Order convergence in ordered vector spaces: compactness, atoms, pervasiveness, and ice cream spaces

For necessity it is enough to take Q:=\left\{q_{\beta}\right\}_{\beta\in B} and R:=\left\{r_{\beta}\right\}_{\beta\in B}. For sufficiency, let B:=Q\times R^{\mathrm{op}}, and for \beta=\left(q,r\right)\in B define q_{\beta}:=q, and r_{\beta}:=r.

Sufficiency: Take Q:=\left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow} and R:=\left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow}. We only need to show that they are nonempty. Indeed, if Q=\varnothing, then p=\bigvee \varnothing implies that p is the least element of P, and so in particular, p\in Q, contradiction. Similarly, R\ne\varnothing.

Necessity: Let Q,R be as in the definition of order convergence. Since we have that Q\subseteq \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow}\le \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow}, it follows that Q\le \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow}, and since \bigvee Q=p we conclude that p\le \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow}. This together with R\subseteq \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow} and \bigwedge R=p yields p= \bigwedge\left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow}. The other equality is proved similarly.

For the last claim assume that \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq\left[q\right), for some q\in P. Then, q\in \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow}, from where p=\bigvee \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow}\ge q. Hence, \left[q\right) is order closed, and similarly \left(q\right] is also order closed. For p\le q we have that \left[p,q\right]=\left[p\right)\cap \left(q\right] is order closed as an intersection of order closed sets.

The direct implications are straightforward. Assume that p_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} p. For every \alpha\in A we have that p_{\alpha}\le p_{\beta}, for each \beta\ge\alpha, and as the tail \left(p_{\beta}\right)_{\beta\ge\alpha}\subseteq\left[p_{\alpha}\right) order converges to p, by Proposition 2.3 we have p\in \left[p_{\alpha}\right). Hence, p\ge p_{\alpha}, for every \alpha\in A. Assume that q\ge p_{\alpha}, for every \alpha\in A. Then, by Proposition 2.3, \left(q\right]\ni p_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} p yields p\le q. Hence, p=\bigvee p_{\alpha}.

First, let us prove that the inclusion map from Q into P preserves all suprema and infima. Assume that r\in Q and R\subseteq Q are such that r=\bigvee_{Q} R. If p\in P is such that p\ge R, then for every q\in \left[p\right)_{Q} we have R\le p\le q, therefore r\le q; hence \left[p\right)_{Q}\ge r, from where p=\bigwedge\left[p\right)_{Q}\ge r. As p was chosen arbitrarily, we conclude that r=\bigvee_{P} R. Similarly, if r=\bigwedge_{Q} R, then r=\bigwedge_{P} R. By virtue of Proposition 2.2 we conclude that the inclusion map is order- and directed order continuous.

On the other hand, assume that \left(q_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq Q order converges in P to q\in Q, that is, \bigvee \left(q_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow_{P}}=q=\bigwedge \left(q_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow_{P}}. For every p\in \left(q_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow_{P}} we have that \left(p\right]_{Q}\subseteq \left(q_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow_{Q}} and p=\bigvee\left(p\right]_{Q}. It follows that

(supremum in P, hence in Q), and similarly q=\bigwedge \left(q_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow_{Q}}. Thus, q_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} q in Q.

(i): Let J be the embedding from P into P^{\partial} via p\mapsto\left(p\right], and let I\colon P\to \left(P^{\partial}\right)^{\mathrm{op}} be defined via p\mapsto\left[p\right). Note that I is order reversing. For every \alpha we have that \bigwedge_{\beta\ge\alpha}Jp_{\beta}=\bigcap_{\beta\ge\alpha}\left(p_{\beta}\right]. Hence, in P^{\partial} we have

Similarly, \bigvee_{\alpha}\bigwedge_{\beta\ge\alpha}Ip_{\beta}=\left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow\downarrow\uparrow}. Now

(ii) is proved similarly.

(iii): It follows from Corollary 2.7 that there is an order limit of \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} in P^{\partial} if and only if

which is equivalent to \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow\downarrow}=\left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow\uparrow\downarrow}, and also equivalent to \left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\nearrow\downarrow\uparrow}=\left(p_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}^{\searrow\uparrow}.

It is easy to see that g+h\le P+Q. If e\in E is such that e\le P+Q, then, for every p\in P and q\in Q we have that e-p\le q. Hence, e-p\le Q, from where e-p\le h, or e-h\le P. Thus, e-h\le g, which completes the proof.

(i): e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} e if and only if there are Q,R\subseteq E with \bigvee Q=e=\bigwedge R, and such that for every q\in Q and r\in R there is \alpha_{0} such that \left\{e_{\alpha}\right\}_{\alpha\ge\alpha_{0}}\subseteq\left[q,r\right]. Note that if f\in\left[q,r\right], then q-r\le f-e\le r-q. Hence, P:=R-Q dominates the tails of \left(e_{\alpha}-e\right)_{\alpha\in A}, and satisfies \bigwedge P=0_{E} by Lemma 2.11.

Conversely, if P dominates the tails of \left(e_{\alpha}-e\right)_{\alpha\in A}, let Q:=e-P and R:=e+P. Clearly, \bigvee Q=e=\bigwedge R. If q\in Q and r\in R, there are g,h\in P such that q=e-g and r=e+h. Find \alpha_{1},\alpha_{2} such that -g\le e_{\alpha}-e\le g, for every \alpha\ge \alpha_{1}, and -h\le e_{\alpha}-e\le h, for every \alpha\ge \alpha_{2}. Take \alpha_{0}\ge\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}. For every \alpha\ge\alpha_{0} we have q=e-g\le e_{\alpha}\le e+h=r.

(ii): Assume that e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} e and f_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} f, which is witnessed by P and Q, respectively. Using Lemma 2.11, it is easy to show that P+Q witnesses e_{\alpha}+f_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} e+f. Order continuity of the map e\mapsto -e is straightforward.

(i)\Rightarrow(ii): Let P\subseteq E with \bigwedge P=0_{E} dominate the tails of \left(e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}\right)_{\alpha,\beta\in A}, so that for every p\in P we can choose \alpha_{p}\in A such that -p\le e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}\le p, as soon as \alpha,\beta\ge\alpha_{p}. For all p,q\in P we can find \alpha\ge \alpha_{p},\alpha_{q}; then e_{\alpha_{p}}-e_{\alpha_{q}}=e_{\alpha_{p}}-e_{\alpha}+e_{\alpha}-e_{\alpha_{q}}\le p+q, from where e_{\alpha_{p}}-p\le e_{\alpha_{q}}+q. Then, Q:=\left\{e_{\alpha_{p}}-p:p\in P\right\} and R:=\left\{e_{\alpha_{p}}+p:p\in P\right\} satisfy \bigwedge \left(R-Q\right)=0_{E}. Moreover, for p,q\in P and \alpha\ge\alpha_{p},\alpha_{q} we have e_{\alpha_{p}}-p\le e_{\alpha}\le e_{\alpha_{q}}+q, hence Q, R are as required.

(ii)\Rightarrow(i) is proved similarly to Proposition 2.12. (ii)\Leftrightarrow(iii) is proved similarly to Proposition 2.3.

Let f\in F_{+}. There is e\in E such that e\ge f. Assume that h\in F is such that h\le \frac{1}{n}f, for every n\in\mathbb{N}. Then, for every g\in E such that g\le h and n\in\mathbb{N} we have g\le h\le \frac{1}{n}f\le \frac{1}{n}e. Since E is Archimedean, it follows that g\le 0_{E}. Then, h=\bigvee\left(h\right]_{E}\le 0_{F}, which shows that \bigwedge_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{1}{n}f=0_{F}.

