@ Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2(2015), 109-118doi:10.4995/agt.2015.3045
c© AGT, UPV, 2015

Primal spaces and quasihomeomorphisms

Afef Haouati and Sami Lazaar

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis. University Tunis-El Manar. “Campus

Universitaire” 2092 Tunis, Tunisia. (haouati.afef@yahoo.fr, salazaar72@yahoo.fr)

Abstract

In [3], the author has introduced the notion of primal spaces. The
present paper is devoted to shedding some light on relations between
quasihomeomorphisms and primal spaces.
Given a quasihomeomorphism q : X → Y , where X and Y are prin-
cipal spaces, we are concerned specifically with a main problem: what
additional conditions have to be imposed on q in order to render X
(resp. Y ) primal when Y (resp. X) is primal.

2010 MSC: 54B30; 54D10; 54F65; 54H20.

Keywords: Quasihomeomorphism; principal space; sober space.

1. Introduction

First, we recall some notions which were introduced by the Grothendieck
school (see for example [6] and [7]) such as locally closed sets and quasihomeo-
morphisms.

Let X be a topological space and S be a set of X. S is called locally closed
if it is an intersection of an open set and a closed set of X. We denote by L(X)
the set of all locally closed sets of X.

Given topological spaces X and Y , a continuous map q : X → Y is called
a quasihomeomorphism if A 7→ q−1(A) defines a bijection from O(Y ) (resp.,
F(Y ), resp., L(Y )) to O(X) (resp., F(X), resp., L(X)) where O(X) (resp.,
F(X), resp., L(X)) is the family of all open (resp., closed, resp., locally closed)
sets of X.

On the other hand, another definition of quasihomeomorphism is given by
K.W.Yip in [9] as follows. A continuous map q : X → Y between topological

Received 3 June 2014 – Accepted 29 May 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/agt.2015.3045


A. Haouati and S. Lazaar

spaces is said to be a quasihomeomorphism if the following equivalent condi-
tions are satisfied:

• For any closed set C of X, q−1(q(C)) = C.

• For any closed set F of Y , q(q−1(F)) = F .

Fortunately, the two notions Grothendieck’s quasihomeomorphism and Yip’s
quasihomeomorphism coincide.

Quasihomeomorphisms are used in algebraic geometry and it has recently
been shown that this notion arises naturally in the theory of some foliations
associated to closed connected manifolds (one may see [6]).

A principal space is a topological space in which any intersection of open
sets is open. It is also recognized as Alexandroff space.

Let X be a principal space. Then, X provides a quasi-order ≤ (i.e a reflex-

ive, transitive relation) given by x ≤ y if and only if x ∈ {y} which is called
the specialization quasi-order (For more informations, one may see [10]).
Conversely, every quasi-order ≤ on a space X determines a principal topol-
ogy. Indeed, for each x ∈ X we let x ↑ be the upperset of x defined by
x ↑ := {y ∈ X : x ≤ y}. Then, the family B := {x ↑ : x ∈ X} is a basis of

a principal topology on X. Note that the closure {x} is exactly the downset
↓ x := {y ∈ X : y ≤ x}.

Now, let C be a category. Then, a flow in C is a couple (X, f) where X is an
object of C and f : X → X is an arrow called iterator. If (X, f) and (Y, g) are
flows in C, then a morphism of flows from (X, f) to (Y, g) is an arrow q from
X to Y such that the following diagram is commutative.

X
f

−→ X
q ↓ � ↓ q

Y
g

−→ Y

That is g ◦ q = q ◦ f. For more details, one may see [4] and [5].
Let (X, f) be a flow in the category of sets noted Set. O.Echi has defined

the topology P(f) on X with closed sets exactly those A which are f-invariant
(A set A of X is called f-invariant if f(A) ⊆ A). Clearly P(f) provides a
principal topology on X.
We can easily see that for any set A of X, the closure A is exactly ∪[fn(A) :

n ∈ N] and in particular for any point x ∈ X, {x} = {fn(x), n ∈ N} denoted
Of (x) and called the orbit of x by f.
The family x ↑ = {y ∈ X : fn(y) = x for some n ∈ N} is a basis of open sets
of P(f).

According to O.Echi, a primal space is a topological space (X, τ) such that
there is some mapping f : X → X with τ = P(f) (for more informations see
[3]).

In the first section of this paper, we are interested in some dynamical prop-
erties of quasihomeomorphisms between principal spaces.

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 110



Primal spaces and quasihomeomorphisms

The main goal of the second section is to show that given an onto quasihome-
omorphism from a primal space X to a principal space Y , then Y is primal
(see Theorem 3.2).

In the third section, we move our focus to one-to-one quasihomeomorphisms
and its effects on primal spaces (see Theorem 4.1).

Finally, some particular cases of quasihomeomorphisms are studied and com-
mented.

2. Preliminary results

Let X be a principal space and ≤ its specialization quasi-order.
A point x ∈ X is called minimal if it satisfies the property:

for each y ∈ X, y ≤ x ⇒ x ≤ y.

Let f : X → Y be a continuous map between two principal spaces. It
follows immediately, from the fact that a map between two principal spaces is
continuous if and only if the induced map between the associated quasi-ordered
sets is isotone, that for every x, y ∈ X, we have:

x ≤ y ⇒ f(x) ≤ f(y).

Now, the following proposition shows that the converse holds if f is a quasi-
homeomorphism.

Proposition 2.1. Let f : X −→ Y be a quasihomeomorphism where X and Y
are principal spaces. Then, for every x, y ∈ X, we have:

x ≤ y ⇐⇒ f(x) ≤ f(y).

Proof. It is sufficient to show the second implication.
For that, let x, y ∈ X such that f(x) ≤ f(y). Since f is a quasihomeomorphism,
then there exists a unique closed set F of Y such that ↓ y = f−1(F).
Now, the fact that f(y) ∈ F implies ↓ f(y) ⊆ F and consequently f(x) ∈ F ,
that is x ∈↓ y as desired. �

This result leads to the following corollary.

Corollary 2.2. Let q : X −→ Y be a quasihomeomorphism where X and Y are
principal spaces. For every x ∈ X, if q(x) is minimal in Y then x is minimal
in X.

Proof. Let x be a point in X such that q(x) is a minimal point in Y . Suppose
that there exists x′ ∈ X satisfying x′ ≤ x. Then, we have q(x′) ≤ q(x) and
thus, by minimality of q(x), q(x) ≤ q(x′). Therefore, Proposition 2.1 does the
job. �

Question 2.3. Let q : X −→ Y be a quasihomeomorphism and x a point in
X. If x is minimal, then what about q(x) ?

The following proposition shows that if in addition q is an onto quasihome-
omorphism from X to Y , then there is an equivalence between x is minimal in
X and q(x) is minimal in Y .

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 111



A. Haouati and S. Lazaar

Proposition 2.4. Let q : X → Y be an onto quasihomeomorphism where X
and Y are principal spaces. For any point x ∈ X, the following properties hold:

(1) q(↓ x) =↓ q(x) and q(x ↑) = q(x) ↑
(2) x is minimal in X if and only if q(x) is minimal in Y .

Proof. Recall that if q : X −→ Y is a quasihomeomorphism then q is onto iff q
is open iff q is closed (see [2, Lemma 1.1]).

(1) Let x be a point in X. The inclusion q(↓ x) ⊆ ↓ q(x) (resp., q(x ↑) ⊆
q(x) ↑) follows immediately from Proposition 2.1. Conversely, since q is
closed (resp., open) then q(↓ x) is a closed (resp., open) set containing
q(x). So that q(↓ x) (resp., q(x ↑)) contains ↓ q(x) (resp., q(x) ↑).

(2) According to Corollary 2.2, it is enough to show that if x is minimal in
X then q(x) is minimal in Y . Indeed, let z ∈↓ q(x). Due to Proposition
2.4.(1), we have q(↓ x) =↓ q(x) so that z = q(y) with y ≤ x.

Since x is minimal, then x ≤ y which leads to q(x) ≤ z as desired.

�

Proposition 2.5. Let q : X −→ Y be a quasihomeomorphism where X and Y
are primal spaces.

(1) If X is a T0−space, then q is one to one.
(2) If Y is a T0−space, then q is onto.
(3) If X and Y are both T0−spaces, then q is a homeomorphism.

Proof.
It follows immediately from [2, Lemma 3.7].

(1)(2) Let y ∈ Y . Since q is a quasihomeomorphism then there exists x ∈ X
such that q(x) ∈↓ y. Using [3, Theorem 2.3], the primality of Y gives
a finite interval [q(x), y]. Let q(x0) be the biggest element of [q(x), y]
that have an antecedent in X.

We claim that q−1(↓ y) = q−1(↓ q(x0)).
In fact, since ↓ y is totally ordered, then q(z) ≤ y gives either q(z) ≤
q(x) and so q(z) ≤ q(x0) or q(z) ∈ [q(x), y] which also implies that
q(z) ≤ q(x0) because q(x0) is the biggest element in that interval that
have an antecedent. So that q−1(↓ y) ⊆ q−1(↓ q(x0)). On the other
hand, since q(x0) ≤ y then q

−1(↓ q(x0)) ⊆ q
−1(↓ y).

Now, we have q−1(↓ y) = q−1(↓ q(x0)) and q is a quasihomeomor-

phism. So, {q(x0)} = {y}.
Finally, since Y is T0 then y = q(x0).
We conclude that Y is onto.

(3) Combining (1) and (2), we have q is a homeomorphism.
�

3. Primal spaces and onto quasihomeomorphisms

In order to characterize quasihomeomorphisms that conserve the property
of primality between principal spaces, we need to recall some notions which
were introduced by O.Echi in [3].

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 112



Primal spaces and quasihomeomorphisms

Given a quasi-ordered set (X, ≤).

• We say that (X, ≤) is causal if for each x, y ∈ X, the interval
[x, y] := {z ∈ X : x ≤ z ≤ y} is finite.

• (X, ≤) will be called a quasi-forest if the downset of any point is totally
quasi-ordered.

Given a flow (X, f) and x ∈ X. x is said to be a periodic point if fn(x) = x
for some n ∈ N.

O. Echi used the previous concepts to provide in [3] an interesting charac-
terization of primal spaces in order-theoretical terms.

Before stating one of the main goals of this paper, it is of interest to recall
this important result.

Theorem 3.1 ([3, Theorem 2.3]). Let X be a principal topological space. Then,
X is a primal space if and only if the associated quasi-ordered set (X, ≤) is a
causal quasi-forest in which each non-minimal point x has singleton interval
[x, x].

Now, we are in a position to give our main result.

Theorem 3.2. Let (X, P(f)) be a primal space, Y a principal space and q :
X −→ Y a quasihomeomorphism. If q is onto, then Y is primal.

Proof. According to Theorem 3.1, we have to show that the associated quasi-
ordered set (Y, ≤) is a causal quasi-forest whose non minimal points y have
singleton intervals [y, y].

• (Y, ≤) is a quasi-forest.
Let z ∈ Y and y1, y2 be two elements in ↓ z. By the surjectivity of q,

there exists x ∈ X such that z = q(x). According to Proposition 2.4, we
have q(↓ x) =↓ q(x). So there exists x1, x2 ∈↓ x such that y1 = q(x1)
and y2 = q(x2). The primality of X gives x1 ≤ x2 or x2 ≤ x1 and
consequently either q(x1) ≤ q(x2) or q(x2) ≤ q(x1). Therefore, ↓ z is
totally quasi-ordered.

• (Y, ≤) is causal.
Let y1, y2 ∈ Y . If y1 ↑ ∩ ↓ y2 is empty then it is finite. Otherwise,

there exists z an element of this intersection which allows one to claim
that y1 ≤ y2. We denote by x1 (resp. x2) an antecedent of y1 (resp.
y2). By Proposition 2.1, it follows that x1 ≤ x2.

Now, we show that q(x1 ↑ ∩ ↓ x2) = y1 ↑ ∩ ↓ y2.
In fact, the continuity of q gives the first inclusion.
Conversely, since x1 ↑ ∩ ↓ x2 is a locally closed subset of X and q
is a quasihomeomorphism then there exists a locally closed subset L
of Y satisfying x1 ↑ ∩ ↓ x2 = q

−1(L). Now, by the surjectivity of q,
q(x1 ↑ ∩ ↓ x2) is locally closed in Y . Let U (resp., F) an open (resp.,
closed) subset of X such that L = U ∩ F . It is clear that q(x1) ↑⊂ U
(resp. ↓ q(x2) ⊂ F) so that q(x1) ↑ ∩ ↓ q(x2) ⊂ q(x1 ↑ ∩ ↓ x2).

