcing") and making it understandable to a large mathematical
audience goes to Scott and Solovay, who introduced the general use of Boolean-
valued models, and to Shoenfeld, who showed how to do forcing with posets
in general. The new technique was to revolutionize the field of set-theoretic
topology, with the normal Moore space problem and related problems like 5.14
in the vanguard. The most common way of looking at it is to view it as taking a
countable transitive model M of the ZFaxioms, known as ''the ground model"
and carefully adding a new set G, which is a generic subset of aposet, known as
"the forcing poset". The set G is taken from the larger universe V which "knows
M is countable". A new countable transitive model, M[G], is then defined to
be the smallest transitive model of ZF within V to contain G as a member and
M as a subelass. Known as "the forcing extension", M[G] satisfies the axiom
of choice if M does, but many other axioms, like CH, do not always carry over.
Cohen himself did what is nowadays referred to as "adding ~2 Cohen reals".
If the ground model satisfies 2~1 = ~2, as it did in Cohen's original treatment,
then 2~o < 2~1 is satisfied, too. This, however, is not enough to give Q-sets,
and as it later turned out, the process of adding ~2 Cohen reals destroys all
Q-sets. The first forcing argument to produce Q-sets arose through work on the
Souslin problem. The results were curiously complementary. On the one hand,
Tennenbaum [1968] and Solovay and Tenenbaum [1971] showed that adding
~l Cohen reals [later reduced to just one Cohen real by Shelah] produces a
Souslin tree in the forcing extension. On the other hand, Martin and Solovay
[1970] showed the consistency ofthere being no Souslin trees by using an axiom
whose consistency they proved there. This axiom, known as "Martin's axiom
and the negation of the continuum hypothesis" (MA + ...,CH) was later used
to show the consistency of there being Q-sets and hence of there being normal
nonmetrizable Moore spaces. Not long thereafter, the axiom came to be applied
all over general topology, measure theory, and the theory of Boolean algebras,
and in a number of other branches of mathematics.
The Q-set result has a curious history. In 1968, while a student at the
University of Wisconsin, Franklin Tall told Jack Silver, who was there at the
time, about Bing's Q-set result, letting Silver know that he was working to show
Q-sets consistent. Silver gave an iterated forcing proof of what is called Solo-
vay's lemma in Rudin [1975], crediting it to Solovay, and using it to show the
consistency of there being Q-sets. Silver never published his proof, and it turned
out to be redundant, in the following way. Not long after Silver's result, a fellow
student ofTall at Wisconsin, David Booth, proved that Martin's Axiom implies
p = c, a result which is called "Booth's lemma" in Rudin [1975] and is also
an immediate corollary of Solovay's lemma. [Later, van Douwen showed the
conc1usions ofthe two lemmas to be equivalent.] Then Booth discovered, while
browsing through old issues of Fundamenta Mathematicae, that Rothberger had
already shown Theorem 4.6, thereby giving Silver's contribution the status of a
rediscovery.
The upshot of all this is that suddenly, the existence of nonmetrizable normal
Moore spaces was known to be consistent, inc1uding examples that were (l)
separable and locally compact (subspaces of the Cantor tree) and (2) separable
and locally connected (subspaces of the Cantor road space or of the Moore
road space or of the Moore plane). But this was far from being the end of the
applications of Martin's Axiom to the normal Moore space problem. It was
soon also applied successfully to Jones's tin can space and his road space. First,
Baumgartner, Malitz, and Reinhardt [1970] improved on Martin and Solovay's
result, showing that MA + ...,CH implies all Aronszajn trees are special. Then
Fleissner [1975] showed that special Aronszajn trees, as weIl as Jones's road
space, were normal under the same axiom. Earlier, Jones had proved, in effect,
that an Aronszajn tree is a Moore space if, and only if, it is special (for a proof
see Todorcevic [1984]). Putting these results together and extending one proof
slightly, we obtain:
Theorem 6.1. lf MA + -.CH, then every Aronszajn tree, and every road space
canonically obtained from one, is a nonmetrizable normal Moore space.
This was not the first consistency result, nor is it the last, on the subject of
normality in special Aronszajn trees; in fact, the last word on it is yet to be said
[cf. Problems 13 and 14]. We will have more to say on this at the beginning and
the end of the next section.
7. The Collectionwise HausdortT Property Again;

Special Classes of Moore Spaces
The first result on when special Aronszajn trees are normal is a corollary of a
theorem in the dissertation of Tall [1977]:
Theorem 7.1. It is consistent that every first countable normal space is ~l

collectionwise Hausdorff.
[A space is K-collectionwise HausdorjJ, abbreviated K-cwH, if every c10sed

discrete subspace of cardinality ::: K can be expanded to a family of disjoint open
sets.] While Tall was still a graduate student, working on his dissertation, Mary
Ellen Rudin, bis thesis advisor, remarked that this theorem had the corollary that
a special Aronszajn tree cannot be normal. Rudin observed that every Aronszajn
tree has an antichain meeting a stationary set of levels; since an antichain is a
c10sed discrete subspace. the Pressing-down Lemma implies that it cannot be
expanded to a disjoint collection of open sets. Hence by 7.1 and Jones's result
mentioned at the end of the last section, it is consistent that no Aronszajn tree
can be a normal Moore space.
The method of proving Theorem 7.1 is this: if the ground model has a first
countable normal space X with a c10sed discrete subspace of cardinality ~l
that is not completely separated, we force to make the space non-normal; doing
this to every such space kills all non-~l-cwH normal first countable spaces in
the ground model, and iterating this forcing through W2 stages turns out to be
enough to kill all non-~l-cwH normal first countable spaces produced at any
stage, provided an effective forcing technique is used. Tall's technique is to start
with a ground model of CH and to do the forcing known as "adding a Cohen
subset of Wl" iteratively through W2 stages. If aspace X as above appears at
the ath stage, the c10sed discrete subspace that cannot be completely separated
is identified with Wl, and the Cohen sub set G of Wl which is added next will
have the property that G and its complement in Wl cannot be put into disjoint
open sets. This continues to hold in alliater stages of the induction. The proof
of this simple idea is somewhat lengthy and technical' and can be found in Tall
[1969] and also in Tall [1984]. The key is that if Uo and Ul are open sets about
G and wl \ G then there are open sets in the ground model that mimic them
weIl enough and meet in sufficiently many points that Uo and UI will meet in
some of the same points. First countability comes into play in guaranteeing the
existence of these mimics.
Theorem 7.1 is actually the K = WI case of a general theorem of Tall [1969]
which works for all regular cardinals K, but requires that the spaces be A-cwH
for all A < K (which is automatic if K = wt) in addition to being normal. One
can work one's way up inductively for a while: after the first step we get all
normal first countable spaces to be wl-cwH, and are ready to apply the forcing
for K = W2., and so forth. This runs into complications at singular cardinals of
cofinality WI, and it took another five years before Fleissner [1974] showed the
way.
Fleissner did not use forcing for his theorem; instead he utilized some
exceptionally deep analyses by Jensen of Gdel's Constructible Universe L.
Jensen had shown that Souslin trees exist in L by using an axiom ~, which
ever since has competed with Martin's Axiom for the honor of being the most
commonly utilized set theoretic axiom in topology. Fleissner modified Jensen's
analysis and showed that L sastisfied the more demanding axiom ~ss(K) for all
regular uncountable cardinals K. In the same 1974 paper, he utilized this axiom
at regular cardinals and GCH at singular cardinals to show:
Theorem 7.2. In L, every normal space 0/ character ~ ~I is collectionwise
Hausdorff. In particular, every normal Moore space is collectionwise Hausdorff.
Proofs can be found in Fleissner [1974], [1976b] and also in Tall [1984],
which also explains how to combine Fleissner's ideas at singular cardinals
with Tall's earlier forcing arguments to show that Tall's forcing model can be
substitutedior L in Theorem 7.2. It also gives a proof of the following corollary
via a number of generalizations:
Corollary 7.3. In L, and in the reverse Easton model 0/ TaU [1969J, every
locally compact normal Moore space is metrizable.
A simple direct derivation of 7.3, by coIlapsing compact sets to points,
and applying the fact that Moore spaces are subparacompact, can be found in
Rudin [1975], who credits it to G.M. Reed. In view of the locally compact
nonmetrizable normal Moore spaces of Section 6 from Q-sets and Aronszajn
trees, this is only a consistency result. The sacrifice of local compactness to
produce local connectedness in the c10sely related road spaces was necessary for
their normality: all attempts to create modifications preserving both properties
were shot down by the remarkable ZFC result ofReed and Zenor [1976]:
Theorem 7.4. Every locally compact, 10caUy connected normal Moore space
is metrizable.
In Alster and Zenor [1977] the local compactness was relaxed to rim-
compactness, and normal Moore spaces to perfect1y normal subparacompact
spaces, with the conc1usion being that the resulting spaces are paracompact.
Gruenhage [1979] improved this further to:
Theorem 7.5. Anormal, locally connected space is paracompact ifit is either

