A Note on Quotient Reflective Subcategories of O-REL

Qasim, Muhammad; Aslam, Ch. Muhammad Afaq

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1117881

Journal of Function Spaces

On this page

Abstract Introduction Preliminaries Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 1117881 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1117881

A Note on Quotient Reflective Subcategories of O-REL

Muhammad Qasim¹and Ch. Muhammad Afaq Aslam¹

Academic Editor: Calogero Vetro

Received12 Apr 2022

Revised13 May 2022

Accepted24 May 2022

Published23 Jun 2022

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the category of ordered-RELspaces. We show that it is a normalized and geometric topological category and give the characterization of local , local , and local ordered-RELspaces. Furthermore, we characterize explicitly several notions of ’s and objects in O-REL and study their mutual relationship. Finally, it is shown that the category of ’s (resp. ) ordered-RELspaces are quotient reflective subcategories of O-REL.

1. Introduction

Many mathematical concepts were developed to describe certain structures of topology. The concepts of uniform convergences, uniform continuity, Cartesian closedness, completeness, and total boundedness do not exist in general topology. As a remedy, several approaches have been made to define these concepts in topology by mathematicians. For example, the concepts of uniform convergence in the sense of Kent [1] and Preuss [2], of set-convergence in the sense of Wyler [3], Tozzi [4] (which scrutinize filter convergence to bounded subset and generalizes classical point-convergence and supertopologies), of nearness by Bentely [5] and Herrlich [6] (particularly containing proximities and contiguities), and that of hullness by Čech [7] and Leseberg [8] containing the concepts of b-topologies and closures, respectively. In 2018, Leseberg [9] introduced a global concept which embeds the category of the above mentioned concepts into the category of RELspaces and RELmaps as subcategories. This construct, denoted by REL, forms thereby a topological category [9].

Classical separation axioms are very common and important ideas in general topology, and have many applications in all fields of mathematics. With the help of reflection [10], characterizations of locally semi-simple morphisms are obtained in algebraic topology. Furthermore, lower separation axioms can be used in digital topology where they describe digital lines, and in image processing and computer graphs to construct cellular complexes [11–13]. With having the understanding of and separation properties, several mathematicians have extended this idea to arbitrary topological categories [14–18].

Classical separation axioms at some point (locally) were generalized and have been inspected in [14], where the purpose was to describe the notion of strongly closed sets (resp., closed) in arbitrary set based topological categories [19]. Moreover, the notions of compactness [20], Hausdorffness [14], regular and normal objects [21], perfectness [20], and soberness [22] have been generalized by using the closed and strongly closed sets in some well-defined topological categories over sets [20, 23–26]. Furthermore, the notion of closedness is suitable for the formation of closure operators [27] in several well-known topological categories [28–30].

The salient objectives of this study are stated as follows: (i)To define initial, final, discrete, and indiscrete objects in O-REL(ii)To characterize local , local , and local objects in O-REL and examine their mutual relationship(iii)To give the characterization of , , and objects in O-REL and examine their mutual relationship(iv)To define several structures using ordered-RELspaces and discuss each of the and axioms there and examine their mutual relationship(v)To examine the quotient-reflective properties of ordered-RELspaces.

2. Preliminaries

Recall [31, 32], a functor (the category of sets and functions) is called topological if (i) is concrete(ii) consists of small fibers(iii)Every -source has a unique initial lift or every -sink has an unique final lift, i.e., if for every source there exists an unique structure on such that is a morphism iff for each , is a morphism.

Moreover, a topological functor is called discrete (respectively, indiscrete) if it has a left (respectively, right) adjoint. In addition, a functor is called a normalized topological functor if constant objects, i.e., subterminals, have an unique structure, and said to be geometric functor if the discrete functor is left exact, i.e., it preserves finite limits [31, 32].

Let be a non-empty, then is called a relative system for , and it is denoted by (X). Moreover, (X) can be ordered by setting

iff for each , there exists such that .

Furthermore, we denote by and by .

Definition 1 (cf. [33]). Let , then is called boundedness or -set on , if satisfies the following axioms: (i)(ii)(iii).And for B-sets and a function is called bounded iff it satisfies; By BOUND we denote the corresponding defined category.

Definition 2 (cf. [33]). The triple is called RELative space (shortly RELspace) if for the boundedness the function r: satisfies the following conditions: (i) and implies (ii) for (iii) iff (iv) implies .The RELspace is called ordered-RELspace provided that the following axiom holds: (v) implies .