Finally, remark that x1 ↑ ∩ ↓ x2 is finite which implies that y1 ↑ ∩ ↓
y2 is finite.

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 113



A. Haouati and S. Lazaar

• Every non minimal point y of Y has a singleton interval [y, y].
Let y ∈ Y \ Min(Y ), using Proposition 2.4.(2), there exists x ∈

X \ Min(X) such that y = q(x).
By the primality of X, we get q(↓ x ∩ x ↑) = q({x}).

Therefore, ↓ y ∩ y ↑= {y}.

�

Now, in this context, some observations are presented by the following ex-
amples.

Examples 3.3.

(1) The following example shows that the surjectivity of q in Theorem 3.2
is necessary.

Indeed, let α, β be two distinct points and set X = {α, β} equipped
with the indiscrete topology.

On the other hand, let Y be an infinite set equipped with the indis-
crete topology and define q : X → Y by q(α) = q(β) = y with y an
arbitrary element of Y .

We can easily see that X is a primal space and q is a non onto
quasihomeomorphism.

However, Y is a principal space which is not primal since it is not
causal ([x, x] = Y infinite for every x ∈ Y ).

(2) The converse of Theorem 3.2 does not hold. To see this, consider X =
{α, β} and Y = {0, 1, 2} both equipped with the indiscrete topology.

Now, let q : X −→ Y defined by q(α) = q(β) = a. Therefore, q is a
quasihomeomorphism which is not onto despite of the primality of X
and Y .

(3) Let X be the set {0, 1, 2} and Y the set {a, b} with a 6= b, both equipped
with the indiscrete topology τ. Set f from X to itself by f(0) =
1, f(1) = 0 and f(2) = 0.
Clearly the map q from X to Y , defined by q(0) = a and q(1) = q(2) =
b, is an onto quasihomeomorphism. Now, there is a unique map g from
Y to itself that satisfies (Y, τ) = (Y, P(f)); it is defined by g(a) = b
and g(b) = a.
We can see easily that g◦q 6= q◦f and consequently q is not a morphism
of flows from (X, f) to (Y, g).

(4) Let (X, f) as in (3) and q : X −→ X the identity map. Clearly, there
is exactly two maps g1 and g2 from X to itself such that (X, τ) =
(X, P(gi)), i ∈ {1, 2}.
If we choose g = g1, we have q is a morphism of flows from (X, f) to
(X, g) but not if we choose g = g2.

Before giving an interesting consequence of the previous Theorem, we recall
the T0−reflection of a topological space.

Given a topological space X, we define the equivalence relation on X by

x ∼ y if and only if {x} = {y}.

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 114



Primal spaces and quasihomeomorphisms

The resulting quotient space X/∼ is a T0−space called the T0−reflection of
X and the following properties hold:

• The canonical onto map µX : X −→ T0(X) is a quasihomeomorphism
([8]).

• X is a principal space if and only if T0(X) is also.

Corollary 3.4. The T0-reflection of a primal space is primal.

One may see by example 3.3.(4) that we have to impose additional conditions
in order to render the quasihomeomorphism cited in Theorem 3.2 a morphism
of flows from (X, f) to (Y, g).

Thus, we provide the following proposition.

Proposition 3.5. Let (X, f) (resp., (Y, g)) be a flow in Set.We equip (X, f)
(resp., (Y, g)) with the topology P(f) (resp., P(g)) and let q : X −→ Y be a
quasihomeomorphism.

If Y is a T0-space, then q is a morphism of flows from (X, f) to (Y, g).

Proof. According to Proposition 2.5, we have q is onto.
Let x ∈ X and we show that goq(x) = qof(x). We denote y = q(x). The
surjectivity of q allows us to denote x′ an antecedent of g(y) with x′ ≤ x since
q(x′) ≤ q(x).
First case : x ∈ Min(X).

We have: x′ ≤ x =⇒ x ≤ x′. Which leads to f(x) ≤ x′ so that
q(f(x)) ≤ q(x′) (1). On the other hand, since x is minimal we
have also x ≤ f(x). So x′ ≤ f(x) which gives q(x′) ≤ q(f(x))

(2). Now, we have from (1) and (2) {q(x′)} = {q(f(x))}. Since
Y is T0 then q(x

′) = g(q(x)) = q(f(x)) as desired.

Second case : x /∈ Min(X).

In this case, we have (↓ x) \ {x} =↓ f(x). So, either x′ = x or
x′ ∈↓ f(x). We start with studying the problem when x′ = x.

In that case, q(x) = q(x′) = g(q(x)) which means that {q(x)} =

{q(x)}. Now, f(x) ≤ x ⇒ q(f(x)) ≤ q(x) ⇒ q(f(x)) ∈ {q(x)}
which implies that q(f(x)) = q(x) = g(q(x)) as desired.

Therefore, we give attention now to the case when x′ ∈↓
f(x). Indeed, in that case, q(x′) ≤ q(f(x)) (∗). If q(f(x)) = y,
then we have q(f(x)) ≤ q(x) and q(x) ≤ q(f(x)). By Proposi-
tion 2.1, f(x) ≤ x and x ≤ f(x). Yet, since x /∈ Min(X) then

f(x) = x. Which means that {x} = {x} and thus x′ = x. This
leads to g(q(x)) = q(x′) = q(x) = q(f(x)), as desired.

Otherwise, if q(f(x)) 6= y, then q(f(x)) ∈ (↓ y) \ {y}. Using
Proposition 2.4.(2), we have y /∈ Min(Y ), so that (↓ y)\{y} =↓
g(y). Thus, q(f(x)) ≤ g(y) (∗∗)

Now, it follows from (∗) and (∗∗) that {q(f(x))} = {g(y)}.
Since Y is T0 then g(q(x)) = g(y) = q(f(x)). Which completes
the proof.

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 115



A. Haouati and S. Lazaar

�

We state a useful remark.

Remark 3.6. The condition ”Y is a T0−space” in Proposition 3.5 is a sufficient
condition but not a necessary condition. To see this, consider the example
3.3.(4).

4. Primal spaces and one-to-one quasihomeomorphisms

In this section, our interest is directed towards the characterization of quasi-
homeomorphisms q : X → Y that render X primal when Y is.

Thus, we present the following result.

Theorem 4.1. Let (X, τ) be a principal space, (Y, P(g)) a primal space and
q : X −→ Y a quasihomeomorphism.
If q is one-to-one, then X is primal.

Proof. Let ≤ be the specialization quasi-order on X.

• (X, ≤) is a quasi-forest.
Let x ∈ X and x1, x2 ∈↓ x. Then, q(x1), q(x2) ∈↓ q(x). Since Y is pri-
mal, we have either q(x1) ≤ q(x2) or q(x2) ≤ q(x1). Using Proposition
2.1, this leads to x1 ≤ x2 or x2 ≤ x1.

• (X, ≤) is causal.
Let x1, x2 ∈ X. Since q is one-to-one then the cardinal of [x1, x2] is
equal to the cardinal of its image by q. Using Proposition 2.1, we have
q([x1, x2]) ⊆ [q(x1), q(x2)]. Now, since Y is primal then [q(x1), q(x2)]
is finite and so [x1, x2] is also.

• ∀x ∈ X \ Min(X), [x, x] = {x}.
Let x ∈ X \ Min(X). By Corollary 2.2, q(x) ∈ Y \ Min(Y ). Using
the primality of Y , we have [q(x), q(x)] = {q(x)}. Let z ∈ [x, x], then
q(z) ∈ [q(x), q(x)] which leads to q(z) = q(x). Yet, q is one-to-one. So,
z = x. Thus, [x, x] = {x}.

Using Theorem 3.1, we conclude that X is a primal space. �

Now, we give some straightforward remarks.

Remarks 4.2.

(1) The injectivity of the quasihomeomorphism q cited in Theorem 4.1 is
necessary to conclude that X is primal. To see this, consider X = N,
Y = {α, β} both equipped with the indiscrete topology and q : X → Y
such that q(0) = α and q(N∗) = {β}.

(2) The converse of Theorem 4.1 fails. Indeed, consider the example cited
in Remark 3.3.(2).

Next, we will localize our interest to the consequences of the previous The-
orem.

Recall that a set F of a topological space X is said to be irreducible if for
each open sets U and V of X such that F ∩ U 6= ∅ and F ∩ V 6= ∅, we have

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 116



Primal spaces and quasihomeomorphisms

F ∩ U ∩ V 6= ∅ (equivalently, if C1 and C2 are two closed sets of X such that
F ⊆ C1 ∪ C2, then F ⊆ C1 or F ⊆ C2).