(a) subparacompact and rim-compact or (b) ()-refinable ("submetacompact")
and locally compact.
On the other hand, Gruenhage [1984] showed that local connectedness

could not be relaxed to connectedness even in Theorem 7.4, by constructing
a counterexample under the assumption of MA + -.CH.
After Fleissner obtained Theorem 7.2, there was intense interest in the pos si-
bility of strengthening "collectionwise Hausdorff" to "collectionwise normal",
for obvious reasons. Fleissner [1976a] led the way here too, by producing a
space, whimsically called "George", which was both normal and collectionwise
Hausdorff, but not collectionwise normal. However, since its character was c, it
did not shed any direct light on the normal Moore space problem. It only served
as a warning not to expect too easy a victory.
Also in the seventies, certain paralleis between normality and countable
paracompactness came to be studied.
Definition 7.6. Aspace is countably paracompact if every countable open

cover has a locally finite refinement.
Every normal Moore space is countably paracompact, and Wage [1976]

showed that the converse fails under MA + -.CH; in fact, he created a "rnachine"
which inputs any nonmetrizable normal Moore space and outputs a countably
paracompact, non-normal Moore space. This machine can also be found in
Rudin [1984]. Research into paralieis has continued to this day; some of it will
be mentioned in Section 10. Some results of the 1970's inc1ude the results of
Fleissner, Reed, and Wage [1976] that (1) CH implies every separable, count-
ably paracompact Moore space is metrizable, and (2) that there is a separable,
countably paracompact, nonmetrizable Moore space if, and only if, there is a
L\-set of reals; L\-sets are defined similarly to Q-sets but are not identical to
them in every model of ZFC.
Around the same time, Shelah announced the construction of a nonmetriz-
able, locally compact Moore space that is compatible with CH. The axiom used
to show this is often called "Shelah's princip1e", and has to do with 2-colorings
ofladder systems. In Shelah [1977b] it is shown to be compatible even with 0,
indicating how a lot of the power of L went into Corollary 7.3. The construction
of this Moore space in Devlin and Shelah [1979b] makes use of this axiom to
show normality, and an Aronszajn tree is used indirect1y to insure that the space
is a Moore space. There is an inaccuracy in the definition which is corrected in

TaU [1984], where it appears as Example L.
The 1970's also saw a clarification ofthe question ofwhen Aronszajn trees,
and the special ones in particular, can be normal. Devlin and Shelah [1979a]
constructed several normal Aronszajn trees under 0; on the other hand Fleissner
[1974] showed that this same axiom implies no special Aronszajn tree is normal.
The proofs ofFleissner's result in Rudin [1975] and TaU [1984] are faulty: were
they correct, we would know that 0 implies that no normal Aronszajn tree can
contain a stationary antichain; as it is, this is Problem 14 of Section 11.
Fleissner's theorem has been superseded by the theorem of Devlin and
Shelah [1979b]:
Theorem 7.7. 2~o < 2~1 implies that special Aronsajn trees are never normal.
The key was a pair of O-like axioms, that Devlin and Shelah [1978] showed
to follow from 2~o < 2~1. Taylor [1981] simplified the proof of 7.7 while
showing the two axioms are actuaUy equivalent to 2~o < 2~1, and Nyikos
[1981] gives an interpretation of the two axioms which makes it very easy to
see that they imply 2~o < 2~1. Both Tall [1981] and Nyikos [1981] comment on
the irony of Jones's own axiom 2~o < 2~1 implying that Jones's tin can space
and road space are never normal.
On the other hand, Shelah [1982], [1999] has constructed a model of CH
in which there is a special Aronszajn tree which is countably paracompact.
This is in contrast to the situation as regards separable Moore spaces, where
CH implies the countably paracompact ones are aU metrizable. The question
of whether there is any such contrast for the property of normality is still open
(Problem 13).
8. Universal Moore Spaces; Collectionwise Normality

and Large Cardinals
Now it is time to begin the account of what led to the first general consistency
proof for the NMSC. The path was a very indirect one, and the proof outlined
here is not the direct proof one can find in such places as Nyikos [1980a]
and Fleissner [1984]. It began with the construction of universal Moore spaces
by Rudin and Starbird [1977]. These spaces were universal for the properties
that Bing and TaU had given set-theoretic characterizations for, as recounted
in Section 5. One class of spaces consisted of Moore spaces that are normal
in ZFC; the class includes a nonmetrizable member if, and only if there is a
first countable normal space that is not collectionwise Hausdorff. The other
consisted of Moore spaces, designated TA for the various infinite cardinals A.,
each with a discrete collection of closed, strongly zero-dimensional metrizable
subsets. In any model in which there is a first countable space in which there
is a normalized family of 'A dosed sets that cannot be separated, TA is such a
space.
Unfortunately, T).. cannot be normal under these circumstances. Although
the points outside the discrete family 6 = {Ca : a < K} of dosed sets are
isolated, and although the Ca themselves are metrizable, it is still possible to
split U 6 into two disjoint dosed sets that cannot be put into disjoint open sets
unless the space is metrizable. The trick, shown in detail in Rudin and Starbird
[1977], is to break up each Ca into halves that mimic each other well enough so
that putting the union of the ''upper halves" and the union of the "lower halves"
into disjoint open sets makes it possible to define a disjoint open expansion of
6 itself. The resulting open sets are automatically dopen, and together with
the remaining isolated points they form a partition of the space into dopen
metrizable chunks.
In November of 1977, I worked out a way to take advantage ofthe fact that
the dosed sets are strongly zero-dimensional and metrizable, to produce a dass
of normal Moore spaces of this kind. Whimsically named "'A-sauri", in Nyikos
[1980c], they have the universal property that if there is a normal Moore space
in which there is a discrete collection of 'A strongly-zero dimensional dosed
subsets which cannot be completely separated, then 'A-saums is such aspace.
My hope was that it would turn out that some T).. is not collectionwise normal
and that the proof could be modified to show that 'A-saums is not collectionwise
normal either, hence is a ZFC example of a nonmetrizable normal Moore space.
The first possibility is mentioned with interest at the end of Rudin and Starbird
[1977]. However, things worked out very differently, and the inspiration came
from the same Rudin-Starbird paper--or, rather, from some conversations I had
had with Starbird back in 1976 about its contents.
At that time, Starbird told me about a modification (see below) of the
following infinite game, played by Players A and B in opposition to Dealer
C. There is an infinite set X fixed in advance, and C has two infinite decks of
cards, {An} ~ I and {B n }~ I and each card An or B n lists a set of functions from
X to 0, 1. The two players are not allowed to exchange information once the
game begins. It begins with the dealer separately handing each player a slip of
paper determining an element (a and b, respectively, with a ::/= b) of X. The
goal of Players A and B is to collect enough cards so that there is a function
f : X --+ {O, I} that splits a from b, and that appears both on a card held by
Player A and one held by Player B.
On the first turn the dealer deals Al to A and BI to B. On the nth turn, a
player still active can either request the nth card from the corresponding deck,
or else can say "Stop", becoming inactive until the end. The game ends if A
and B have both said "Stop". The two-player team of A and B wins if either (1)
the game continues for (J) moves and either U~l An or U~l B n fails to be all
of 2 X or (2) the game stops after finitely many steps and Players A and B have
eolleeted enough eards to aehieve their goal.
If A and B knew the identity of a and b in advanee, they eould agree on a
funetion f as above, and eaeh eould stay in the game until f turns up on one
of his eards. As it is, ~ey ean be assured of winning if X is eountable-they
need only let X = {x n : n E w}, and A [resp. B] waits until all eharaeteristie
funetions of the singletons {xd up to X n = a [resp. X m = b] appear on the
eards he has eolIeeted-but that is the best they ean do "in ZFC". All this also
applies to the aetual Starbird game, where Dealer C lays out all the eards for
the respeetive players, face up, and eaeh picks up a finite hand. Otherwise the
games are the same: in Starbird's game, it is as if both Player A and Player
B had perfeet foreknowledge of all the plays in the game I have described.
Whether this ever makes any differenee as to A and B being guaranteed a win
is Problem 15 of Seetion 11. What was elear already to Starbird in 1976 is
that if Player A and Player B ean always win his game for a given A, then
T).. is eolIeetionwise normal and henee metrizable; and so the Normal Moore
Spaee Conjeeture (NMSC) foUows, along with all the stronger results already
mentioned, if there is no restrietion on A.
The story of what thought processes oeeurred in between these eonversations
and theNovember 1977 breakthroughhas been toldinNyikos [1980b], an artiele
that elosed with a personal eomment of the sort that was fashionable in the days
of Sylvester and Poineare, but seems to have beeome of questionable taste in the
meantime. My reason for writing it is that, just a little over a month before the
breakthrough, I had had a very elose brush with death that had made me aeutely
aware of my mortality, and I didn't want to have to wait many deeades for a
more appropriate opportunity to make these details known. Suffiee it here to say
that I dimly remembered at the right moment that somewhere [Solovay [1971],
as I found out a few days later] it had been shown eonsistent, modulo very large
cardinals, that Lebesgue measure, and with it the usual measure on the Cantor
set (in other words, 2W ), ean be extended to eountably additive measures defined
on every subset of the realline and the Cantor set, respeetively. This is enough
to show that Players A and B ean win the Starbird game for eountable X without
looking at their slips of paper. The usual (produet) measure f..t has f..t(2 x ) = 1;
and, for any pair a, b of distinet points, the set B(alb) of a11 funetions f
satisfying f(a) = 1, f(b) = 0 has measure 1/4. Eaeh player eontinues until the
set of funetions listed on his eards has measure > 7/8. Then the set of funetions
listed on both sets of eards has measure > 3/4, henee meets B(alb), as desired
by Players A and B.
The foregoing argument goes through verbatim for any set X, no matter
how large, provided one assumes the folIowing axiom-and then the whole
maehinery of Rudin and Starbird kicks in to give us NMSC and mueh else.
8.1. THE PRODUCT MEASURE EXTENSION AXIOM (PMEA)
The Product Measure Extension Axiom (PMEA) is that, for any set X, the usual
product measure on the set 2 x can be extended to "e-additive" measure defined
on every subset of 2 x . [A measure is e-additive if the union of fewer than e sets
of measure 0 is likewise of measure 0.]
Kunen had written, but never published, a proof that the PMEA is consistent
if it is consistent that there is a strongly compact cardinal. Strongly compact
cardinals come quite far up in the large cardinal hierarchy, higher even than mea-
surable cardinals and just below supercompact ones. [A fine article on the subject
of large cardinals is Kanamori and Magidor [1978], and Kanamori [1997] is a
whole book on the subject. For those desiring a more elementary introduction,
there is the fascinating article by Maddy [1988] with a philosophical twist.]
Many people, including mys elf, had mixed feelings about this solution to
NMSC. In my case, besides the shakiness of relying on such large cardinals,
there was also a feeling of sadness akin to what many have experienced over the
disappearance of any problem that lent focus to a large body of mathematical
activity. For although the NMSC was not really settled by this result, its character
was irrevocably changed. Moreover, it was a solution in the "wrong" direction:
like most people working on the problem, I had been striving to build a ZFC
example of a normal Moore space. Frank Tall was an exception, hoping for
an independence result. Tall [1979] expressed the mathematical situation in the
following terms:
Is then the normal Moore space problem solved? No! The assumption of
the consistency of a strongly compact cardinal is too strong. It may in fact
be false. What is needed is a proof that if there is a model of set theory,
then there is one in which every normal Moore space is metrizable, and
this is still open. A pessimistic conjecture would be that if every normal
Moore space is metrizable, then there is a large cardinal. This would place
the problem in a strange sort of limbo in that there would be little hope for
an example and no hope for a consistency theorem.
This "pessimistic conjecture" was amply verified by Fleissner [1982], [1983].
Yet, even before this happened, TaU [1980] wholeheartedly embraced results
faUing into this very limbo, and campaigned for the use of cardinals larger even
than strongly compact ones. We will see a few of these uses in the area of
collectionwise normality in Section 10.
9. Normal Moore Spaces from eH and from Very Weak Assumptions
How did Fleissner do it? The inspiration came from a seemingly unrelated
problem, that of whether every regular para-Lindelf space isparacompact.
Definition 9.1. Aspace is para-Lindelj if every open cover has a locally

countable open refinement.
In other words, we weaken "finite" to "countable" in the definition of

"paracompact". The problem, attributed by Tall to Heath, had already influenced
research on the normal Moore space problem in Tall [1977], [1979] and Fleissner
and Reed [1977], the latter showing that every para-Lindelf regular space is
collectionwise Hausdorff. The problem was finally solved by a student of Mary
Ellen Rudin, a young woman named Caryn Navy who had been blind since the
age of eleven! She "killed" the problem by not only finding a ZFC example
of anormal para-Lindelf space that is not paracompact, but also by finding
one that was a normal Moore space under MA(CtJI). The magnitude of her
achievement can perhaps best be appreciated by observing that the new ideas in
her construction were the chief new ingredients used by Fleissner [1982], [1983],
[1984] to construct a nonmetrizable normal Moore space using CH alone. In
other words, aspace that had been avidly sought for almost fifty years was
constructed by Fleissner using an axiom that had been around for a long time
before even that, and which had been shown consistent over forty years earlier!
Fleissner's CH example was presented at the SETOP conference in the
summer of 1980. Unbeknownst to anyone else, Fleissner then conceived of
a remarkable extension of the methods in his construction, to which he put
the finishing touches just before a conference at Oberwolfach on set-theoretic
topology in January 1981-a conference to which he had not been invited! We
who did attend that conference, inc1uding several who had done research on the
normal Moore space problem, had no idea how he had done it when we heard
the news. The news was that Fleissner had constructed a nonmetrizable normal
Moore space similar to his CH example, but using such weak axioms that what
Tall had called a "pessimistic conjecture" was amply confirmed:
Theorem 9.2. Ifthere is a model rot ojZFC in which there are no normal Moore
spaces, then in rot there is an inner model with a proper dass oj measurable
cardinals.
As is usual in such theorems, Fleissner had applied a combinatorial con-

sequence of Covering(V, K), the axiom that the Covering Lemma holds over
what is known as the Core Model K. This is an inner model of ZFC+GCH in
which certain combinatorial axioms hold, and some of these carry over to any
larger universe V which has the covering lemma over K. This is even weaker
than having it hold over the constructible universe L: whereas Covering(V, L)
is equivalent to the nonexistence of 0#, Covering(V, K) fails only if there are
inner models with proper c1asses of measurable cardinals. [Harking back to
Bing's homespun comments, we also have Covering (V, L) equivalent to there
being uncountably many reals in L!] Fleissner used a modest consequence of
1204 PElER J. NYIKOS
Covering(V, K): the existence of a singular strong limit cardinal K of cofinality

w satisfying 2K = K+, such that E (K+) holds:
Axiom 9.3. Given a cardinal number 'A of uncountable cofinality, E('A) is the
axiom that there is a stationary set E C 'A consisting of ordinals of countable
cofinality, such that E n is nonstationary in for all < 'A.
A detailed construction appears in Fleissner [1983]. It is by far the more

complicated half of our present solution to the normal Moore space problem,
and together with the 1977 PMEA result, it represents a satisfactory, albeit
unusual, resolution to the NMSC. The construction was outlined in a research
announcement (Fleissner [1982]) in the Proceedings 0/ the National Academy
0/ Sciences USA, where mathematical announcements are very much in the
minority, and more liberally in Fleissner [1984] where the similarity with his
earlier CH example is brought out.
10. Aftermath
After Fleissner's epochal breakthrough, research on the NMSC shifted to ana-

lyzing the process whereby it is forced to be true, as will be explained later on
in this section. But first, we examine some topics inspired by the NMSC that
have strong paralIeIs with it, on which research intensified in the wake of the
resolution of NMSC itself. The most natural offshoot is the one where countable
paracompactness (Definition 7.6) replaces normality. Burke [1984b] solved what
might be called "the countably paracompact Moore space problem" as one item
in a remarkable series of paralIeis to the PMEA results on the NMSC:
Theorem 10.1. The PMEA implies that every countably paracompact space 0/
character less than c is expandable.
[A space is expandable if every locally finite collection of c10sed sets

expands in one-to-one fashion to a locally finite collection of open sets.]
Corollary 10.2. The PMEA implies every countably paracompact Moore space
is metrizable.
For the next theorem of Burke [1984b], recall that space is strongly col-
lectionwise HausdorjJ [abbreviated scwH] if every c10sed discrete subspace
expands to a discrete collection of open sets.
Theorem 10.3. The PMEA implies every countably paracompact space 0/

character less than c is scwH.
Every normal cwH space is easily shown to be scwH, but the argument
does not go through if countable paracompactness is substituted for normality.
In fact, although we know that every first countable normal space is cwH (and
hence scwH) in the constructible universe L (Theorem 7.2), the best we have
for countable paracompactness so far (see Problem 8 (a) of Section 11) is the
result of Watson [1985]:
Theorem 10.4. In L, every regular, countably paracompact space of charac-
ter :s c (hence every countably paracompact Moore space) is collectionwise
Hausdorff.
Earlier, Watson [1982] had showed a striking parallel to the foregoing
results:
Theorem 10.5. In L, every locally compact normal space is collectionwise
Hausdorff.
In Watson [1985] he posed the question ofwhether countable paracompact-
ness can be substituted for normality. This is still unsolved (Problem 8 (b.
He and other Torontoans, particularly Frank TaU, worked intensivelyon the
problem of getting every 10caUy compact normal space to be collectionwise
normal in some model. The models they looked at inc1uded the one in which
Kunen first showed PMEA to be consistent: the one obtained by starting with
a ground model with a strongly compact cardinal K in it and forcing with the
usual poset for adding Krandom reals. In Fleissner [1984] the actual process is
shown whereby this forcing destroys the normality of aU spaces of character less
than c that are not collectionwise normal; the ideas are much the same as in TaU
[1977] except that random reals are added and K is assumed to be supercompact
rather than just strongly compact. Dow [1983] showed how Cohen reals could
be substituted for random reals. The salient ideas in this area are outlined in TaU
[1984]; he and Weiss subsequently worked out the details of dovetailing forcing
with elementary embeddings j that one obtains in the ground model when there
is a supercompact cardinal. These techniques were utilized by Balogh in his
dramatic announcement at the STACY conference in Toronto in 1987:
Theorem 10.6. If supercompact many random reals are added to a model of
set theory, then every locally compact normal space is collectionwise normal in
the forcing extension.
The proof appears in Balogh [1991], along with a proof of the following
parallel of Burke's result:
Theorem 10.7. lf supercompact many random reals are added to a model of set
theory, then every locally compact countably paracompact space is expandable
and scwH.
1206 PETER 1. NYIKOS
Fleissner [1991] gives an alternative proof using the Normal Measure Ex-
tension Axiom which he formulated. It uses measures in the same spirit as the
PMEA uses them to solve NMSC, but the proof is much more lengthy and
intricate.
11. What's Left?
We begin this final section with an echo of Frank Tall's 1979 question: is then
the normal Moore space problem solved? One response that is there is still a
seemingly minor but theoretically pregnant gap between the consistency strength
of a strongly compact cardinal and the denial of the combinatorial lemmas
that Fleissner used to construct bis nonmetrlzable normal Moore space. There
are two natural ways to try and elose this gap. One is to engineer a major
breakthrough in inner model theory, doing for strongly compact cardinals what
Dodd and Jensen did for measurable ones in conjunction with the Core Model
K. To paraphrase the title of Fleissner [1983], one can try to show that if all
normal Moore spaces are metrlzable, then there is an inner model with a strongly
compact cardinal.
The less ambitious approach is to try to obtain NMSC under weaker condi-
tions, a hope already expressed in Tall [1979]. One inspiration here is the most
unexpected resolution of the consistency strength of the Axiom of Determinacy
(AD) in terms of Woodin cardinals, after the quest for a consistency result
for AD in terms of any large cardinals whatsoever was widely deemed to be
hopeless.
There always remains the possibility that strongly compact cardinals can be
shown to be inconsistent and even that there is actually a ZFC example of a
nonmetrlzable normal Moore space; however, until the gap is elosed, we will
not know whether the first result entails the second. Of course, one can never
rule out the inconsistency of measurable or even much smaller large cardinals
either, but there is a significant difference between them and strongly compact
cardinals, which goes back to the fact that no inner model theory is yet known
for them. The difference is this: combinatorial principles like E(K+) and <>K at
singular cardinals, while they are 'very weak' in the sense that negating them
entails inner models with a proper elass of measurables, are nevertheless quite
effective in giving intricate inductive constructions that seem intractable without
them. See for example the construction of Juhasz, Nagy, and Weiss [1982] of
"arbitrarily large" first countable locally compact countably compact spaces,
whose construction seems unable to jump the hurdle at singular cardinals K of
countable cofinality (where there are no such spaces of that cardinality) without
something like <>K'
The construction in this paper does not really need GCH, but only the axiom
that the poset ([K]Cu, ~) has cofinality K+ for singular cardinals of countable
cofinality. This holds in any model of Covering(V, K) and so the whole con-
struction goes through in such a model. On the other hand, we have no idea
to this day how the construction of locally compact, countably compact, first
countable spaces of arbitrarily large cardinality can be carried out just assuming
ZFC.
It is also noteworthy that showing that these "weak" axioms hold in the
constructible universe L takes much longer than showing that ~ and even
stronger axioms hold in L. This suggests that even the ''weakest'' prlnciples
do not follow from ZFC alone and that it is therefore consistent that there is
a proper class of measurable cardinals. This is quite aseparate issue from the
outright existence of measurable cardinals and other large cardinals, which is one
ofthe main issues discussed by Maddy [1988]. Their actual existence is as much
a philosophical issue as a mathematical one, whereas their consistency can be
expressed unambiguously in the claim that one can never reach a contradiction
by the usual methods of logic if their existence is added to the ZFC axioms.
Any contradiction would have to come at the end of a finite series of rigorous,
formalizable steps, and so the question of whether such a contradiction exists is
one that is, in principle, decidable.
There are also a number of unsolved problems which seem sufficiently close
to the normal Moore space problem to be worth mentioning here.
1. Does 2toto < 2tot1 imply the existence of a nonmetrizable normal Moore
space?
2. How small can c be with NMSC?
a. Is NMSC consistent with c = ~2?
b. Does NMSC imply c is weakly inaccessible?
3. Does the existence of a nonmetrizable normal Moore space imply the

existence of one that is metacompact?
4. Does the metrizability of all normal Moore spaces of cardinality less than
.Jw require large cardinal axioms? is it equiconsistent with the existence of
an uncountable measurable cardinal?
For the next question, we use the following terminology: aspace is
paranormal if every countable discrete collection of closed sets expands to
a 10caUy finite collection. This is a useful common weakening of normality
and countable paracompactness. Burke [1984b] extended Theorem 10.3 to
paranormal spaces but could not quite do it for 10.1:
5. Does ZFC imply the existence of a nonmetrizable paranormal Moore space?

1208 PETER 1. NYlKOS
Next recall that a submetrizable space is one which has a coarser metriz-
able topology. Frank Tall and Steve Watson have an unpublished proof of the
consistency of there being a normal Moore space that is not submetrizable,
using a model due to Shelah [1977b].
6. Are large cardinals needed for the statement, "Every normal Moore space
is submetrizable"?
7. Is the NMSC equivalent to the statement that every first countable normal
space is collectionwise normal?
8. Does V = L imply (a) that all countably paracompact (or all paranor-
mal) locally compact spaces are cwH? (b) that all countably paracompact
(or all paranormal) first countable spaces are scwH? Is either conc1usion
equiconsistent with ZFC?
The following question is c1early inspired by the Reed-Zenor theorem
(7.4):
9. Is every locally compact, locally connected, countably paracompact (or

paranormal) Moore space metrizable?
10. Is it consistent, modulo large cardinals, that every first countable ~l
collectionwise Hausdorff space is collectionwise Hausdorff?
11. Is CH enough to imply the existence of a locally compact normal space that
is not collectionwise normal?
12. Are large cardinals needed for a model where alilocally compact normal
spaces are collectionwise normal?
The last two are, of course, inspired by Fleissner's early 80's results where
"first countable" replaced "locally compact".
Here are some more specialized problems of a set theoretic nature:
13. Is the existence of a Q-set equivalent to the existence of a special normal

Aronszajn tree?
A "Yes" answer would be full of irony as far as Jones's search for a non-
metrizable normal Moore space is concemed. The following is a corrective
for some erroneous statements mentioned earlier:
14. Is 0 enough to imply that every normal Aronszajn tree is collectionwise

Hausdorff?
15. Is the modified Starbird game in Section 9 equivalent to the original, in

the sense that if 9Jt is a model of set theory in which Players A and B can
always win the Starbird game, then in rot they ean always win the modified
Starbird game as well?
Acknowledgements
I take this opportunity to thank Howard Beeker, Judith Roitman, Mary Ellen
Rudin, and Frank Tall for their helpful information about historie al events. Any
inaeeuracies or oversights that remain are my responsibility.
References
Alexandroff, P.S. (1960) On the metrization oftopological spaces, Bull. Acad. Pol. Sei.
Sero Math. 8, 135-140 (in Russian).
Arens, R. and Dugundji, J. (1950) Remarks on the concept of compactness, Portugalie
Math. 9, 141-143.
Arhangel'skii, A.V. (1962) On mappings ofmetric spaces, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 145,
245-247 =Soviet Math. Dokl. 3,953-956.
Balogh, z. (1991) On collectionwise normality of locally compact, nonnal spaces,
Transactions AMS 323,389-411.
Baumgartner, J.E., Malitz, J.1. and Reinhardt, W. (1970) Embedding trees in the
rationals, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sei. USA 67,1748-1753.
Bing, RH (1951) Metrization oftopological spaces, Canad. J. Math. 3, 175-186.
_ _ (1964) A translation of the nonnal Moore space conjecture, Proceedings AMS,
16, 612-619.
_ _ (1981) Metrization problems, in General Topology and Modem Analysis, L.F.
McAuley and M.M. Rao (eds.), Academic Press, pp. 3-16.
Burke, D.K. (1984a) Covering properties, in Handbook 0/ Set-Theoretic Topology, K.
Kunen and J. Vaughan (eds.), North-Holland, pp. 347-422.
_ _ (1984b) PMEA and first countable, countably paracompact spaces, Proceedings
AMS 92, 455-460.
Chaber, J. and Zenor, P.L. (1977) On perfect subparacompactness and a metrization
theorem for Moore spaces, Topology Proc. no. 2, 2, 401-407.
Devlin, K.J. and Shelah, S. (1978) A weak version of ~ which follows from 2~o < 2~1,
Israel 1. Math. 29, 239-247.
_ _ (1979a) Souslin properties and tree topologies, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 39,
237-252.
_ _ (1979b) A note on the nonnal Moore space conjecture, Canad. J. Math. 31,
241-251.
Dow, A. (1983) Remote points in large products, Top. Appl. 16, 11-17.
Fleissner, W.G. (1974) Nonnal Moore spaces in the constructible universe, Proceedings
AMS 46, 294-298.
_ _ (1975) When is Jones' space nonnal? Proceedings AMS 50, 375-378.
_ _ (1976a) Anormal, collectionwise Hausdorff, not collectionwise normal space,