First, by shifting Q if needed we may assume that Q\subseteq E_{+}.

(i): Since Q is nonempty, there is g\in Q. Then, g-f\in Q. Arguing by induction, it follows that g-nf\in Q\subseteq E_{+}, hence g\ge nf, for every n\in\mathbb{N}. As E is Archimedean, we conclude that f\le 0_{E}.

(ii): First, 0_{E}\in Q^{\downarrow}, and so Q^{\downarrow}\ne\varnothing; moreover Q\ge Q^{\downarrow}, hence Q- Q^{\downarrow}\subseteq E_{+}. Assume that e\in E is such that Q-Q^{\downarrow}\ge e. Then, for every g\in Q and h\in Q^{\downarrow} it follows that g-h\ge e, from where g\ge h+e, and so h+e\in Q^{\downarrow}. Hence, Q^{\downarrow}+e\subseteq Q^{\downarrow}. Since Q^{\downarrow} is bounded from above, it is easy to deduce from (i) that e\le 0_{E}, and so the claim follows.

It is easy to see that if the conditions in the proposition are satisfied, then the net \left(e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}\right)_{\alpha,\beta\in A} is relatively uniformly null with regulator h. Hence, we only need to prove the converse. For every n\in\mathbb{N} there is \alpha_{n}\in A such that -\frac{1}{2^{n}}h\le e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}\le \frac{1}{2^{n}}h, for every \alpha,\beta\ge\alpha_{n}. Furthermore, we may assume that \left(\alpha_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is increasing.

Fix n\in\mathbb{N} and define f_{n}:=e_{\alpha_{n}}-\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}h and g_{n}:=e_{\alpha_{n}}+\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}h. For \alpha\ge\alpha_{n} we have -\frac{1}{2^{n}}h\le e_{\alpha}-e_{\alpha_{n}}\le \frac{1}{2^{n}}h, hence f_{n}\le e_{\alpha_{n}}-\frac{1}{2^{n}}h\le e_{\alpha}\le e_{\alpha_{n}}+\frac{1}{2^{n}}h\le g_{n}. In particular, f_{n}+\frac{1}{2^{n}}h=e_{\alpha_{n}}-\frac{1}{2^{n}}h\le e_{\alpha_{n+1}}, hence f_{n}\le e_{\alpha_{n+1}}-\frac{1}{2^{n}}h=f_{n+1} and similarly g_{n+1}\le g_{n}. Finally, g_{n}-f_{n}=\frac{1}{2^{n-2}}h, and so with some relabelling it is easy to achieve the desired condition.

(i)\Rightarrow(ii) follows from the fact that if h is a regulator of convergence for a net, then \left\{\frac{1}{n}h\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} witnesses directed order convergence of this net. (ii)\Rightarrow(iii) follows from \mathrm{o}\le\mathrm{do}. (iii)\Rightarrow(i) follows from the facts that \left(\frac{1}{n}h\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is relatively uniformly null, for every h\in E_{+}, and that the order limit of a decreasing net is its infimum.

(i)\Rightarrow(iv): Let \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} be an order bounded increasing net in E, let Q:=\left\{e_{\alpha}\right\}_{\alpha\in A} and let R:=Q^{\uparrow}. It can be deduced from part (ii) of Lemma 2.17 that \bigwedge\left(R-Q\right)=0_{E}. Hence, according to Proposition 2.13, the net \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is order Cauchy.

(iv)\Rightarrow(i): Fix h\in E_{+} and consider the order bounded decreasing sequence \left(\frac{1}{n}h\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}, which is order Cauchy by (iv). It follows that there is P\subseteq E such that \bigwedge P=0_{E} and for every p\in P there is n_{p} so that \left|\frac{1}{n}h-\frac{1}{m}h\right|\le p, for all m,n\ge n_{p}. In particular, taking n:=n_{p} and m:=2n_{p} yields \frac{1}{2n_{p}}h\le p. We now conclude from \bigwedge P=0_{E} that \bigwedge_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{1}{n}h=0_{E}. Thus, E is Archimedean.

The last claim follows immediately from Proposition 2.6.

(i): Every monotone order bounded net has an extremum, hence is order convergent, and so order Cauchy. This implies the Archimedean property by Proposition 2.19.

Assume that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq E is relatively uniformly Cauchy and let h\in E_{+}, \left(f_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}, \left(g_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subseteq E and \left(\alpha_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subseteq A be as in Proposition 2.18. Since \left(f_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}},\left(g_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} are monotone and order bounded, there are f,g\in E such that f_{n}\uparrow f and g_{n}\downarrow g. It follows from the Archimedean property that f=g=:e, and for every n\in\mathbb{N} and \alpha\ge\alpha_{n} we have e_{\alpha}-e\le g_{n}-f_{n}\le \frac{1}{n}h, and similarly e_{\alpha}-e\ge -\frac{1}{n}h, thus justifying e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{ru}}e.

Assume that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq E satisfies the conditions of part (ii) of Proposition 2.14. Let Q,R be the corresponding controlling sets. Since Q is upward directed and bounded from above, we may set q_{0}:=\bigvee Q. Similarly, we may set r_{0}:=\bigwedge R. Then, we have r_{0}-q_{0}=\bigwedge\left(R-Q\right)=0_{E}, and so q_{0}=r_{0}=:e. It then follows from Proposition 2.1 that e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{do}} e.

(ii): By part (iv) of Proposition 2.19 every monotone order bounded net is order Cauchy, hence order convergent, thus has an extremum.

Assume that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq E is directed order Cauchy, so that e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{do}} 0_{E}. Since \mathrm{do}\ge\mathrm{o}, we have e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}, and as E is complete with respect to order convergence, there is e\in E such that e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} e. There is P\downarrow 0_{E} which witnesses e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{do}} 0_{E}. That is, for every p\in P there is \alpha_{0} such that -p\le e_{\alpha}-e_{\beta}\le p, for every \alpha,\beta\ge\alpha_{0}. Taking the order limit in the second variable yields -p\le e_{\alpha}-e\le p, for every \alpha\ge\alpha_{0}. Thus, e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{do}} e, and so E is directed order complete.

We only treat order convergence. The case of directed order convergence is similar.

(i): It is clear that a constant net order converges to its value, and that a quasi-subnet of an order convergent net order converges to the same limit. Assume that e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} e, f_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} e, and g_{\alpha}\in\left\{e_{\alpha},f_{\alpha}\right\}, for every \alpha. It follows from part (ii) of Proposition 2.12 that e_{\alpha}-f_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}. Let P be as in part (i) of Proposition 2.12 for \left(e_{\alpha}-f_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}. For every \alpha we have that g_{\alpha}-f_{\alpha}\in\left\{e_{\alpha}-f_{\alpha}, 0_{E}\right\}, and so it is easy to see that P witnesses g_{\alpha}-f_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}. Using part (ii) of Proposition 2.12 again we conclude that g_{\alpha}=g_{\alpha}-f_{\alpha}+f_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}+e=e. Hausdorffness follows immediately from Proposition 2.3.

(ii): Necessity: The fact that E is Archimedean is proved similarly to the implication (iii)\Rightarrow(i) in Proposition 2.19. Let e\in E; it follows from linearity of order convergence that \frac{1}{n}e\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}, witnessed by P\subseteq E_{+} with \bigwedge P=0_{E}. It follows that there are 0_{E}\le p\in P and n\in\mathbb{N} such that \frac{1}{n}e\le p. Then, np\ge e,0_{E}, showing that E is directed.

Sufficiency: In the light of part (ii) of Proposition 2.12, we only need to prove that if e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} e and \mathbb{R}\ni r_{\alpha}\to r, then r_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} re. It is easy to see that re_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} re, and so without loss of generality we may assume that r=0. By passing to a tail, we may also assume that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq\left[-u,u\right], for u\in E_{+}. Then, r_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{ru}} 0_{E} with regulator u, which implies r_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}, according to Proposition 2.19.

The case of directed order convergence is analogous.

(iii): The fact that \mathrm{ru} is a linear convergence structure is proven in [btw, Section 10] (note that it is immaterial for that result whether E is a lattice).

Assume that B\subseteq\left[-u,u\right], for u\in E_{+}. Let \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq B and let \left(r_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq \mathbb{R} converge to 0. Arguing as in the previous step, we see that r_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}. We conclude that E is bounded with respect to order convergence. The converse follows from the fact that order convergence is locally order bounded and [bctv, Corollary 8.3] (note that it is immaterial for that result whether E is a lattice).

First, as an ordered Banach space, E is Archimedean (see [at, Lemma 2.3]), and so \mathrm{ru}\ge \mathrm{do}, by Proposition 2.19. Since the norm convergence is locally full and every net which decreases to 0_{E} converges in norm to 0_{E}, it follows from the comment above that \mathrm{do}\ge\|\cdot\| on E.

Assume that e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{do}} 0_{E}, witnessed by P\downarrow 0_{E}. Then, P\to 0_{E} in norm, and so there are h\in E_{+} and \left(p_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subseteq P such that p_{n}\le\frac{1}{n}h (the proof of [tt, Lemma 1.1] goes through, since the elements of the net are positive). For every n\in\mathbb{N} there is \alpha_{n} such that -\frac{1}{n}h\le -p_{n}\le e_{\alpha} \le p_{n}\le \frac{1}{n}h, whenever \alpha\ge\alpha_{n}. We conclude that e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{ru}} 0_{E} with regulator h.

As F is a lattice, it is enough to show that f is a minimal upper bound for \left[0_{F},f\right]_{E}. Assume that there is f>g\ge\left[0_{F},f\right]_{E}. Then, there is h\in \left(0_{F},f-g\right]\cap E, but then \left[0_{F},f\right]_{E}+h\subseteq\left[0_{F},f\right]_{E} and part (i) of Lemma 2.17 yields that h=0_{F}, contradiction.

For f\in F find e\in E with e\ge f. Then, e-f=\bigvee \left[0_{F},e-f\right]_{E}, hence

which implies f=\bigwedge \left[f\right)_{E}. Thus, E is infimum-dense in F, which is equivalent to being supremum-dense. The last claim follows from Proposition 2.6.

The family of all nonempty directed subsets of R:=\bigcup_{p\in P}\left[0_{F},p\right]_{E} is nonempty (as it contains \left\{0_{F}\right\}) and every chain of such subsets has an upper bound (its union). By Zorn’s lemma there is a maximal member Q of this family. We will show that g=\bigvee Q. Assume that this is false, and so there is f\in F with Q\le f< g. Since g=\bigvee P, we can find P\ni g_{1}\not\le f. As E is order dense in F, there is e\in E\cap \left(0_{F},\left(g_{1}-f\right)^{+}\right].

For a fixed h\in Q let us show that h+e\in R. There is g_{2}\in P such that h\in \left[0_{F},g_{2}\right]. Since P is directed, it contains g_{3}\ge g_{1},g_{2}. Then, h\le g_{2}\le g_{3} and h\in Q\le f yield h\le g_{3}\wedge f. Hence,

and so h+e\in \left[0_{F},g_{3}\right]_{E}\subseteq R.

It follows that Q\cup \left(Q+e\right)\subseteq R. Furthermore, Q\cup \left(Q+e\right) is directed: if h_{1}\in Q and h_{2}\in Q+e, find Q\ni h_{3}\ge h_{1},h_{2}-e; then h_{3}+e\ge h_{1},h_{2} (other cases are obvious). Due to maximality of Q, we have Q+e\subseteq Q. As Q is bounded from above and F is Archimedean, e\le 0_{F} by virtue of Lemma 2.17, contradicting the assumption on e.

By replacing P with \left[0_{F},p_{0}\right]\cap P if needed, we may assume that P\le p_{0}\le e_{0}. Let R:=e_{0}-P, which is upward directed and satisfies e_{0}=\bigvee R. According to Proposition 3.3, there is an upward directed S\subseteq \bigcup_{r\in R}\left[0_{F},r\right]_{E} such that e_{0}=\bigvee S. Finally, Q:=e_{0}-S fulfills the requirements.

(iii)\Rightarrow(ii)\Rightarrow(i) is trivial. (ii)\Rightarrow(iii) follows from applying Proposition 3.3 to \left\{e\right\}. (v)\Rightarrow(ii) follows from the fact that E_{+} is supremum-dense in \left(E_{+}\right)^{\partial}.

(ii)\Rightarrow(iv): First, note that \left[e,f\right]_{E^{\delta}} is a complete lattice, which contains \left[e,f\right]. Hence, in order to prove that \left[e,f\right]^{\partial}\simeq \left[e,f\right]_{E^{\delta}} it is enough to show that \left[e,f\right] is supremum- and infimum-dense in \left[e,f\right]_{E^{\delta}}. Since translations on ordered vector spaces are order isomorphisms, without loss of generality we may assume that e=0_{E}. Now the supremum density follows directly from Proposition 3.1, and the fact that being a supremum of a set in a poset implies being a supremum in its order interval. Infimum density can be reduced to the preceding argument by taking f=0_{E} and using the fact that additive inversion is an order anti-isomorphism.

(iv)\Rightarrow(v): By the argument above we only need to prove that E_{+} is supremum- and infimum-dense in \left(E^{\delta}\right)_{+}\cup \left\{+\8\right\}. For every 0_{E^{\delta}}<f\in E^{\delta} there is e\in E such that f<e. By assumption, we have

It is easy to see that then f=\bigvee_{E^{\delta}}\left(E\cap\left[0_{E^{\delta}},f\right]_{E^{\delta}}\right). This argument shows supremum density; infimum density follows from the fact that E is infimum-dense in E^{\delta}.

(v)\Rightarrow(vi): Assume that Q\subseteq E_{+} and e\in E_{+} are such that e=\bigwedge_{E_{+}}Q. Then, by Proposition 2.6, it follows that e=\bigwedge_{\left(E_{+}\right)^{\partial}}Q, and it follows from the assumption that e=\bigwedge_{\left(E^{\delta}\right)_{+}}Q. As E^{\delta} is a vector lattice, this implies that e=\bigwedge_{E^{\delta}}Q, and as all involved elements are in E, we conclude that e=\bigwedge_{E}Q.

(vi)\Rightarrow(vii) is trivial.

(vii)\Rightarrow(viii): If e\not\le 0_{E}, then 0_{E} is not the infimum of \left\{e,0_{E}\right\}^{\uparrow} in E. By assumption it follows that 0_{E} is not the infimum of \left\{e,0_{E}\right\}^{\uparrow} in E_{+}, and so there is a nonzero lower bound g for this set in E_{+}. It is easy to see that this g satisfies the requirements.