Definition 3 (cf. [33]). Let and be two RELspaces, then a bounded function is called RELative map (shortly RELmap) iff it satisfies the following condition: where with . By O-REL, we denote the full subcategory of REL, whose objects are the ordered RELspaces. Note that is a bireflective subcategory of [34].

Example 4. Let be a preuniform convergence space; then, the associated RELspace can be defined as follows: Let PU-REL denotes the category, whose objects are triples and morphisms are RELmaps. Note that PUCONVPU-REL [9], where PUCONV is the category of preuniform convergence spaces and uniformly continuous maps as defined in [2].

Example 5. Let be a set-convergence space; then, the associated RELspace can be defined by , where and FIL(X) is the collection of all filters defined on .
Let SET-REL denotes the category, whose objects are triples and morphisms are RELmaps. Note that SETCONVSET-REL [9], where SETCONV is the category of set-convergence spaces and morphisms are b-continuous maps as defined in [3].

Example 6. Let be prenearness space; then, the associated RELspace can be described as Note that PNEARPN-REL [6, 9], where PNEAR is the category, whose objects are prenearness spaces and morphisms are nearness preserving maps as defined in [6], and PN-REL is the category of triples and morphisms are RELmaps.

Example 7. For a B-set , we put , and for we set ; hence, defines a RELspace, which is diagonal, meaning that for and , we can find such that .
Let -REL be denote the corresponding defined full subcategory of REL; then, -RELBOUND.

Remark 8. In this context, note that BORN, the full subcategory of BOUND, whose objects are the bornological spaces, then also has evidently a corresponding counterpart in REL.

Example 9. Let be b-topological space; then, the associated RELspace is defined by

Note that b-TOPbTOP-REL [9], where bTOP-REL denotes the full subcategory of REL, whose objects are triples , and b-TOP denotes the category of b-topological spaces and b-continuous maps as defined in [9].

3. as a Normalized and Geometric Topological Category

Note that the forgetful functor , where is topological in the following sense:

Lemma 10. Let be a collection of RELspaces. A source is initial in iff and for all ,

Proof. It is given in [34]. Consequently, since O-REL is a full and isomorphism-closed subcategory which is bireflective in REL, it is topological, too.

Lemma 11. Let be a collection of ordered-RELspaces. A sink is final in iff where , and for ,

Proof. It is easy to observe that is an ordered-RELspace and is a RELmap. Suppose that is a mapping. We show that is a RELmap iff is a RELmap. Necessity is obvious since the composition of two RELmaps is RELmap again.
Conversely, let be a RELmap.
Then, first, we show that is a bounded map. Let ; it implies that . For our own convenience, take , and since is a RELmap, then and consequently, is bounded.
Now, let and . By the Definition 3, we have . On the other hand, is a RELmap; it follows that Take . Then, we have and subsequently, which shows is a RELmap.

Lemma 12. Let , and be an ordered-RELspace. (i)A RELstructure is discrete iff , where and with (ii)A RELstructure is indiscrete iff , where if with .

Proof. By applying Lemma 11, we get the desired result.

Remark 13. The topological functor , where is normalized since an unique RELstructure , and exists whenever and a unique RELstructure , and exists whenever . Furthermore, the topological functor is geometric since the regular sub-object of a discrete RELspace is discrete, and finite product of discrete RELstructures is discrete again.

4. Local and Local Ordered-RELspaces

In this section, we define notions for and ordered-RELspaces at some point.

Let be any set and . We define the wedge product ofat as the two disjoint copies of at and denote it as . For a point we write it as if belongs to the first component of the wedge product; otherwise, we write that is in the second component. Moreover, is the cartesian product of .

Definition 14 (cf. [14]). (i)A mapping is said to be principal-axis mapping provided that(ii)A mapping is said to be skewed-axis mapping provided that(iii)A mapping is said to be fold mapping at provided thatAssume that is a topological functor, with and .

Definition 15 (cf. [14]). (i) is at provided that the initial lift of the -source is discrete(ii) is at provided that the initial lift of the -source is discrete, where is the wedge product in , i.e., the final lift of the -sink , where represent the canonical injections(iii) is at provided that the initial lift of the -source is discrete.