A topological space X is called sober if each nonempty irreducible closed set
F of X has a unique generic point(i.e there exists a unique x ∈ X such that

F = {x}).
Let S(X) be the set of all nonempty irreducible closed sets of X. Let U be

an open set of X; set Ũ = {C ∈ S(X) : U ∩ C 6= ∅}. Then, the collection

{Ũ : U is an open set of X} provides a topology on S(X) and the following
properties hold:

• The map θX : X → S(X) which carries x ∈ X to θX(x) = {x} is a
quasihomeomorphism.

• S(X) is a sober space.
• Let f : X −→ Y be a continuous map. Let S(f) : S(X) −→ S(Y ) be
the map defined by S(f)(C) = C, for each irreducible closed subset C
of X. Then S(f) is continuous.

• The topological space S(X) is called the sobrification of X, and the
assignment S(X) defines a functor from the category of topological
spaces to itself.

• Let f : X −→ Y be a continuous map. Then, the diagram

X
f

−→ Y
θX ↓ � ↓ θY

S(X)
S(f)
−→ S(Y )

is commutative.

In [2], the author has proved that S(f) is a homeomorphism if and only if
f is a quasihomeomorphism. Now, since µX : X −→ T0(X) is a quasihome-
omorphism then S(µX) is a homeomorphism and consequently S(T0(X)) is
homeomorphic to S(X). This result allows one to present the following corol-
lary.

Corollary 4.3. Let X be a topological space. If S(X) is a primal space then
T0(X) is primal.

Proof. This follows immediately from Theorem 4.1 using the one-to-one quasi-
homeomorphism θT0(X) : T0(X) → S(T0(X)), x 7→ {x} and considering that
S(T0(X)) is homeomorphic to S(X). �

Now, Proposition 3.5 motivates the following question:
Suppose that q : (X, P(f)) −→ (Y, P(g)) is a quasihomeomorphism between
two primal spaces. Does the condition ”X is a T0−space” allows one to claim
that q is morphism of flows from (X, f) to (Y, g) ?

The following example gives the answer.

Example 4.4. Let X = {α, β} with α 6= β and Y = {0, 1, 2, 3}. Set f (resp.,
g) from X (resp., Y ) to itself by f(α) = β and f(β) = β (resp., g(0) = 1, g(1) =
2, g(2) = 3 and g(3) = 1). The quasihomeomorphism defined by q(α) = 0 and

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 117



A. Haouati and S. Lazaar

q(β) = 2 is not a morphism of flows from (X, f) to (Y, g). Although X is a
T0− space.

Acknowledgements. The authors gratefully acknowledge the many helpful

corrections, comments and suggestions of the anonymous referee.

References

[1] K. Belaid, O. Echi and S. Lazaar, T(α,β)-spaces and the Wallman Compactification,

Int. J. Math. Math. Sc. 68 (2004), 3717–3735.
[2] O. Echi, Quasi-homeomorphisms, Goldspectral spaces and Jacspectral spaces, Boll.

Unione Mat. Ital. Sez. B Artic. Ric. Mat. (8)6 (2003), 489–507.
[3] O. Echi, The category of flows of Set and Top, Topology Appl. 159 (2012), 2357–2366.

[4] J. F. Kennisson, The cyclic spectrum of a Boolean flow, Theory Appl. Categ. 10 (2002),
392–409.

[5] J. F. Kennisson, Spectra of finitly generated Boolean flow, Theory Appl. Categ. 16
(2006), 434–459.

[6] A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonné, Eléments de Géométrie Algébrique, Die Grundlehren
der mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 166, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1971.

[7] A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonné, Eléments de Géométrie Algébrique. I. Le langage

des schḿas, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. 4, 1960.
[8] M. H. Stone, Applications of Boolean algebra to topology, Mat. Sb. 1 (1936), 765–772.

[9] K. W. Yip, Quasi-homeomorphisms and lattice-equivalences of topological spaces, J.
Austral. Math. Soc. 14 (1972), 41–44.

[10] G. Gierz, K. H. Hofmann, K. Keimel, J. D. Lawson, M. Mislove and D. S. Scott, Con-
tinuous Lattices and Domains, Cambridge Univ, Press, 2003.

c© AGT, UPV, 2015 Appl. Gen. Topol. 16, no. 2 118