(viii)\Rightarrow(ii): For 0_{E^{\delta}}<h, the set Q:=\left(h-E^{\delta}_{+}\right)\cap E is a cut in E which strictly contains -E_{+}, and so there is e\in Q such that e\not\le 0_{E^{\delta}}. Take 0_{E^{\delta}}<g\in E such that \left\{0_{E},e\right\}^{\uparrow}\subseteq g+E_{+}, from where g\in\left\{0_{E},e\right\}^{\uparrow\downarrow}\subseteq Q\subseteq h-E^{\delta}_{+}, hence g\in \left(0_{E^{\delta}},h\right].

(i)\Rightarrow(viii): Assume that F is a vector lattice, and that E\subseteq F is an order dense subspace. Take E\ni e\not\le 0_{E}. Then, e^{+}>0_{F}, and so we can find g\in E\cap \left(0_{F},e^{+}\right]. Now if f\ge e,0_{E}, then f\ge e^{+}, and so f\ge g, as required.

(viii)\Rightarrow(ix): Applying (viii) to e-f we get h>0_{E} such that \left\{e-f,0_{E}\right\}^{\uparrow}\subseteq \left\{h\right\}^{\uparrow}. Then, g:=h+f satisfies the requirements.

(ix)\Rightarrow(viii): Since E is directed, we have that e=u-v, where u,v\in E_{+} with u\not\le v. Hence, by (ix) there is w>v such that \left\{u,v\right\}^{\uparrow}\subseteq \left\{w\right\}^{\uparrow}. Then, g:=w-v satisfies the requirements.

(x)\Rightarrow(viii) is obtained by taking f=0_{E}.

(ii)\Rightarrow(x): As \left\{e,f\right\}^{\uparrow}\subsetneq E_{+} it follows that \left\{e,f\right\}^{\uparrow\downarrow}\supsetneq -E_{+}=0_{E^{\delta}}, which means that \left\{e,f\right\}^{\uparrow\downarrow}=e\vee_{E^{\delta}}f is a strictly positive element of E^{\delta}. By (ii) there is g\in E such that 0_{E^{\delta}}<g\le e\vee_{E^{\delta}}f. The latter means g\in\left\{e,f\right\}^{\uparrow\downarrow}, which translates into \left\{e,f\right\}^{\uparrow}\subseteq \left\{g\right\}^{\uparrow}.

First, according to Proposition 2.16, F is Archimedean, and so F^{\delta} exists. Moreover, E is supremum-dense in F^{\delta}, therefore F^{\delta}=E^{\delta}. By Theorem 3.5, E is order dense in E^{\delta}, and since we have E\subseteq F\subseteq E^{\delta}, it follows that E is order dense in F. It also follows that F is order dense in F^{\delta}, and so by Theorem 3.5, F is pervasive.

We only need to show that order convergence is stronger than directed order convergence. In light of Proposition 2.19, it is enough to show that if \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq E is (directed) order null in E^{\delta}, then it is directed order null in E. Let P\subseteq E^{\delta} be a directed downward set which witnesses the order convergence of the net. According to Proposition 3.4, there is Q\subseteq E\cap \left(P+E_{+}\right) which is directed downward and such that \bigwedge Q=0_{E^{\delta}}. For every q\in Q there is p\in P with q\ge p, and so there is \alpha_{0} such that \pm e_{\alpha}\le p\le q, as soon as \alpha\ge\alpha_{0}. Hence, Q witnesses e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{do}} 0_{E}, as desired.

(i)\Rightarrow(iii): To prove that E is weakly pervasive assume that e,f\in E_{+} are such that e\wedge_{E_{+}}f=0_{E}. If g\in E is such that g\le e,f, then g^{+}\in E_{+} together with g^{+}\le e,f yield g^{+}=0_{E}, hence g\le 0_{E}. Thus, e\wedge_{E} f=0_{E}.

For every e\in E we have that e^{+},e^{-}\in E_{+}, e=e^{+}-e^{-} and e^{+}\wedge_{E_{+}}e^{-}=0_{E}.

(iii)\Rightarrow(ii) follows from the definition of weak pervasiveness.

(ii)\Rightarrow(i): Let e\in E and let f,g\in E_{+} be such that e=f-g and f\wedge g=0_{E}. Then, e^{+}= \left(f-g\right)^{+}=f-f\wedge g=f. Hence, every element of E has a positive part, which is sufficient for E to be a lattice.

(i)\Rightarrow(ii) is established in [btw, Proposition 9.10]. (ii)\Rightarrow(iii) follows from part (ii) of Proposition 2.21. In (iii)\Rightarrow(iv), Archimedeanness follows from part (i) of Proposition 2.21, while the rest is straightforward. In (iv)\Rightarrow(i), the fact that E is a lattice is proved in [gluck, Theorem 4.12], while Dedekind completeness follows from [markowsky, Corollary 1].

First, since H is directed, it is easy to see that I_{F}\left(H\right)=\bigcup_{h\in H_{+}}\left[-h,h\right]. Let 0_{F}<f\in I_{F}\left(H\right), so that there is h\in H_{+} with f\le h. As E is order dense, there is e\in\left(0_{F},f\right]\cap E. In particular, 0_{F}\le e\le h, and since H is full we conclude that e\in H.

(i) follows from Corollary 3.8 and Proposition 3.12.

(ii): Let h\in H_{+}. It follows from (i) that R:=\left[-h,h\right]_{H^{\delta}} is an order interval in E^{\delta}. Hence, the restrictions of both \mathrm{o}_{E^{\delta}} and \mathrm{o}_{H^{\delta}} to R agree with \mathrm{o}_{R} (see [abt, Lemma 2.2]). By the last part of Proposition 2.19, we have \mathrm{o}_{E}=\left.\mathrm{o}_{E^{\delta}}\right|_{E} and \mathrm{o}_{H}=\left.\mathrm{o}_{H^{\delta}}\right|_{H}. Since \left[-h,h\right]\subseteq R, we conclude that \left.\mathrm{o}_{E}\right|_{\left[-h,h\right]}=\left.\mathrm{o}_{E^{\delta}}\right|_{\left[-h,h\right]}=\left.\mathrm{o}_{H^{\delta}}\right|_{\left[-h,h\right]}=\left.\mathrm{o}_{H}\right|_{\left[-h,h\right]}.

(i)\Rightarrow(ii): Clearly, E is a lattice. Moreover, since the infimum of two elements is their minimum, it follows that E is disjointness-free.

(ii)\Rightarrow(i): If E is not totally ordered, then after translation there is an element e incomparable with 0_{E}, and so e^{+} and e^{-} are nonzero disjoint elements.

(ii)\Rightarrow(iii) is trivial.

(iii)\Rightarrow(i): First, we show that E^{\rho} is disjointness-free. Indeed, if 0_{E^{\rho}}<g,h\in E^{\rho}_{+} are disjoint, according to Remark 3.15, there are e\in\left(0_{E^{\rho}},g\right]\cap E and f\in\left(0_{E^{\rho}},h\right]\cap E, which are then also disjoint, contradiction. Now we can apply the equivalence of (i) and (ii) to E^{\rho} and conclude that it is totally ordered. Therefore every two elements in E^{\rho}, and hence in E, are comparable.

It is well-known (see [ab0, Chapter 1, Exercise 14]) that an Archimedean totally ordered vector space is \{0\} or \mathbb{R}, showing the final statement.

Necessity: There is e\in \left(0_{F},f\right]\cap E\subseteq\mathbb{R} f\cap E, and so there is r>0 such that rf\in E. Thus, f\in E, and clearly it is an atom there.