Remark 16. (i)In TOP, and at (respectively, at ) are equivalent to the classical at (respectively, the classical at ), i.e., for each with , there exists a neighborhood of not containing or (respectively, and); there exists a neighborhood of not containing [35](ii)A topological space is (respectively ) iff is (respectively ) at for each [35](iii)Let be a topological functor, and be a retract of . Then, if is or at , then is at but not conversely in general [36].

Theorem 17. Let be ordered-RELspace and pX. Then, is at p if and only if for each with , the following holds: (i)(ii)(iii) or (iv) or

Proof. Let be at ; we show the conditions to are holding: (i)Suppose that for all with . Let , then since and for , (by the assumption), where for j =1,2 are projection maps. By Definitions 1 and 15 and Lemma 10, a contradiction, it follows (ii)Assume that and . Particularly, let and ; then, . By the assumption, and . Since is at , it follows that , where is the discrete structure on .Similarly, for , we get , a contradiction to the discreteness of .
Thus, or . (iii)Suppose that and . In particular, let and ; then, , and by the assumption and . Since is at , we get that , where is the discrete structure on Similarly, for , we get , a contradiction.
Therefore, or . (iv)Assume that and . Let and ; then, , , (by the assumption). Since is at , it follows that , where is the discrete structure on .Similarly, for , we get , a contradiction.
Hence, or .
Conversely, suppose to are holding.
Let be the initial structure induced by and , where is the product RELstructure on and the discrete RELstructure on X.
We show that is the discrete REL structure on , i.e., we show that and for , .
Let and ; if , then . Suppose . Then, we have for some and if , then ; let ; then, it further implies that or and . By the assumption, (for j =1,2). Thus, and ; subsequently, .
Now, implies and , and by Lemma 10, =
Suppose , then
; it follows that .
Since , we have the following possibilities of :
,
,
,
,
.
Case (i). Suppose . It follows that for all such that , . By Definition 2, . Similarly, . Therefore, holds Case (ii). holds. The proof is similar to Case (i) Case (iii). Let . It follows that for all such that , and , . By the assumption, we get . Similarly, . Thus, cannot be possible Case (iv). Similar to Case (iii), we conclude that is not possible Case (v). If . It follows that for all such that , and , for all implying . By the assumption, . Similarly, . Hence, is not possible.

Similarly, if , only Case (i) and Case (ii) are holding. By Lemma 12, is discrete.

Therefore, by Definition 15, is at .

Theorem 18. Let be an ordered-RELspace and .
is at if and only if for any with , the following holds: (i)(ii) and (iii) and (iv) and .

Proof. By following the same technique used in Theorem 17, and replacing the mapping by the mapping , we get the proof.

Theorem 19. All ordered-RELspaces are at .

Proof. Let be ordered-RELspace and . By Definition 15, we show that for each (where ) for some and . implying . Suppose , it implies that for some . If , then implying .
Suppose , it follows that , or . If , then for some which shows that should be in the first component of the wedge product , a contradiction. In similar manner, for some . Hence, . Thus, we must have for only and consequently, , the discrete RELstructure on .
Now, for , by Lemma 10, = . Since , we have the following possibilities of :
,
,
,
,
.
In particular, for . It follows that, for all such that , and (for k =1,2), implying . It follows (respectively, ) in the first (respectively, second) component of the wedge product , a contradiction. Similarly, for and , we get a contradiction.
Therefore, . Consequently, by Definition 15(i) and Lemma 10, is at .

5. and Ordered-RELspaces

In this section, we define generically notions of and in ordered-RELspaces.

The characterization of objects in categorical topology has been an important idea in a topological universe. Therefore, several attempts has been made such as in 1971 Brümmer [15], in 1973 Marny [18], in 1974 Hoffman [17], in 1977 Harvey [16], and in 1991 Baran [14] to discuss various approaches to generalize classical object and examined the relationship between different forms of generalized objects. One of the main purposes of generalization is to define Hausdorff objects in arbitrary topological categories. In 1991, Baran [14, 37] also generalizes the classical objects of topology to topological categories [14, 37]. In abstract topological categories [21], objects are used to define , normal objects, regular, and completely regular. To characterize separation axioms, Baran’s approach was to use initial and final lifts and discreteness.

In 1991, Baran [14] used the generic element method of topos theory introduced by Johnstone [38], to define generic separation axioms, due to the fact that points does not make sense in topos theory. In general, the wedge product at can be replaced by at diagonal . Any element is written as (resp., ) if it lies in the first (resp., second) component of . Clearly, , if and only if .