Gen. Top. Appl. 6,57-71.
_ _ (1976b) An introduction to normal Moore spaces in the constructible universe,
Topology Proceedings 1, 47-55.
_ _ (1982) Normal nonmetrizable Moore spaces from continuum hypothesis or
nonexistence of inner models with measurable cardinals, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sei. USA
79, 1371-1372.
_ _ (1983) If all normal Moore spaces are metrizable, then there is an inner model
with a measurable cardinal, Transactions AMS 273, 365-373.
_ _ (1984) The normal Moore space conjecture and large cardinals, in Handbook
0/ Set-Theoretic Topology, K. Kunen and J. Vaughan (eds.), North-Holland, pp.
733-760.
_ _ (1991) Normal measure axiom and Balogh's theorems, Top. Appl. 39, 123-143.
Fleissner, w.G. and Reed, G.M. (1977) Paralindelf spaces and spaces with a u-Iocally
countable base, Topology Proc. 2, 89-110.
Fleissner, w.G., Reed, G.M. and Wage, M. (1976) Normality versus countable
paracompactness in perfect spaces, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 82,635-639.
Gdel, K. (1939) Consistency proof for the generalized continuum hypothesis, Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sei. USA 25, 220.
_ _ (1947) What is Cantor's continuum problem? Amer. Math. Monthly 54,515-25.
Gruenhage, G. (1979) Paracompactness in normal, locally connected, locally compact
spaces, Top. Proc. 4, 393-405.
_ _ (1984) Two normallocally compact spaces under Martin's Axiom, Top. Proc. 9,
297-306.
Heath, RW. (1964) Screenability, pointwise paracompactness and metrization ofMoore
spaces, Canad. J. Math. 16,763-770.
Jones, F.B. (1937) Concerning normal and completely normal spaces, Bulletin AMS 43,
671-677
_ _ (1966) Remarks on the normal Moore space metrization problem, Ann. Math.
Studies 60, 115-120.
_ _ (1997) The beginning 0/ topology in the United States and the Moore school,
in Handbook 0/ the History 0/ General Topology, vol. 1, C.E. Aull and R Lowen
(eds.), Kluwer Academic, 97-103.
Juhasz, 1., Nagy, Z. and Weiss, W. (1982) On countably compact, locally countable
spaces, Period. Math. Hung. 10, 193-206.
Kanamori, A. (1997) The Higher Infinite: Large Cardinals in Set Theory from the
Beginning, Springer-Verlag.
Kanamori, A. and Magidor, M. (1978) The evolution of large cardinal axioms in set
theory, in Higher Set Theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 669, Springer-
Verlag, 99-275.
Kuratowski, C. (1933) Sur une famille d'ensembles singuliers, Fund. ,Math. 21, 127-
128.
Kurepa, D. (1935) Ensembles ordonnes et ramifies, Publ. Math. Univ. Belgrade 4,
1-138.
_ _ (1942) Apropos d'une generalisation de la notion d'ensembles bien ordonnes,
Acta Mathematica 75, 139-150.
Maddy, P. (1988) Believing the axioms 11, l. Symbolic Logic 53, 736-764.
Martin, D.A. (1976) Hilbert's first problem: the continuum hypothesis, in Mathematical
Developments Arisingfrom Hilbert Problems, vol. 28 in the Proceedings of Symposia
in Pure Mathematics, AMS, pp. 81-92.
Martin, D.A. and Solovay, RM. (1970) Internal Cohen extensions, Ann. Math. Logic 2,
143-178.
Michael, E. (1955) Point-finite and locally finite coverings, Canad. J. Math. 7,275-279.
Moore, RL. (1932) Foundations 0/ Point-set Theory, American Mathematical Society,
CoUoquium Publications 13. Revised 1962.
_ _ (1935) A set ofaxioms for plane analysis situs, Fund. Math. 25, 13-28.
Nyikos, P.J. (1980a) A provisional solution to the normal Moore space problem,
Proceedings AMS 78, 429-435.
_ _ (1980b) The normal Moore space problem, Topology Proceedings, no. 2, 3
(1978),473-493.
_ _ (1980c) Some normal Moore spaces, CoU. Math. Soc. lanos Bolyai 23,883-903.
_ _ (1981) Axioms, theorems, and problems related to the Jones lemma, in General
Topology and Modem Analysis, L.F. McAuley and M.M. Rao (eds.), Academic
Press, pp. 441-449.
_ _ (1989) The Cantor tree and the Frechet-Urysohn property, in Papers on general
topology and related category theory and algebra, Ralph Kopperman et al. (eds.),
Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 552, 109-123.
Reed, G.M. and Zenor, P.L. (1976) Metrization of Moore spaces and generalized
manifolds, Fund. Math. 91, 203-209.
Rothberger, F. (1948) On some problems of Hausdorff and of Sierpinski, Fund. Math.
35,29-46.
Rudin, M.E. (1955) Countable paracompactness and Souslin's problem, Canad, l. Math.
7,543-547.
_ _ (1969) Souslin's conjecture, Amer. Math. Monthly, 76, 1113-1119.
_ _ (1975) Lectures on Set Theoretic Topology, CBMS Lecture Notes vol. 23,
American Mathematical Society.
_ _ (1984) Dowker spaces, in Handbook 0/ Set-Theoretic Topology, K. Kunen and
J. Vaughan (eds.), North-Holland, pp. 761-780.
Rudin, M.E. and Starbird, M. (1977a) Some examples ofnormal Moore spaces, Canad,
l. Math. 29,84-92.
Shelah, S. (1977a) Whitehead groups may not be free, even assuming CH, 1., Israel l.
Math. 28, 193-204.
_ _ (1977b) Remarks on A-collectionwise Hausdorff spaces, Topology Proc. 2,583-
592.
_ _ (1982) Proper Forcing, Lecture Notes in Mathematics vol. 940, Springer-Verlag.
_ _ (1999) Proper and Improper Forcing, Springer-Verlag.
Solovay, RM. (1971) Real-valued measurable cardinals, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 13,
397-428.
Solovay, RM. and Tennenbaum, S. (1971) Iterated Cohen extensions and Souslin's
problem, Ann. Math. 94, 201-245.
Souslin (1920) Probleme 3, Fund. Math. 1,223.
Steen, L.A. and Seebach, J.A. (1978) Counterexamples in Topology (Second edition)
Springer-Verlag.
TaU, F.D. (1972) A set-theoretic proposition implying the metrizability ofnormal Moore
spaces, Proceedings AMS 33,195-198.
_ _ (1974) On the existence of normal metacompact Moore spaces which are not
metrizable, Canad. 1. Math. 26, 1-6.
_ _ (1977) Set-theoretic consistency results and topological theorems concerning the
normal Moore space conjecture and related problems, Ph.D. dissertation, University
ofWisconsin, 1969; Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.) 148, 1-53.
_ _ (1979) The normal Moore space problem, in Topological Structures ll, Part 2,
P.C. Baayen and J. van Mill (eds.), Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam 115,
243-261.
_ _ (1980) Large cardinals for topologists, in Surveys in General Topology, G.M.
Reed (ed.), Academic Press, pp. 445-477.
_ _ (1981) Witnessing normality, in General Topology and Modern Analysis, L.F.
McAuley and M.M. Rao (eds.), Academic Press, pp. 309-315.
_ _ (1984) Normality versus coUectionwise normality, in Handbook of Set-Theoretic
Topology, K. Kunen and J. Vaughan (eds.), North-Holland, pp. 685-732.
Taylor, A.D. (1981) Diamond principles, ideals and the normal Moore space problem,
Canad. 1. Math. 33, 282-296.
Tennenbaum, S. (1968) Souslin's problem, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sei. USA 59, 60-63.
Todorcevic (1984) Trees and linearly ordered sets, in Handbook of Set-Theoretic
van Douwen, E. (1984) The integers and topology, in Handbook of Set-Theoretic
Wage, M.L. (1976) Countable paracompactness, normality, and Moore spaces, Proceed-
ings AMS 57, 183-188.
Watson, W.S. (1982) Locally compact normal spaces in the constructible universe,
Canad. 1. Math. 34, 1091-1096.
_ _ (1985) Separation in countably paracompact spaces, AMS Transactions 290,
831-842.
Willard, S. (1970) General Topology, Addison-Wesley.
INDEX
Aarts, 886 Balogh, 1205