Sufficiency: Assume that f is not an atom in F, so that there are disjoint g,h\in\left(0_{F},f\right]. Find u\in \left(0_{F},g\right]\cap E and v\in \left(0_{F},h\right]\cap E. It follows that u,v\in \left[0_{F},f\right]_{E} are linearly independent, contradicting the fact that f is an atom in E.

Necessity: Every element of F_{+} is a supremum of a collection of atoms in F. According to Proposition 3.17, atoms in F are also atoms in E, and so every element of E_{+} is a supremum in F (hence in E) of a collection of atoms in E.

Sufficiency: Let f>0_{F}. There is e\in\left(0_{F},f\right]\cap E, and since E is atomic, there is an atom g\in\left(0_{F},e\right]\cap E. Then, 0_{F}<g\le f, and according to Proposition 3.17, g is an atom in F. As f was arbitrary, we conclude that F is atomic.

First, assume that U_{1},\dots,U_{n} are disjoint and fix k=1,\dots,n. By Urysohn’s lemma there is f_{k}\in \mathcal{C}\left(K\right)\cap \left(\0,\1_{U_{k}}\right]. Since E is order dense in \mathcal{C}\left(K\right), we can find some e_{k}\in\left(\0,f_{k}\right]\cap E. In particular, e_{k} vanishes outside of U_{k}, and so it attains its norm at some point x_{k}\in U_{k}. Then, f:=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{1}{\|e_{k}\|}e_{k}\in \left[\0,\1\right]_{E} vanishes outside of U_{1}\cup\dots\cup U_{n}, and moreover f\left(x_{k}\right)=1 for every k=1,\dots,n.

In the general case, we first find disjoint nonempty open sets V_{1},\dots,V_{m} such that V_{1}\cup\dots\cup V_{m}\subseteq U_{1}\cup\dots\cup U_{n} and for every k\in\{1,\dots,n\} there is l\in\{1,\dots,m\} so that V_{l}\subseteq U_{k}. Their existence can be proved by induction over n.

The case n=1 is trivial. If the claim is proved for n, and U_{0},\dots,U_{n} are open and nonempty, by the induction hypothesis we can find V_{1},\dots,V_{m} corresponding to U_{1},\dots,U_{n}. Let us show that the collection of all nonempty sets among V_{i}\cap U_{0}, V_{i}\setminus \overline{U_{0}}, i\in\{1,\dots,m\}, and U_{0}\setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^{m}\overline{V_{i}} satisfies the requirements. For j\in\{1,\dots,n\} find i\in\{1,\dots,m\} such that V_{i}\subseteq U_{j}. Then, one of V_{i}\cap U_{0}, V_{i}\setminus \overline{U_{0}} is nonempty and contained in V_{i}, hence in U_{j}. Also, either V_{i}\cap U_{0}\ne\varnothing, for some i\in\{1,\dots,m\}, or U_{0}\setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^{m}\overline{V_{i}} is nonempty and contained in U_{0}. This verifies the conclusion of the induction step.

Now, according to the special case, there is f\in \left[\0,\1\right]_{E} which vanishes outside of V_{1}\cup\dots\cup V_{m}\subseteq U_{1}\cup\dots\cup U_{n} and such that f^{-1}\left(1\right)\cap V_{l}\ne\varnothing, for every l\in\{1,\dots,m\}. For every k\in\{1,\dots,n\} find l as above; it follows that f^{-1}\left(1\right)\cap U_{k}\supseteq f^{-1}\left(1\right)\cap V_{l}\ne\varnothing.

There is a dense Z\subseteq K such that K\setminus Z is also dense (see [hewitt]). Let \mathcal{Z} and \mathcal{Y} be the collections of all finite subsets of Z and K\setminus Z, respectively, ordered by inclusion. For z\in Z let \mathcal{U}_{z} be the collection of all neighborhoods of z, ordered by reverse inclusion. Let \Gamma:=\mathcal{Z}\times \mathcal{Y}\times \prod_{z\in Z}\mathcal{U}_{z}, which is a directed set. Let \gamma=\left(A,B,\left(U_{z}\right)_{z\in Z}\right)\in\Gamma, where A=\left\{z_{1},\dots,z_{n}\right\}\subseteq Z. For every k\in\{1,\dots,n\} we have that V_{k}:=U_{z_{k}}\setminus B is a neighborhood of z_{k}. Applying Lemma 3.20 to V_{1},\dots,V_{n}, there is f_{\gamma}\in \left[\0,\1\right]_{E} which vanishes on B and such that f^{-1}_{\gamma}\left(1\right)\cap V_{k}\ne\varnothing, for every k\in\{1,\dots,n\}.

Let \left(f_{\gamma_{\delta}}\right)_{\delta\in\Delta} be a subnet of \left(f_{\gamma}\right)_{\gamma\in\Gamma}. We claim that for every \delta_{0}\in\Delta we have \bigvee_{\delta\ge\delta_{0}}f_{\gamma_{\delta}}=\1 and \bigwedge_{\delta\ge\delta_{0}}f_{\gamma_{\delta}}=\0. Once this is established, it will follow immediately from Proposition 2.13 that \left(f_{\gamma_{\delta}}\right)_{\delta\in\Delta} is not order Cauchy.

For the former claim, let U\ne\varnothing be an open set. As Z is dense, we can find x\in Z\cap U. There is \delta\ge\delta_{0} such that \gamma_{\delta}\ge\left(\left\{x\right\},\varnothing, \left(U_{z}\right)_{z\in Z}\right), where U_{x}:=U and U_{z}:=K if z\ne x. Then, \gamma_{\delta}=\left(A,B,\left(V_{z}\right)_{z\in Z}\right), where x\in A and V_{x}\subseteq U_{x}=U. We have that

Since U was chosen arbitrarily, it follows from [bt, Lemma 3.1] that \bigvee_{\delta\ge\delta_{0}}f_{\gamma_{\delta}}=\1.

We now prove the latter claim. For every y\in K\setminus Z, there is \delta\ge\delta_{0} such that \gamma_{\delta}\ge\left(\varnothing,\left\{y\right\},\left(K\right)_{z\in Z}\right). Arguing as in the previous step, we see that f_{\gamma_{\delta}}\left(y\right)=0, and since y was arbitrary, it is easy to conclude that \bigwedge_{\delta\ge\delta_{0}}f_{\gamma_{\delta}}=\0.

(i)\Rightarrow(ii): Fix e\in E_{+}, and let \Gamma:=\mathbb{N}\times\left[0_{E},e\right], ordered by the first component. Define a net \left(e_{\gamma}\right)_{\gamma\in\Gamma} by e_{\left(n,f\right)}:=\frac{1}{n}f. The tails of this net are of the form \left[0_{E},\frac{1}{n}e\right], for some n\in\mathbb{N}. It follows that e_{\gamma}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{ru}} 0_{E}, therefore e_{\gamma}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}, and so there is n\in\mathbb{N} such that \left[0_{E},\frac{1}{n}e\right] is order pre-compact. It is easy to deduce from this that every order interval in E is order pre-compact.

(ii)\Rightarrow(i) follows from the fact that every order convergent net is eventually order bounded, hence contained in an interval, which is order pre-compact.

(iii)\Rightarrow(iv): Suppose that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is not order-null. If it is not eventually order bounded, it has a subnet with no further order bounded subnets (see [bctv, Proposition 9.5]; take into account the comment after [bctv, Proposition 9.1]). In particular, this subnet has no further order-null subnets.

