Talk:Order topology

message: Right order and left order are REVERSED.  I fixed it and some tool/bot Razorflame reverted them.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.149.65 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RazorFlame undid correction 

message: show that IxI in the dictionary order topology is locally connected 
but not locally path connected.what are the components of this space?
I don't understand IxI. Do you mean the cartesian product of 2 intervals?
MFH 17:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous comments 

message: If no one raises an objection in the next few days, I will move the section Ordinal number#Topology and ordinals from that article to this one. My objective is to make that article shorter (and this one longer). JRSpriggs 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Section moved in. JRSpriggs 08:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move section here from "Ordinal number"? 

message: I think there should be a modification:-
It is also worthy of note that any continuous increasing function from ω1 to R (the real line) is eventually constant
Because if it just has to be continuous I can define it to be 1 at successors of limit ordinals and 0 elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.130.150 (talk • contribs) 
:No. The original formulation, "... any continuous function from ω1 to R (the real line) is eventually constant ...", is true. The function you specified is not continuous. Consider \omega^2\!, it is a limit (rather than the successor of a limit) so you give it the value zero. However, it is the limit of the sequence \langle (\omega \cdot n) + 1 \, | \, 0 < n < \omega \rangle  and every element in that sequence is mapped to one. Thus the function is discontinuous. JRSpriggs 06:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuous functions from omega-1 to the reals

message: It says: "subspace topology is always finer than the induced order topology;" I think that this is in the wrong direction though; i.e. it's never finer, but could be coarser.  I'm not completely sure, but Section 4.1 problem 9 on page 118 of Folland's Real Analysis asks you to prove this; and I'm pretty sure my proof is correct, although it's somewhat messy.  I don't trust the example given after it either; but I think it would be better if somebody more acquainted with the subject looked it over rather than me messing with it.
Greeneggsnspam (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: subspace topology finer than induced order topology?

message: Why the definition is restrictive to totally ordered sets? The order topology for partially ordered sets is a nice thing to build interesting counterexamples. Albmont (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition is too restrictive 

message: There are multiple sections regarding ordinals, which have some overlap. It would be worthwhile to merge these sections and remove redundancies. --Jordan Mitchell Barrett (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections on ordinals 

message: The problem with the case when X=\{x\} is a singleton, is that we do not get a base/subbase. We only can choose a=b=x and we get (-\infty,b)=(a,b)=(a,\infty)=\emptyset. So this system is not cover of X, which is one of necessary conditions of a base. (And in many sources, this is required also form a subbase.) Although this special case is probably not important enough to be explicitly mentioned. --Kompik (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe one way to solve it would be to use the sets (a,M] and [m,b) where m=\min X and M=\max X. However, this only works if the set has smallest/largest element. So with this approach, we would not need have singleton as a separate case. But the disadvantage is that the definition would be split into several cases, depending on whether the set $X$ has a smallest/largest element. --Kompik (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  When X is singleton 

message: The section titled An example of a subspace of a linearly ordered space whose topology is not an order topology is utterly opaque. I re-read it several times and keep getting stuck at the sentence Since {-1} is open in Z, there is some point p in M such that the interval (-1, p) is empty. I think this is trying to appeal to some separation axiom, but, well, I can't really tell. This section was added by a single user in 2006, and it is that user's only contribution to wikipedia. I dunno. There must be some easier way to state this example... 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example section is opaque