Abelian topological group, 1040 Banach, 1056
absolutely closed, 1044 Banaschewski, 840
absolutely resolvable group, 1121 Bastiani, 973, 998
abstract lattice theory, 837 Batanin, 1155
Admnek, 1004, 1006, 1008 Bauer, 1152, 1155
Alderton, 1005 Benabou, 839
Aleksandrov, 1146 Bentle~858,984,999, 1004
Alexander, 1146 Bentley's T-categories, 989
Alexandroff,1192 Bestvina, 1150, 1154
algebra, 1054 bicomplete, 877
almost metrizable, 1087 Bing, 1188, 1193
almost open, 1056 Bing-Nagata-Smirnov criterion, 1034
amnestie,991 Binz, 978, 999
annihilator, 1065 birefiective, 993
antichain, 1187 Birkhoff, 974
Antoine, 1003 bisequential spaces, 1035
Antoine's Complete Categories, 986 bitopological spaces, 859
Antonino, 909 Blackadar, 1154
Approach Quasi-uniformities, 935 Blatter, 897
approach space, 936, 997 Boardman, 1153
Approach Spaces, 935 Bogatyi, 1149
approach structure, 997 Boolean algebra, 837
approaching mappings, 1152 bomological uniform spaces, 1004
approximate fibrations, 1151 Borsuk, 1146, 1148, 1149, 1160
approximate homotopy lifting property, 1151 boundary of a group, 1154
Arhangel'ski'i, 1193 boundedly paracompact, 872
Arhangel'ski'i, 1043, 1116 Bourbaki, 981
Aronszajn tree, 1196 Bourdaud,939, 1003, 1005
Aronszajn trees, 1195 Boxer, 1158
Artin, 1148 Bratelli, 1154
Ascoli theorem, 977 Brock,939
asymptotic dimension, 1160 Brouwer, 1160
attractors, 1163 Brown, 864,911,1056
Brown L.Go, 1155
backward Cauchy nets, 889 Brown Mo, 1146
Baire Category Theorem, 1184 Brmmer, 857
Baire category theorem, 1066 Brmmer's lnitially Complete Categories, 987
Baire property, 1106 Bucher, 978, 998
Baisnab,919 bunch of topological spaces, 1106
Balaguer, 880 Burke,871
balanced category, 1158 Burton [Jones], 1181
Ball,1159 Butzmann, 977, 978
1214 INDEX
C* -algebras, 846, 1154 coframe, 842

Cantor cube, 1088 Cohen, 1194
Cantor tree, 1185 coherent expansion, 1153
Cantor-connectedness, 937 coherent homotopy eategory, 1152
Cardinal invariants, 1077 coherent mapping, 1153
Carlson, 868 cohomotopy groups, 1164
Cartan, 973, 1042 collectionwise Hausdorff, 1191, 1197
Carter, 879 collectionwise normal, 1191
cartesian closed, 999 Comfort, 1030, 1039
cartesian closed topological construet, 1000 commutative, 1031
Cartesian closed topologieal hull, 875, 939 compact eonvergence, 901
eartesian closed topologieal hull, 1003,939 compact-open topology, 901, 977
Cartesian elosedness, 998 compactification, 994
categorieal shape theory, 1154 complement theorem, 1151
categorieal topology, 997 eomplete, 992
eategory of loeales, 843 complete lattice, 992
Cathey, 1152 completely separated, 1194
Cauehy bounded, 879 completion, 1049, 1051
Cauehy filters, 980 Conley index, 1162, 1163
Cauehy space, 981 connected group, 1075
Ceeh,973, 1146, 1158 continua, 1155
Ceeh homology, 1146 continuity space, 920
Ceeh homology group, 1148, 1155 continuous convergence, 977, 978
Ceeh system, 1147 continuous system, 1162
Ceeh-closure, 973 Continuum Hypothesis, 1046
Ceeh-closure spaces, 973 convergenee spaee, 977
Ceeh-Stone eompaetifieation, 937 Cook,976
Ceeh-Stone eompactifieation, 1158, 1159 Cook and Fisher, 973
cell-like mappings, 1146 Cooke,911
cellularity, 1082 Coram, 1151
eellularity criterion, 1151 Cordier, 1153-1155
Cerin, 1149, 1158 coseparator, 992
Chabauty topology, 1069 cosmie property, 1161
Chapman, 1150, 1151, 1157 countable compactness, 1049
Chattopadhyay, 868 eountable pseudocharacter, 1073
Checa, 919 countable tightness, 1050, 1090
Chigogidze, 1047, 1150 countably paracompact, 873, 1198
Choban, 914 Covering Lemma, 1203
ehoice-free, 843 covering mapping, 1147
Choquet, 841,974,976 cowellpowered, 993
Christie, 1146 cross-section, 1162
Csaszar, 857, 875
Ciesielski,914
Curtis, 1157
Ciric, 919
Czaszar, 982
Clapp, 1149
Cleary, 1086
closed symmetrie, 892 D-complete, 877
Coehran, 977 de Groot, 915
cocomplete, 992 Deak,857
cofinal completeness, 888 Deleanu, 1154
cofinite, 1153 development, 1181
INDEX 1215
diagonal number, 1078 fibered shape, 1153

Dieudonne, 1042 Fillmore, 1155
Dieudonne-complete,1097 filter, 974
Dikranjan, 1029 filter convergence, 974
direct product, 1044 filtration, 1165
discrete, 993 final, 990
discrete system, 1162 final lifts, 992
distance, 935 finite topology, 1157
Doieinov, 982, 995 finitely divisible group, 1155
Doitchinov, 873 first countable if, 1193
Doitchinov completion, 881 fixed point property, 1160
Dolecki, 997 fixed points, 1160
domains of computation, 922 Fleissner, 1197, 1202
Domiaty, 875 Fletcher, 856, 867
Douglas, 1155 Fletcher construction, 870
Dowker, 839, 1146 forgetful functor, 991, 1151
Dugundji, 1048, 1192 Fox, 1146, 1147
DuvaU, 1151 Francaviglia, 903
Dydak, 1149, 1153 free Abelian topological group, 1101
dynamical systems, 1161 free Banach-Lie algebra, 1073
free compact group, 1108
free topological group, 1033
E-completion, 882 Frei, 1154
Edgar,999 Freudenthai, 1039,1146
Edwards, 1149, 1152 Freudenthai compactification, 1158, 1159
Effros, 1154 Freyd,1149
Efremovie, 979 Frie, 979
Ehresmann, 839 Frlicher, 978, 998
embedding up to shape, 1151 Function Spaces, 899
ends, 1159 functional analysis, 1154
Engelking-Lutzer line, 913 functionally bounded, 1040
epireflective, 993 Functorial Quasi-uniformities, 869
equinormal, 887 functorial quasi-uniformity, 872
equivariant shape, 1153 fundamental absolute retracts, 1149
exact homology, 1155 fundamental dimension, 1148
expandable, 1204 fundamental metric, 1158
extension operator, 1088 fundamental pro-group, 1147, 1156
extension shape, 1153 fundamental sequence, 1146
extensional, 1001 Fuzzy Quasi-uniformities, 932
extensional topological construct, 1001
Extensional topological constructs, 1001
extensional topological huH, 1005 Ghler, 978, 979
extraordinary strong shape, 1155 gamma-convergence, 978
Garay,l164
extremal epimorphism, 992
Gazik,977
extremal monomorphism, 992
Geoghegan, 1149, 1156
Giuli,874
Feldman, 978 Gdel,1189
FeH topology, 903 Gdel's consistency proof, 1189
Ferrario, 873 Graev,I091
Ferrer, 879 Greco, 977
1216 INDEX
Gregori, 879, 890 Hopf,116O

Grimeisen, 976 Huffman, 876
Gromov-Hausdorff metric, 1158 Hulanicki, 1083
Grothendieck, 842, 1147 Hurewicz, 1148
group, 929 Husch,1151
group topology, 1031 Husek, 858, 984
Gruenhage, 1198 Husek's S-categories, 985
Grundzge der Mengenlehre, 972 hyperspace, 1156
Gnther, 1152, 1153, 1163, 1164 Hyperspaces, 899
Guran, 1037 hypoconvergence, 978
Haddad,868 indecomposable, 1155

half-complete, 917 index ofboundedness, 1077
Harbart, 976 inductive limit property, 1098
Hartman, 1074 inductive system, 1068
Hastings, 1149, 1152, 1163 inductive theorem, 1068
Hausdorff, 972 inessentialloops condition, 1151
Hausdorff metric, 1156 initial, 990
Hazra, 868 initial lift, 991
Heath, 1193 injective hull, 1001
height, 1104 interval topology, 1186
Heller, 1149 irresolvable, 1120
Henderson, 1155 Isbell,841
hereditarily Cauchy, 891 isomorphism-closed subconstructs, 997
hereditarily disconnected, 1111 Itzkowitz, 1083
hereditarily precompact, 918 Ivanovskii, 1083
hereditary precompactness, 863 Ivansic, 1151
hereditary preLindelfness, 863 Iwamura, 1064
hereditary shape equivalences, 1151
hereditary topological hull, 939
joinable continua, 1156
Herrlich, 858, 983, 999, 1001, 1003, 1005,
Jones,1183
1007
Jones road space, 1186
Herrlich's Topological Categories, 989
Joyal,843
Hicks,876,890
Junnila, 871
Higson compactification, 1159
Higson corona, 1159
Hilton, 1154 K -complete, 877
Hodel,857 K -homology, 1154
Hoffmann, 991 K -theory, 1149
Hoffmann's Topological Functors, 988 Kadlof, 1150
Hofmann, 1030 Kahn, 1148, 1155
Hogan, 868 Kakutani, 1091
Holgate, 874 Kaminker, 1155
Holsztynski, 1160 Kanamori, 1202
homogeneous, 1114 Kapitanski, 1164
homology pro-group, 1148 Katetov, 883, 910, 983
homotopy category, 1145 Kato, 1157, 1158, 1164
homotopyexpansions, 1146 Kechris, 1077
homotopy pro-group, 1148, 1149 Keesling, 1150, 1151, 1159
homotopy theory, 1145 Keller, 978
INDEX 1217
Kelley, 1157 Lisitsa, 1148, 1152-1154