If \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is eventually order bounded, without loss of generality we may assume that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq \left[-e,e\right], for some e\in E_{+}. By assumption, there is a topology \tau on \left[-e,e\right] which agrees with order convergence. As the net is not order-null, there are a \tau-neighborhood U of 0_{E} and a majorizing A'\subseteq A such that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A'}\subseteq \left[-e,e\right]\setminus U. It is clear that no further subnet of \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A'} is order-null.

(ii),(iv)\Rightarrow(v): Assume that e>0_{E} is such that \left[0_{E},e\right] contains no atoms. The subspace H:=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left[-ne,ne\right] satisfies the conditions of Corollary 3.13. Hence, without loss of generality we may assume that E=H, and so e is an order unit in E. Furthermore, it remains an order unit in E^{\delta}, which we therefore may assume to be isomorphic to \mathcal{C}\left(K\right), for some compact Hausdorff K (see [lz, Theorem 45.4]). Thus, E embeds as an order dense subspace of \mathcal{C}\left(K\right) and e=\1. By virtue of Proposition 2.19, order convergence in E is the restriction of order convergence in \mathcal{C}\left(K\right). According to Proposition 3.17, \mathcal{C}\left(K\right) is atomless, and so K has no isolated points (see [abt, Lemma 3.2]).

By Proposition 3.21 there is a net in \left[\0,\1\right]_{E} which has no order Cauchy subnets. We conclude that \left[0_{E},e\right] is not order pre-compact. This establishes (ii)\Rightarrow(v).

To prove (iv)\Rightarrow(v), we first adapt [bctv, Lemma 9.12] to order dense subspaces of \mathcal{C}\left(K\right). To that end, we construct f_{\alpha} as in the proof of that lemma, except that instead of requiring f_{\alpha}\left(t_{\alpha}\right)=1 we only demand that f_{\alpha}^{-1}\left(1\right)\cap U_{t_{\alpha}}^{\alpha}\ne\varnothing (which we can achieve by Lemma 3.20).

Now, according to this modified result, there is a net in \left[\0,\1\right]_{E} which is not order-null but such that its every subnet contains a further order-null subnet. This shows that order convergence does not have the Choquet property.

(v)\Rightarrow(vi): It follows from Corollary 3.18 that E^{\delta} is atomic, and so isomorphic to an order dense ideal in \mathbb{R}^{X} for some set X (see [ab0, Theorems 1.40 and 1.78]). As E is order dense in E^{\delta}, it is order dense in \mathbb{R}^{X}, and so contains all atoms of the latter, in particular, \1_{\left\{x\right\}} for every x\in X.

(vi)\Rightarrow(ii),(iii): First, let F be the ideal generated by E in \mathbb{R}^{X}. Then, by Proposition 3.12, E is order dense and majorizing, hence supremum-dense in F, and so by Proposition 2.6, order convergence in E is the restriction of order convergence in F. Now, by [abt, Proposition 2.5], order convergence in order bounded sets in F agrees with the pointwise convergence, which is topological, and these sets are order pre-compact.

(i)\Leftrightarrow(ii) is proved analogously to the corresponding equivalence in Theorem 3.22. It is easy to see that order compactness of order intervals implies monotone completeness, and so in this case E is an atomic Dedekind complete vector lattice, by virtue of Proposition 3.11 and Theorem 3.22. Hence, we get (ii)\Rightarrow(iii), while (iii)\Leftrightarrow(iv)\Rightarrow(ii) were already proven in [abt].

By Corollary 3.23 and Theorem 3.22, the order intervals in E are order compact, and order convergence in these intervals is induced by a linear topology. Hence, we may apply the properties of compact uniform spaces to order convergence in this case, and derive both claims.

Recall that order continuous Banach lattices are Dedekind complete (see [ab0, Theorem 3.24]), and so (i)\Rightarrow(ii),(iii) follow from Corollary 3.24.

Let us show that order (uniform) continuity is equivalent to norm (uniform) continuity. Clearly, since order convergence is stronger than norm convergence, norm (uniform) continuity implies order (uniform) continuity. To prove the converse, assume that \varphi\colon\left[0_{E},e\right]\to \mathbb{R} is uniformly order continuous, but not uniformly norm continuous. Then, there are \left(e_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} and \left(f_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} in \left[0_{E},e\right] and \varepsilon>0 such that e_{n}-f_{n}\to 0_{E} in norm, but \left|\varphi\left(e_{n}\right)-\varphi\left(f_{n}\right)\right|\ge\varepsilon, for all n\in\mathbb{N}. There is a subsequence \left(n_{m}\right)_{m\in\mathbb{N}} such that e_{n_{m}}-f_{n_{m}}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E} (see [tt, Lemma 1.1]), which contradicts order uniform continuity, since \left|\varphi\left(e_{n_{m}}\right)-\varphi\left(f_{n_{m}}\right)\right|\ge\varepsilon, for every m\in\mathbb{N}. The “non-uniform” case is done analogously.

Now the condition (ii) is equivalent to boundedness of every norm continuous function on \left[0_{E},e\right], for every e\in E_{+}. This condition is equivalent to compactness of \left[0_{E},e\right], for every e\in E_{+}, which is further equivalent to atomicity of E (see [lipecky, Theorem 1]). Hence, we get (ii)\Rightarrow(i).

Finally, the condition (iii) is equivalent to uniform norm continuity of every norm continuous function on \left[0_{E},e\right], for every e\in E_{+}. It is easy to see that every uniformly norm continuous function on a convex norm bounded set is bounded. Hence, we get (iii)\Rightarrow(ii).

(iii)\Rightarrow(i) follows from the fact that, for Q\subseteq E, we have \bigwedge_{E} Q=0_{E} if and only if \bigwedge_{E^{\delta}} Q=0_{E^{\delta}}.

(i)\Rightarrow(ii): Existence of some countable Q'\subseteq Q with \bigwedge Q'=0_{E} follows immediately from (i). If Q'=\left\{q_{n}\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}, we can construct a sequence \left(e_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subseteq Q as follows. Let e_{1}:=q_{1}, and if e_{1},\dots,e_{n} are already selected, then since Q is directed downward, it contains some e_{n+1}\le e_{n},q_{n+1}. It is easy to see that \bigwedge_{n\in\mathbb{N}}e_{n}=0_{E}.

(ii)\Rightarrow(iii): It follows from Theorem 3.5 that E is an order dense subspace of E^{\delta}. Suppose that P\subseteq E^{\delta} is such that \bigwedge P=0_{E^{\delta}}. According to Corollary 3.4 applied to P^{\wedge}, there is Q\subseteq E\cap \bigcup_{p\in P^{\wedge}}\left(p+E_{+}^{\delta}\right) such that Q\downarrow 0_{E^{\delta}}. By our assumption, there is a countable Q'\subseteq Q such that Q'\downarrow 0_{E}. For every q\in Q' there is a finite P_{q}\subseteq P such that \bigwedge P_{q}\le q. It follows now that P':=\bigcup_{q\in Q'}P_{q} is countable, and it is easy to see that \bigwedge P'=0_{E^{\delta}}.

(iii)\Leftrightarrow(iv): According to [lz, Theorem 29.3], E^{\delta} has the CSP if and only if each disjoint order bounded set there is countable. Clearly, this condition implies (iv). For the converse, note that if D\subseteq E^{\delta}_{+}\setminus\left\{0_{E^{\delta}}\right\} is disjoint, uncountable and order bounded, then for every d\in D there is e_{d}\in E\cap \left(0_{E^{\delta}},d\right]; then \left\{e_{d}:d\in D\right\} is disjoint, uncountable and order bounded in E, which is a contradiction.

(ii)\Rightarrow(vi) follows from the definitions and the fact that order and directed order convergences agree on pervasive spaces (Proposition 3.9). (vi)\Rightarrow(v) follows from the fact that \sigma-order convergence is stronger than order convergence, but weaker than directed \sigma-order convergence.

(v)\Rightarrow(ii): Assume that Q\subseteq E is such that Q\downarrow 0_{E}. Then, Q\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}, hence Q\xrightarrow[]{\sigma\mathrm{o}} 0_{E}, and so there is a countable P\subseteq E such that \bigwedge P=0_{E}, and P dominates the tails of Q. This means that for every p\in P there is q_{p}\in Q with q_{p}\le p. It now follows that Q':=\left\{q_{p}:p\in P\right\} is a countable subset of Q with \bigwedge Q'=0_{E}.

(i)\Leftrightarrow(ii) is proved analogously to the corresponding equivalence in Theorem 3.22.

(ii)\Rightarrow(iii): Let us first show that E satisfies the condition (ii) of Proposition 3.28. Assume that Q\downarrow 0_{E}. Without loss of generality we may assume that this net is contained in an order interval, and so contains a \sigma-order Cauchy subnet \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}. There is a countable P\subseteq E with \bigwedge P=0_{E} which dominates the tails of \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}. For every p\in P there is \alpha_{p} such that e_{\alpha_{p}}-e_{\alpha}\le p, for every \alpha\ge\alpha_{p}; in fact, since e_{\alpha}\downarrow 0_{E}, it follows that e_{\alpha_{p}}\le p. Then, Q':=\left\{e_{\alpha_{p}}:p\in P\right\} is a countable subset of Q with \bigwedge Q'=0_{E}.

It now follows from Proposition 3.28 that order and \sigma-order convergences agree on E. In particular, every order interval in E is order pre-compact, and so E is atomic, according to Theorem 3.22. The converse is proved by reversing the last two arguments.

(iii)\Rightarrow(iv): According to Theorem 3.22, E is isomorphic to a subspace of \mathbb{R}^{X}, for some set X, with \1_{\left\{x\right\}}\in E for every x\in X. Since E also has the CSP, in light of condition (iv) in Proposition 3.28, E\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{X}_{csp}. The converse is straightforward.

(i)\Leftrightarrow(ii) is proved analogously to the corresponding equivalence in Theorem 3.22. (iii)\Rightarrow(iv) follows from combining Proposition 3.30 with [ab0, Theorem 1.40], while the converse is straightforward.

(ii)\Rightarrow(iii): It follows from Proposition 3.30 that E has the CSP, and so order and \sigma-order convergences agree on E. Hence, order intervals in E are order compact, and so, by Corollary 3.23, E is an atomic Dedekind complete vector lattice. The converse is proved by reversing these arguments.

(i)\Leftrightarrow(ii) is proved analogously to the corresponding equivalence in Theorem 3.22.

(ii)\Rightarrow(iii): Arguing as in the proof of the corresponding implication in Proposition 3.30, one can show that any Q\downarrow 0_{E} contains an \mathrm{ru}-null sequence. This fact can then be leveraged to show that \mathrm{ru}=\mathrm{do} on E. By Proposition 3.9, we conclude that \mathrm{ru}=\mathrm{o} on E, and in particular, order intervals in E are order pre-compact. Thus, E is atomic, by virtue of Theorem 3.22. By reversing the latter two arguments we get (iii)\Rightarrow(ii).

(iii)\Rightarrow(iv): First, since E is atomic, by Theorem 3.22 we may assume that it is a subspace of \mathbb{R}^{X} for some set X, with \1_{\left\{x\right\}}\in E for every x\in X. Moreover, order convergence agrees with pointwise convergence in order bounded subsets of E. The last condition is trivially satisfied if X is finite, and so we assume otherwise.

Let e\in E_{+}. Let A be the collection of all finite subsets of X. For \alpha\in A define e_{\alpha}\colon X\to\mathbb{R} by e_{\alpha}\left(x\right):=\frac{e\left(x\right)}{\left|\alpha\right|} if x\in\alpha, and e_{\alpha}\left(x\right):=e\left(x\right), otherwise. Then, \operatorname{supp} \left(e-e_{\alpha}\right) is finite, hence e-e_{\alpha}\in E, and so e_{\alpha}\in E.

Clearly, e_{\alpha}\to\0 pointwise, therefore in order, hence relatively uniformly. Thus, there is g\in E_{+} such that for every n\in\mathbb{N} there is \alpha such that e_{\alpha}\le \frac{1}{n}g, and so, for all x\notin\alpha, we have e\left(x\right)=e_{\alpha}\left(x\right)\le \frac{1}{n}g\left(x\right). Since \alpha is a finite set, it follows that g majorates e.

If f\in E, find e\in E_{+} such that \pm f\le e, and g\in E_{+} which majorates e. It is clear that g also majorates f.

(iv)\Rightarrow(iii): Suppose that e_{\alpha}\downarrow \0. Without loss of generality we may assume that this net is bounded above by some e\in E_{+}. Let g be a majorant of e. Fix n\in\mathbb{N}. There are x_{1},\dots,x_{m}\in X such that \frac{1}{n}g\left(x\right)\ge e\left(x\right), for all x\notin\left\{x_{1},\dots,x_{m}\right\}. Since \left(e_{\alpha}\right) converges to \0 pointwise, there is \alpha_{n} such that e_{\alpha}\left(x_{k}\right)\le \frac{1}{n}g\left(x_{k}\right), whenever \alpha\ge\alpha_{n} and k\in\left\{1,\dots,m\right\}. It now follows that e_{\alpha}\le \frac{1}{n}g as soon as \alpha\ge\alpha_{n}. Since n was arbitrary, we conclude that e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{ru}}\0.

First, it is clear that U_{a^{+}}a^{-}=0_{A}=U_{a^{-}}a^{+}. Assume that 0_{A}\le b\le a^{+},a^{-}. Then, 0_{A}\le U_{a^{+}}b\le U_{a^{+}}a^{-}=0_{A}. Hence, U_{a^{+}}b=0_{A}, implying U_{b}a^{+}=0_{A} (see [as, Lemma 1.26]). Therefore, 0_{A}\le b^{3}=U_{b}b\le U_{b}a^{+}=0_{A}, thus b^{3}=0_{A}, and so b=0_{A}.

Sufficiency was already addressed above. For necessity, note that by [as, Proposition 2.52] any normal functional is a difference of positive normal functionals. The latter two are directed order continuous by Proposition 2.15, and so is their difference.

(i)\Rightarrow(ii), as well as (i)\Rightarrow(iii)\Rightarrow(iv) and (iii)\Rightarrow(vi) are trivial. (vi)\Rightarrow(vii) follows from Theorem 3.5 or results in [km]. (ii)\Rightarrow(i) is [hs, Theorem 3.2.2]. (vii)\Rightarrow(iii) follows from combining Lemmas 3.10 and 3.37.

(iv)\Rightarrow(v): First, note that the order on A^{**} as a JB-algebra is determined by normal states, and in particular, is consistent with its order as a dual of an ordered vector space A^{*}. Since for every a\in A we have that A_{+}\ni \sqrt{a^{2}}\ge a (here we use [hs, Theorem 3.2.2] for \mathrm{JB}\left(a\right)), it follows that A is a directed ordered vector space. Moreover, since A satisfies the Riesz decomposition property, A_{+} is norm-closed in A, and the norm is monotone on A_{+}, by [at, Theorem 2.47 and Exercise 2.17], it follows that A^{*} is a vector lattice endowed with a norm equivalent to a Banach lattice norm. We conclude that A^{**} is also a lattice (see [ab, Theorem 4.1]).

