English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The paper [I2] contains one false result, 2.6, and two others whose proofs require substantial repair: 2.5 and 2.24. All errors were discovered by one critical reader, Till Plewe. In 2.5 of [I2], which characterizes those sober spaces X that have a largest pointless sublocale pl(X), the last six words of proof are not true, e.g. in the real line with a generic point adjoined. Argue instead: The meet of {x}~ and pl+(^0 is dense in the irreducible space {x}~ . Now every dense sublocale of an irreducible space Y contains (i.e. D(Y) contains) the generic point y. For every sublocale of any locale is an intersection of complemented sublocales C whose complements are open n closed [I2], so it suffices to show that every such C dense in Y has y in it. Otherwise the complement C would contain y, so no closed subspace except Y contains C , so C is open; and as C is dense, C = 0, contradicting y e C . 2.6 says that for a dense-in-itself regular space X the locale pl(X) has the same weight as X. This is false—refuted by many pairs (X, X') of regular spaces with the same pi (pl(A^) « pl(X')) but different weights, e.g. the space Q of rationals and a subspace of ßQ consisting of Q and one more point. The last result in the paper, 2.24, is that (with everything metrizable; in contrast to CVs) no nonzero pointless-absolute Fa locale exists. The correct proof, now presented, amounts to showing that ( 1 ) any nonzero Fa sublocale A of a pointless-absolute Os has a closed sublocale B = pl(C), C a Cantor set; that (2) B is not pointless-absolute Fa , being not Fa in a suitable metrizable extension pl(E) ; and (3) boosting the extension E of B to an extension of A . In [I2], (1) is done correctly in three lines, and four more lines of the proof (the fourth and the last three) do (2). For (3), a pushout construction is proposed; but it is not hard to check that the pushout need not be first countable. Instead use F. Hausdorffs theorem [H]:

Corrections to: ‘‘First steps in descriptive theory of locales” [Trans.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ {\bf 327} (1991), no.\ 1, 353–371; MR1091230 (92b:54078)]