Kelly,909 Liu,845,900
Kent, 898, 939, 977 loeale theory, 838
Kimura, 1115 locally eompaet, 1041
Kirwan,844 locally eompaet group, 1042
Klee, 1160 Locally compact topologieal groups, 1059
Kleisli, 1154 locally eonvex spaees, 977
Kneis,977 locally pseudoeompact, 1110
Kodruma, 1148, 1157 locally symmetrie, 887
Kofner,857 loose extension, 884
Kolmogoroff, 1146 Losonezi, 865
Komatu, 1146 Lowen,857,935,936,997,1000,1005,1007
Kong,918 Lowen-Colebunders, 976, 979, 981, 995, 999,
Kopperman, 879,920 1004, 1005, 1007
Kowalsky, 976, 999 Lustemik-Sehnirelmann eategory, 1163
Koyama, 1148, 1158
Kozlowski, 1150, 1151
MaeDonald, 1154
Krasinkiewicz, 1155-1157
Maehado, 1003, 1005
Kriegl,998
Madden,845
Kunen,1202
Maddy, 1202
Kuperberg, 1148
manifold, 1155
Kuratowski. 937,972, 1160
Marciszewski,916
Kurosh, 1146
Mardesi6, 1146, 1148, 1152-1154
Kuz'minov, 1083
Marin, 890
Marinescu, 978
L-spaee, 972 Martin's Axiom, 1122, 1195
Laguna, 1158 Martin-Lf type theory, 846
Lai, 896 maximally almost periodie, 1058
Lane,909 Mazur, 1148
lattiee of open sets, 837 Mazurkiewicz, 1156, 1160
Lawson,922 McCord, 1155
Lawvere, 843 MeKinsey, 839
Leehicki, 903 McMillan, 1151, 1155
Lee, 998 measure of eompaetness, 937
Lefsehetz, 1146, 1160 Menger manifold, 1150
left invariant, 1032 merotopie spaee, 983
left-adjoint, 992 merotopie spaees, 983
Leiderman, 11 03 metacompaet, 1192
level homotopy equivalenees, 1152 metrie compaeta, 1154
Levi,903 Meyer,918
Li, 845 MiminoshviIi, 1152
Lie group, 1059 Min,998
Lima,1146 Mine, 1149, 1156
Limesrame, 976 Misane,919
limit spaee, 976 Mittag-Leffler property, 1155
limit spaees, 976 mixed-symmetrie, 892
Limitierung, 980 Miyata, 1157
Lindelf topologieal groups, 1037 modular funetion, 1063
Lindgren, 856, 867 Moerdijk, 845
Linton,840 Monadi,998
1218 INDEX
monothetic, 1066 open symmetrie, 892

Montgomery, 1039 Ordman, 973
Moore, 1181 overlays, 1147
Moore road spaee, 1186
Moore spaee, 1181
P-spaees, 875
Moore-Smith eonvergenee, 973
Papert D., 839
Morita, 1146, 1148, 1152 ,-
Papert S., 839
Mor6n, 1158
para-Lindelf, 1203
Morris, 1030, 1086
paranormal, 1207
Morse index, 1162 paratopologieal group, 929, 1118
MoszyDska, 1148 partial metries, 926
movable spaee, 1149, 1155, 1164 Pasynkov, 1040
Mr6wka, 974 path eonnectedness, 1106
Mrozek, 1162 path-eomponents, 1156
Mrozik, 1151 pattern recognition, 1155
Mrsevic, 886 Pavel,1155
multifunetion spaee, 904 Peano eontinuum, 1156
Myeielski, 1074 Pelant, 916
Perez-Pefialver, 866
N-eompaet, 1160 Pervin, 902
n-movability, 1150 Pervin-Sieber, 855
n-shape theory, 1150 (pervin-Sieber) eomplete, 876
Naehbin, 895 Pestov, 1105
Nadler, 1157, 1158 Plewe, 845
Nagami number, 1080 Poineare-Bendixson theorem, 1163
Nakayama, 1091 point-symmetrie, 887
Nauwelaerts,939,l005 pointed I-movable, 1150, 1155-1158, 1162
nearly extendable mapping, 1160 pointed shape, 1148
nearness spaee, 984 pointed shape equivalenee, 1150
Nedev, 905, 914 pointed shape morphism, 1150
Nel, 978, 999, 1003 pointless spaees, 839
Nguyen, 1158 pointless topology, 840
Niekolas, 1102 pointwise Cauehy, 894
Nbeling,839 polyhedra, 1104
Nogura, 1036 Pontryagin, 1105
non-arehimedean, 915 Pontryagin-van kampen duality theory, 1063
non-eommutative rings, 846 Poppe, 977
nonsymmetrie norm, 932 Poprougenko (popruZenko), 786
normal, 1042, 1182 Porter, 902, 1153-1155
Normal Measure Extension Axiom, 1206 Pouzet, 919
normal Moore spaee problem, 1181 Prasolov, 1155
normalized, 1194 preeompaet, 862
preeonvex, 918
Novikov's eonjecture, 1159
pretopologieal spaee, 975
Nowak, 1148, 1153
pretopology, 975
Nyikos, 906
Preu,lOO2
Priestley, 896
Okunev, 1030 pro-eategory, 1147
one-point eompaetifieation, 1158 pro-groups, 1148
open sets, 838 probabilistie quasi-metrie spaees, 899
INDEX 1219
Prodanov, 1029 Reinhold, 899

projectively Lie group, 1060 Reiterman, 1004, 1008
projectively universal topological groups, 1076 Render, 881
pronilpotent group, 1067 Rennie, 974
proper homotopy category, 1152, 1155 resolution, 1152
proper shape, 1153, 1159 resolvable, 1121
protopological group, 1119 Reynolds, 845
proximate fixed point, 1160 Rhoades, 919
proxirnity space, 980 Ribenboim, 921
pseudobase, 1078 Richardson, 855, 899, 977
pseudocompactgroups, 1110 Riesz,972
pseudocompactness, 1046, 1107 right invariant, 1033
pseudometric, 1004 right-adjoint, 992
pseudometric spaces, 997 Robbin, 1162
pseudonorm, 1032 Roherts' Initial Functors, 986
pseudonormal Moore space, 1183 Robertson, 1039
pseudotopological space, 975 Rodnianski, 1164
pseudotopology, 974 Rogers, 1162
pseudoweight, 1078 Romaguera, 883
Pultr, 844 Rothberger, 1190, 1195
roundification, 925
Rudin, 1195
Q-manifold, 1157 Ruiz deI Portal, 1158, 1163
quasi-invariant basis, 1071 Rybakowski,1163
quasi-metric spaces, 905 Ryser,89O
Quasi-metrizable Spaces, 905
quasi-proximally continuous maps, 862
quasi-proxirnity, 859, 864 Salamon, 1162
quasi-pseudometric space, 883 Salazar, 1163
quasi-pseudometrizable, 873, 910 Sambin, 845
Quasi-uniform Frames, 932 Sanjurjo, 1149, 1158, 1160, 1163, 1164
quasi-uniformity, 868 Scepin, 1047
quasi-uniformly continuous maps, 862 Schalk,846
quasicomponent, 1111, 1159 Schochet, 1155
quiet, 881 Schori, 1157
Quigley, 1152 Schwarz, 1005, 1006
Quillen, 1152 Scott, 846
quotientgroups, 1038 Scott distance, 941
quotient quasi-uniformities, 868 Scott topology, 941
quotientrefiective,993 Segal, 1146, 1150, 1152, 1157, 1161, 1163
serni-dynamical system, 1162
Serni-Lipschitz functions, 919
R.L. Moore's classes, 1182 semi-symmetric, 892
Ralkov completion, 1054 semicontinuous quasi-uniformity, 864
Rao, 977 sernidirect product, 1057
real-compact, 1049 semitopological group, 1118
reciprocal, 981 separator, 992
refiective subconstruct, 994 sequential convergence, 979
regular epimorphism, 992 sequential fan, 1035
regular monomorphism, 992 Seyedin, 900
Reilly, 887 Shakhmatov, 1036, 1113
1220 INDEX
shape category, 1145 strong expansion, 1153

shape connected, 1148 strong homology, 1154
shape equivalence, 1148, 1163 strong shape category, 1151-1153
shape fibration, 1151 strong shape component, 1156
shape functor, 1145, 1163 strong shape equivalence, 1153
shape groups, 1146, 1148-1150 strong shape functor, 1156
shape index, 1162 strong shape morphism, 1156
shape metric, 1158 strong Whitney-reversible property, 1157
shape morphism, 1150 strongly collectionwise Hausdorff, 1204
shape r-connected, 1151 submetrizable space, 1208
shape theory, 1145 subnormal series, 1068
Sharma, 878 suborthocompactspace, 872
Shelah, 1195 Sun,845
Sher, 1158, 1159 supdense extension, 885
Shirokov, 1090 supertopological space, 995
Shoenfeld, 1194 supertopological spaces, 1008
Singal, 896 supertopology, 994
Sioen, 938 syntopogeneous structures, 985
Sion, 871 Szaz,857
Sipacheva, 1096 Szymanski,979
Sklyarenko, 1154
Skula,870
Smale, 1148, 1149 Tall,1196
small-set symmetric, 887 tarne, 885
Smallness conditions, 991 Tanaka, 1036
Smirnov compactification, 937 Tarski,839
Smith,1155 Tenenbaum, 1195
Smyth compiete, 891 Tezer,l164
Smyth symmetric, 893 Theoretical Computer Science, 920
Solovay, 1195, 1201 topological,991
soluble, 1067 Topological Algebra, 929
Sonner, 976 Topological Constructs, 984
Sostak, 1158 topological group, 1029
Souslin, 1187 topological semigroups, 930
Souslin problem, 1195 topological universe, 1002
Souslin tree, 1189 topological universe hull, 1006
Sperner, 1160 Topological universes, 1002
Spiez, 1148, 1157 topological universes, 1002
stability of fixed points, 1160 topologically simple, 1069
stable continua, 1149 toposes, 842
stable shape category, 1146, 1153 Torunczyk, 1157
Starbird, 1200 totally bounded, 862
Steenrod, 1148, 1154 totally disconnected, 1111
Stoltenberg, 879 totally minimal, 1118
Stone-Weierstrass theorem, 1066 Trail,977
Stoyanov, 1029 transitive space, 875
stratifiable space, 1102 Trigos-Arrieta, 1033
strict extension, 884 triquotient maps, 844
strictIy completely regular ordered, 898 Tucker,799
strog shape functor, 1151 Tychonoff, 1158
INDEX 1221
uneonditionally closed, 1058 Whitehead,1148-1150

unifonn eonvergenee spaee, 980 Whitney map, 1157
unifonn limit spaee, 995 Whitney property, 1157
unifonn shape, 1153 Williams, 1164
unifonnly loeally symmetrie, 893 Willmott, 871
unifonnly regular, 891 Wilson, 1151
unilateral eompletion problem, 879 WindeIs, 940
unimodular, 1063 Winslow, 1159
uniquely transportable, 991 Wojdyslawski, 1157
universal map, 1160 Wraith,844
universal topologieal groups, 1070 Wyler, 977, 995,1006, 1008
UspenskiI, 1030, 1088 Wyler's Top Categories, 987
Vamanamurthy, 887 Yoneda embedding, 884

variety, 1117 Yosida,1064
vector group, 1058
Venema, 1151 Z-sets, 1150
Verbeeck, 937 Zenor,1197
Venneer, 845 zero-dimensional, 1041
Venneulen, 845 Zippin, 1039
Viekers, 846
Vietoris, 1146, 1149, 1156
Vietoris topology, 903, 1069, 1157
Vilenkin, 1039
Vogt,1153
Votaw,864
Wagner, 978
Wall obstruetion, 1149
WaHaee, 979
WaHman-Shanin-type eompaetifieation, 938
Wang, 845
Ward,974
Wamnabe, 1149, 1157, 1161
Watson, 906, 1205
WaZewski, 1156
weak Lindelf number, 1078
weak proper homotopy eategory, 1150
weakly Cauehy filters, 888
weakly eoneentrated, 880
weakly separable groups, 1071
weighted quasi-pseudometrie, 925
Weil,979
Weil-eomplete, 1052, 1054, 1055
weH-fibred topologieal eonstruet, 993
weH-fibred topologieal eonstruets, 993
weH-monotone quasi-uniformity, 870
weHpowered, 993
West, 1157
History of Topology
1. C.E. Aull and R. Lowen (eds.): Handbook 0/ the History 0/ GeneralTopology.

Volume 1. 1997 ISBN 0-7923-4479-0
Volume 2.1998 ISBN 0-7923-5030-8
Volume 3.2001 ISBN 0-7923-6970-X
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS - DORDRECIIT I BOSTON I LONDON

Handbook of The History of General Topology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of The History of General Topology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HANDBOOK OF THE HISTORY OF GENERAL TOPOLOGY,

SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.

ISBN 978-90-481-5704-4 ISBN 978-94-017-0470-0 (eBook)

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved

Rings o/Continuous Functions in the 1950s (M. Henriksen)

C.E. Aull, R. Lowen

Mathematicians in 1932. When Lefschetz wrote his Colloquium volume [31]

4 I do not know whether they introduced the term general topology.

Brouwer. I remember a dinner at Brouwer's in her honour during which she

Already Veblen was becoming increasingly interested in topology, especially

activities of this 'old-fashioned liberal', as he liked to describe himself, would

Alexander, Moore and Veblen were native-born Americans. Lefschetz had a

Lefschetz appreciated the education he received there. Because of bis sound

Grundzge der Mengenlehre, where point-set topology was developed from a

Some Personal Impressions

Moore Versus Lefschetz

Steenrod's Letters to Wilder

No picture of the golden age of Princeton would be complete without some

Steenrod's Letter of November 18, 1934

Steenrod's Letter of February 9, 1935

Steenrod's Letter of February 13, 1936

'Lefschetz began lecturing on abstract spaces in January. He williecture

Steenrod's Letter of February 28, 1937

pioneers remain to give us the benefit of their first-hand knowledge. However,

[1] Alexandroff, P.S., Kombinartornaya Topologiya (English translation: Combina-

[41] Reidemeister, K., Kntentheorie, Julius Springer, Berlin, 1932.

1 Prehistory: 1914-54 ............................................... 837

from subsets of Euc1idean space (or from infinite-dimensional generalizations

2. The Birth of Locale Theory: 1957-71

have used so many different terminological conventions that, if I attempted to

3. Locale Theory Reaches Maturity: 1972-1983

of sheaves on aspace) eonstitutes a eonstruetive 'set-theoretic universe' , and

4. Growth and Diversity: 1984-99

[7] Banasehewski, B. and Mulvey, c.I., Stone-Ceeh eompaetifieation of locales, I,

[52] _ _ , Continuously variable sets: algebraic geometry = geometrie logic, in

[74] _ _ , Pointless uniformities II: (Dia)metrization, Comment. Math. Univ.

HANS-PETER A. KNZI (kunzi@maths.uct.ac.za)

Dedicated to Professor Dr. Horst Herrlich on the occasion of his sixtieth

1 Introduction (monographs, survey articles, Pervin-Sieber completeness) ... 855

7 Some Special Classes of Quasi-uniformities (point-symmetry, local sym-

tices (e.g. [539], [540], [588]), or the c1assicallj.t(-quasi)-metrizable spaces

2. Short Summary of the History with Main References

If we omit the symmetry condition in the usual definition of an entourage

quasi-uniform and quasi-metric spaces; for instance sma1l-set symmetric quasi-

In [259] Hunsaker and Lindgren gave adescription of totally bounded quasi-

x - y < } whenever > O. By definition the semicontinuous quasi-uniformity

Based on an idea due to Votaw [574], in [303] Knzi characterized those

from his investigations that an arbitrary compatible quasi-uniformity on such a

The coarsest quasi-uniformity OU on a locally compact space X is generated

In [118] Deak considered various asymmetric generalizations of topological

is hereditarily compact [150]. Its conjugate is always hereditarily precompact

preorthocompact weakly Lindelf regular space is countably metacompact and

In [317] Knzi established that the functorial quasi-uniformity of the com-

to the usual coarser relation for quasi-uniformities.) If Fis K -true, then T K F

A concrete description of the Cartesian c10sed topological hull of the cate-

s. The Fine Quasi-uniformity

From the beginning, properties of the finest compatible quasi-uniformity on

countab1e union of closed (resp. open) transitive spaces is transitive. He also

6. Completions and Extensions

space in which every ultrafilter has an irreducible convergence set and au is

thermore they showed that a quasi-uniform space that is countably compact or

also obtained a (complicated) necessary condition for the existence of a T2-