Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We answer four questions on irreducible determined T₀-topologies and a related question on monotone determined topologies posed by Xu, Yang and Luo (Topology Appl.\ 382 (2026), 109762). For every T₀ topology $τ$, the family τᵣ used to define its irreducible-derived topology is already a topology and preserves all nonempty irreducible subsets and their closures. Consequently, the least irreducible determined refinement is obtained in one step: τᵣ=(τ)=(τ). For an arbitrary poset P, we describe the weakest order-compatible irreducible determined topology $ρ(P)$ using Dedekind--MacNeille cuts and a finite-cover condition involving principal lower sets. The Scott space of the binary-prefix domain provides a common counterexample to saturated heredity for irreducible determined spaces and monotone determined spaces: its maximal-point subspace is Cantor space. We also describe $ρ(P)$-closure by iterating an irreducible-cut operator, characterize Scott continuity of this operator, and give an example requiring two applications of the cut operator. A finite-decomposition condition extends the topology and closure-preservation results to general subset systems. For the Rudin and well-filtered determined systems, we exhibit a common T₁ example whose first and second derived topologies are the co-countable and discrete topologies, respectively. Thus the first derived topology need not be determined by the same subset system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: