Some Properties of the Sorgenfrey Line and the Sorgenfrey Plane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We first provide a modified version of the proof in [3] that the Sorgenfrey line is T 1 . Here, we prove that it is in fact T2, a stronger result. Next, we prove that all subspaces of ℝ 1 (that is the real line with the usual topology) are Lindel¨of. We utilize this result in the proof that the Sorgenfrey line is Lindel¨of, which is based on the proof found in [8]. Next, we construct the Sorgenfrey plane, as the product topology of the Sorgenfrey line and itself. We prove that the Sorgenfrey plane is not Lindel¨of, and therefore the product space of two Lindel¨of spaces need not be Lindel¨of. Further, we note that the Sorgenfrey line is regular, following from [3]:59. Next, we observe that the Sorgenfrey line is normal since it is both regular and Lindel¨of. Finally, we prove that the Sorgenfrey plane is not normal, and hence the product of two normal spaces need not be normal. The proof that the Sorgenfrey plane is not normal and many of the lemmas leading up to this result are modelled after the proof in [3], that the Niemytzki plane is not normal. Information was also gathered from [15].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".