Results 1 
3 of
3
Topology, Domain Theory and Theoretical Computer Science
, 1997
"... In this paper, we survey the use of ordertheoretic topology in theoretical computer science, with an emphasis on applications of domain theory. Our focus is on the uses of ordertheoretic topology in programming language semantics, and on problems of potential interest to topologists that stem from ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we survey the use of ordertheoretic topology in theoretical computer science, with an emphasis on applications of domain theory. Our focus is on the uses of ordertheoretic topology in programming language semantics, and on problems of potential interest to topologists that stem from concerns that semantics generates. Keywords: Domain theory, Scott topology, power domains, untyped lambda calculus Subject Classification: 06B35,06F30,18B30,68N15,68Q55 1 Introduction Topology has proved to be an essential tool for certain aspects of theoretical computer science. Conversely, the problems that arise in the computational setting have provided new and interesting stimuli for topology. These problems also have increased the interaction between topology and related areas of mathematics such as order theory and topological algebra. In this paper, we outline some of these interactions between topology and theoretical computer science, focusing on those aspects that have been mo...
ON LATTICES AND THEIR IDEAL LATTICES, AND POSETS AND THEIR IDEAL POSETS
, 801
"... Abstract. For P a poset or lattice, let Id(P) denote the poset, respectively, lattice, of upward directed downsets in P, including the empty set, and let id(P) = Id(P) − {∅}. This note obtains various results to the effect that Id(P) is always, and id(P) often, “essentially larger ” than P. In the ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. For P a poset or lattice, let Id(P) denote the poset, respectively, lattice, of upward directed downsets in P, including the empty set, and let id(P) = Id(P) − {∅}. This note obtains various results to the effect that Id(P) is always, and id(P) often, “essentially larger ” than P. In the first vein, we find that a poset P admits no <respecting map (and so in particular, no onetoone isotone map) from Id(P) into P, and, going the other way, that an upper semilattice S admits no semilattice homomorphism from any subsemilattice of itself onto Id(S). The slightly smaller object id(P) is known to be isomorphic to P if and only if P has ascending chain condition. This result is strengthened to say that the only posets P0 such that for every natural number n there exists a poset Pn with id n (Pn) ∼ = P0 are those having ascending chain condition. On the other hand, a wide class of cases is noted where id(P) is embeddable in P. Counterexamples are given to many variants of the statements proved. 1. Definitions. Recall that a poset P is said to be upward directed if every pair of elements of P is majorized by some common element, and that a downset in P means a subset d such that x ≤ y ∈ d = ⇒ x ∈ d. The downset generated by a subset X ⊆ P will be written P ↓ X = {y ∈ P  ( ∃ x ∈ X) y ≤ x}. A principal downset
A GRAPHTHEORETICAL GENERALIZATION OF A CANTOR THEOREM
"... Abstract. In 1962 Gleason and Dilworth found a posettheoretical generalization of the Cantor Theorem concerning the cardinality of power sets. In the present paper we prove a graphtheoretical generalization of both theorems. 0. Dilworth and Gleason have proved in [2] (see also [1, Theorem 4.6]) th ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In 1962 Gleason and Dilworth found a posettheoretical generalization of the Cantor Theorem concerning the cardinality of power sets. In the present paper we prove a graphtheoretical generalization of both theorems. 0. Dilworth and Gleason have proved in [2] (see also [1, Theorem 4.6]) that no order preserving map from a subset of a partially ordered set P into I(P), the set of all ideals1 of P, ordered by inclusion, is onto. Their theorem was a generalization of the wellknown Cantor Theorem concerning the cardinality of power sets. Our main purpose is to generalize the former result as follows: if P and Q are two directed graphs and Q is a reflexive nondiscrete graph with at least two elements, then no antihomomorphism from a subgraph of P into H(P, Q), is onto. Here H(P, Q) denotes the graph of all homomorphisms from P into Q considered as a subgraph of Qp, i.e. with the relation defined coordinatewise. The theorem of Dilworth and Gleason can now be obtained