Definition 20 (cf. [14]). (i)A mapping is called principal axis mapping provided that(ii)A mapping is called skewed axis mapping provided that(iii)A mapping is called fold mapping provided that

Any element is written as (resp., ) if it lies in the first (resp., second) component of . Clearly, if and only if .

Now, we replace the point by any generic point and define the following separation axioms.

Definition 21. Let be a topological functor, with . (i) is provided that the initial lift of the -source is discrete [14](ii) is provided that the initial lift of the -source is discrete, where is the final lift of the -sink [14, 39](iii) is called provided that doesn’t contain an indiscrete subspace with at least two points [18, 40](iv) is provided that the initial lift of the -source is discrete [14].

Remark 22. (i)In TOP, all the properties of being , and (respectively, ) are equivalent to those classical ones which are (respectively, ), i.e., for each with , there exists a neighbourhood of not containing or (respectively and), there exists a neighbourhood of not containing [14, 18, 40](ii)In any topological category, implies is but not conversely in general. Also, each of the and has no relation to a [39](iii)Let be a topological functor, and be a retract of . Then, if is (respectively ), then is at (respectively at ) but not conversely in general [36].

Theorem 23. Let be an ordered-RELspace.
is iff for each with , the following holds: (i)(ii) or (iii) or (iv) or .

Proof. Suppose is , we show that conditions to are holding. (i)Suppose that for each a,b X, . Let . Note that and . By the assumption, , where (for k =2,3) are projection maps. By Definitions 1 and 15 and Lemma 10, it leads to a contradiction, it follows that (ii)Suppose that and . Let and , then . By Definition 2, and by the assumption, and . Since is , we conclude , where is the discrete structure on Similarly, for , we get , a contradiction.
Therefore, or . (iii)Suppose that and . In particular, let and , then . By Definition 2, and by the assumption, and . Since is it follows that , where is the discrete structure on Similarly, for , we get , a contradiction.
Thus, or . (iv)Suppose that and . Let , and ; then, , and by Definition 2, . By the assumption, and . Since is , we conclude , where is the discrete structure on .Similarly, for , we get , a contradiction to the discreteness of .
Hence, or .

Conversely, suppose to are holding.

Let be the initial structure induced by and , where is the product RELstructure on and the discrete RELstructure on .

We show that is the discrete RELstructure on i.e, and for .

Let and . If then . Suppose then it follows that for some . If then . Next, let ; then, we have or or and and by the assumption, we get , (for k =2,3). Thus, or , and subsequently, .

Now, implies and , and by Lemma 10, .

Suppose , thensince , we have the following possibilities:

,

. Case (i). If . It follows that for all and , , and by the Definition 2, we get . In a similar way, and . Thus, holds Case (ii). holds. The proof is similar to Case (i) Case (iii). . It follows that, for all such that . And , , and by Definition 2 Similarly, by the assumption and .

Therefore, is not possible.

Case (iv). Similar to Case (iii), we conclude that is not possible. Case (v). If . It follows that, for all such that and implies . By Definition 2, .

Similarly, by the assumption, and .

Hence, is not possible.

Similarly, if B= only Case (i) and Case (ii) are holding. By Lemma 12, is discrete. Therefore, by Definition 21 (i), is .

Theorem 24. Let be an ordered-RELspace.
is iff for each with , each of the following conditions are satisfied: (i)(ii) or (iii) or (iv) or .

Proof. Let be , and and and and and and .
Let . Note that is the subspace of , where is the initial lift of the ordered-RELsystem induced by the inclusion map and for any , , whenever and for any , whenever .
By the assumption, and by Definition 1, we get .
Now, for any let . By Definition 2, . By the assumption, implying that and .
Similarly, for , it follows that and .
Now, if then by the assumption, and .
And for then by the assumption, and .
Therefore, and , which is a contradiction by Lemma 12. Thus are holding.
Conversely, suppose that for all with , conditions are holding. We show that the initial structure is not an indiscrete ordered-RELstructure on U. Let . By the assumption, and or and or and or . Thus, is not an indiscrete ordered-RELsubspace of . Hence, by Definition 21 (iii), is .

Theorem 25. Let be an ordered-RELspace. Then, is iff for all X with , the following holds: (i)(ii) and (iii) and (iv) and .

Proof. Similarly, using Theorem 23, and replacing mapping by the mapping , we obtain the proof.

Theorem 26. All ordered-RELspaces are .

Proof. Let be an ordered-RELspace. By Definition 21, we show that for any , (where ) for some and . If implies . Suppose , hence for some .
Suppose , it follows that . If then for some , which shows that must be in the first component of , a contradiction. Similarly, , for . Hence, for . Consequently, , the discrete ordered-RELstructure on .
Now, for , and by Lemma 10, . But gives the following possibilities:
,
,
,
,
.
In particular, for . Then, it follows, for all , and consequently, (for k =1,2). As a result, (respectively, ) is in the first (respectively, second) component of the wedge product which leads to a contradiction. Similarly, for and we get a contradiction.
Hence, . Thus, by Lemma 10 and Definition 21, is .

Remark 27. Let be an ordered-RELspace. (i)By Theorems 17 and 23, is iff is at , for each (ii)By Theorems 18 and 25, is iff is at , for each (iii)By Theorems 19 and 26, is iff is at , for each (iv)By Theorems 23–26, but the converse does not hold in general.

Corollary 28. Let be in . Then the following statements are equivalent. (i) is (ii) is , where is the category of pre-uniform convergence spaces and uniformly continuous maps(iii)For each with , and for all , or , and .

Proof. By applying Example 4, Theorem 23, and Theorem 3.1.10 of [41].

Corollary 29. Let be in . Then, the following statements are equivalent: (i) is (ii) is , where is the category of pre-uniform convergence spaces and uniformly continuous maps(iii)For all with , and for all , and , and .

Proof. This follows from Example 4, Theorem 25, and Theorem 3.2.4 of [41].

6. Quotient-Reflective Subcategories of the Category of Ordered-RELspaces

Definition 30 (cf. [42]). Given a topological functor , and a full and isomorphism-closed subcategory of , we say that is (i)Epireflective in and closed if and only if is closed under the formation of products and extremal subobjects (i.e., subspaces)(ii)Quotient-reflective in if and only if is epireflective and is closed under finer structures (i.e., if , , , and is a -morphism, then ).

Theorem 31. (i)Any O-REL, O-REL and O-REL is a quotient-reflective subcategory of O-REL(ii)O-REL is a normalized topological construct

Proof. Suppose and . It can be easily verified that is a full and isomorphism-closed subcategory of O-REL and closed under finer structures. It remains to show that is closed under extremal subobjects and closed under the formation of products.
Let and denotes the sub O-REL structure on A, induced by the inclusion map . We show that is O-REL space. Suppose that for any a,b A with , , then by the inclusion map , a contradiction by Theorem 23.Thus, .
Now, suppose and . It follows that, for all such that , and by the inclusion map implying . It follows that , a contradiction by Theorem 23. Similarly, by the same argument , a contradiction. Therefore, or .
In similar way, or , and or . Hence, is closed under extremal subobjects.
Next, suppose that , where are the O-REL structures on induced by projection map for all , i.e., . We show that is a O-REL space. Let for any with . Then, , a contradiction by Theorem 23. Thus, .
Now, suppose and . It follows implies . Then, there is for which , and implying . It follows that , a contradiction by Theorem 23. By the same process, , a contradiction. Hence, or . In similar way, or , and or . Hence, X is closed under the formation of products.
Therefore, the category O-REL is a quotient-reflective subcategory of O-REL.
Analogous to the above argument, setting or , the proof can be easily followed by using Theorem 24 or Theorem 25, respectively.
(ii) By the Theorem 26 and Remark 13, O-REL and O-REL are isomorphic categories and thus O-REL is normalized

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to pay our gratitude to Prof. Dieter Leseberg for his continuous support during the preparation of this article and specially providing the final structure of O-REL.

References

D. C. Kent, C. Functions, and T. R. Topologies, “Convergence functions and their related topologies,” Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 125–133, 1964.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Preuss, “Semiuniform convergence spaces,” Mathematica Japonicae, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 465–491, 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
O. Wyler, “On convergence of filter and ultrafilters to subset,” Categorical Methods in Computer Science With Aspects from Topology, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 340–350, 1989.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Tozzi, “On Categories of supertopological spaces,” Acta Universitatis carolinae-Mathematica et Physica, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 137–149, 1987.
View at: Google Scholar
H. L. Bentely, “Nearness spaces and extension of topological spaces,” Studies in topology, Academic Press, pp. 47–66, 1975.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Herrlich, “A concept of nearness,” General Topology and its Applications, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 191–212, 1974.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Cech, Topological spaces, inter-science, London, 1960.
D. Leseberg, “Extension in bounded topology,” Mathematics for Applications, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 97–113, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Leseberg, “Relative spaces as a global concept for topology,” European Journal of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27–34, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Janelidze, “Light morphisms for generalized T₀-reflections,” Topology and its Applications, vol. 156, no. 12, pp. 2109–2115, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. T. Herman, “On topology as applied to image analysis,” Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 409–415, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. A. Kovalevsky, “Finite topology as applied to image analysis,” Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 141–161, 1989.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Kovalevsky and R. Kopperman, “Some topology-based image processing algorithms,” Annals of the New york Academy of Sciences, vol. 728, no. 1, pp. 174–182, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Baran, “Separation properties,” Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 333–341, 1991.
View at: Google Scholar
G. C. Brümmer, A categorial study of initiality in uniform topology [Ph.D. thesis], University of Cape Town, 1971.
J. Harvey, “T₀-separation in topological categories,” Quaestiones Mathematicae, vol. 2, no. 1-3, pp. 1971–1990, 1977.
View at: Google Scholar
R. E. Hoffmann, “(E, M)-universally topological functors,” Habilitationsschrift, Universität Düsseldorf, 1974.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Marny, Rechts-Bikategoriestrukturen in topologischen Kategorien [Ph.D. thesis], 1973.
M. Baran, “The notion of closedness in topological categories,” Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 383–395, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Baran, “Compactness, perfectness, separation, minimality and closedness with respect to closure operators,” Applied Categorical Structures, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 403–415, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Baran, “Completely regular objects and normal objects in topological categories,” Acta Mathematica Hungarica, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 211–224, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Baran and H. Abughalwa, “Sober spaces,” Turkish Journal of Mathematics, vol. 46, pp. 299–310, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Kula, T. Marasli, and S. Özkan, “A note on closedness and connectedness in the category of proximity spaces,” Filomat, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 3837–3846, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Kula and S. Özkan, “T₂ and T₃ at in the category of proximity spaces,” Mathematica Bohemica, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 177–190, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Kula and S. Özkan, “A note on the category of quasi-proximity spaces,” Publications de 1’sInstitut Mathematique, vol. 107, no. 121, pp. 75–83, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Qasim and S. Özkan, “The notions of closedness and D-connectedness in quantale-valued approach spaces,” Categories and General Algebraic Structures with Applications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 149–173, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Dikranjan and E. Giuli, “Closure operators I,” Topology and its Applications, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 129–143, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Baran, S. Kula, T. M. Baran, and M. Qasim, “Closure operators in semiuniform convergence spaces,” Filomat, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 131–140, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Erciyes, T. M. Baran, and M. Qasim, “Closure operators in constant filter convergence spaces,” Konuralp Journal of Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 185–191, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Qasim, M. Baran, and H. Abughalwa, “Closure operators in convergence approach spaces,” Turkish Journal of Mathematics, vol. 45, no. 1, p. 152, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Adámek, H. Herrlich, and G. E. Strecker, Abstract and concrete categories, Wiley, New York, 1990.
G. Preuss, Foundations of topology: an approach to convenient topology, Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.
D. Leseberg and Z. Vaziry, “The quasitopos of bounded uniform filter spaces,” Mathematics for Applications, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 155–171, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Leseberg and Z. Vaziry, Bounded topology, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2014.
M. Baran, “Separation properties in topological categories,” Mathematica Balkanica, vol. 10, pp. 39–48, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Baran, “Generalized local separation properties,” Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 25, pp. 615–620, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Baran and H. Altndis, “T₂ objects in topological categories,” Acta Mathematica Hungarica, vol. 71, no. 1–2, pp. 41–48, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
P. T. Johnstone, “Stone Spaces,” L. M. S. Mathematics Monograph: No. 10, Academic Press, New York., 1977.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Baran and H. Altndis, “T₀ objects in topological categories,” Kuwait Journal of Science, vol. 22, pp. 123–127, 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Weck-Schwarz, “T₀-objects and separated objects in topological categories,” Quaestiones Mathematicae, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 315–325, 1991.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Kula, Closedness and T₀, T₁ objects in the category of preuniform convergence spaces [Ph.D. thesis], Erciyes University, Turkey, 2014.
D. Leseberg and Z. Vaziry, “On the completeness of non-symmetrical uniform convergence with some links to approach spaces,” Mathematics for Applications, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 37–57, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Muhammad Qasim and Ch. Muhammad Afaq Aslam. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

281

Downloads

319

Citations