(v)\Rightarrow(ii): Since A is a subalgebra of A^{**}, it is enough to show that A^{**} is associative. Moreover, recall that the latter is always unital. Let K_{A^{**}} be the space of states on A^{**}, and let K be the collection of the pure states, i.e. the extreme points of K_{A^{**}}. According to [kv, Theorem 2.5.6], K is \mathrm{w}^{*}-closed in K_{A^{**}} and the representation a\mapsto \hat{a} as in Theorem 3.36 is an isometric vector lattice homomorphism onto \mathcal{C}\left(K\right). Moreover, 1_{A^{**}} is mapped into \1. Since any unital isometry between JB-algebras is a Jordan isomorphism (see [wy, Theorem 4]), A^{**} is isomorphic to \mathcal{C}\left(K\right), and in particular it is associative.

(i): Necessity follows from T\mathrm{B}_{E}=T\left[-e,e\right]\subseteq\left[-f,f\right]=\mathrm{B}_{F}. For sufficiency, let g\in E_{+}. We may assume that \|g\|\le 2, so that g\in \left[0_{E},2e\right]=e+\left[-e,e\right]. Then, Tg\in Te+T\left[-e,e\right]\subseteq f+\left[-f,f\right]\subseteq F_{+}.

(ii): The facts that every unital order isomorphism is an isometry, and every unital isometry is an order isomorphism follow from applying (i) to T and T^{-1}. If T is an isometric order isomorphism, we have that T\left[-e,e\right]= \left[-f,f\right], and since e=\max \left[-e,e\right], it follows that Te=\max \left[-f,f\right]=f.

(iii) follows from (ii) applied to E and \left(TE,f\right).

(iv): In view of (i), it is enough to show that a positive functional of norm 1 is unital, which is done using a similar argument as in (ii).

(i)\Rightarrow(ii): Since C is a cone, we have that \frac{1}{2}e+\frac{1}{2}f\in C, hence e,f\in C.

(ii)\Rightarrow(iii): We have that e,f-e\in E_{+}, and e+\left(f-e\right)=f\in C implying e\in C.

(iii)\Rightarrow(i): Assume that e,f\in E_{+} and t\in\left(0,1\right) are such that te+\left(1-t\right)f\in C. Then, 0_{E}\le e\le \frac{1}{t}\left( te+\left(1-t\right)f\right)\in C implies e\in C. Similarly, f\in C, and so C is a face of E_{+}.

(iii)\Rightarrow(v): It is clear that H:=C-C is a directed subspace of E. Let us show that H_{+}=C. If f,e\in C with f-e\ge 0_{E}, then 0_{E}\le f-e\le f\in C implies f-e\in C, so that H_{+}\subseteq C. The converse inclusion is obvious.

If e,f\in H with e\le f, then f-e\in H_{+}=C, therefore \left[0_{E},f-e\right]\subseteq C, and so \left[e,f\right]=e+\left[0_{E},f-e\right]\subseteq C-C. We conclude that H=C-C is a full subspace.

(v)\Rightarrow(iv)\Rightarrow(iii) is straightforward.

(i): Necessity: If e is an atom, then \left[0,1\right]e is a lower set in E_{+}, hence so is \left[0,+\8\right)e, and so the latter is a face of E_{+} by Proposition 4.2.

Sufficiency: If \left[0,+\8\right)e is an extreme ray, it is a face of E_{+}. Hence, \left[0_{E},e\right]\subseteq \left[0,+\8\right)e, and so \left[0_{E},e\right]\subseteq \left[0,1\right]e.

(ii): Necessity: If C\subseteq E_{+} is a face which contains f>0_{E}, then there is an atom e\in\left(0_{E},f\right]\subseteq C. It follows from (i) that \left[0,+\8\right)e is an extreme ray of E_{+} contained in C.

Sufficiency: If f>0_{E}, then \bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left[0_{E},nf\right] satisfies the conditions of Proposition 4.2, and so is a face. By our assumption and (i), this face contains an atom, say e. Let n\in\mathbb{N} be such that e\in\left[0_{E},nf\right]. Then, \frac{1}{n}e is an atom contained in \left[0_{E},f\right].

Since an extreme ray is one-dimensional, and any face of a cone is a cone, necessity is clear. For sufficiency, assume that C is a minimal nonzero face of E_{+}.

Suppose that C is not a ray, so that there are two linearly independent vectors u,v\in C. Let F:=\operatorname{span}\left\{u,v\right\}, which is an Archimedean ordered vector space. Then, F_{+}:=E_{+}\cap F is closed with respect to the unique Hausdorff linear topology on the two-dimensional space F, and it is not a ray since it contains u,v. We clearly have C\cap F\subseteq E_{+}\cap F=F_{+}. For the converse inclusion, assume that t,s\in\mathbb{R} are such that tu+sv=:e\in E_{+}. Then, either t,s\ge 0, and then clearly e\in C, or say t>0>s, so that C\ni u=\frac{1}{t}e+\frac{-s}{t}v implies e\in C.

Since F_{+} is a proper cone but not a ray, there exists 0_E < f \in \partial{F_{+}}\subseteq C. It follows from minimality that \bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left[0_{E},nf\right]=C\supseteq F_{+}. Hence, f is an order unit of F implying that f belongs to the relative interior of F_+ in F (see [kv, Proposition 1.5.11(i)]). This contradicts f \in \partial F_+.

First, let us verify that the norm on \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is the order unit norm. Indeed, the unit ball consists of all \left(f,r\right) such that \|f\|+\left|r\right|\le 1, which is equivalent to

Let \left(E,e\right) be an order unit space, and let T\colon F\to E be linear with T\mathrm{B}_{F}\subseteq \left[-e,e\right]. Clearly, T_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } }\colon \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)\to E, defined by T_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } }\left(f,r\right):=Tf+re, is the unique linear map which satisfies T_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } }\left(0_{F},1\right)=e and T_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } }\iota=T. It is left to show that T_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } } is positive. Indeed, if \left(f,r\right)\in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+}, then \|f\|\le r, hence Tf\in\left[-re,re\right], thus T_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } }\left(f,r\right)=Tf+re\ge 0_{E}.

Let G be a Banach space. It is clear that any isometric isomorphism from F onto G induces an isometric order isomorphism from \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) onto \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(G\right). For the converse, suppose that T\colon \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)\to \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(G\right) is an isometric order isomorphism. Then, by part (ii) of Lemma 4.1, T is unital, i.e. T\left(0_{F},1\right)=\left(0_{G},1\right).

Fix f\in F. We have that \left(f,\|f\|\right)\in\partial \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+}, hence T\left(f,\|f\|\right)\in\partial \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(G\right)_{+}. Therefore, T\left(f,\|f\|\right)=\left(g,\|g\|\right), for some g\in G with \|g\|=\|f\|. Then,

Since f\in F was arbitrary, we conclude that T isometrically maps F into G. Applying the same argument to T^{-1} shows that S:=\left.T\right|_{F} is an isometric isomorphism onto G, and T=S\oplus \mathrm{Id}_{\mathbb{R}}.

(i): The only non-straightforward part of the statement is showing that the two spaces are order isomorphic. We have that \left<\left(f^{*},s\right),\left(f,r\right)\right>=\left<f^{*},f\right>+sr. If \|f^{*}\|\le s and \|f\|\le r, then sr\ge -\left<f^{*},f\right>, and so \left<\left(f^{*},s\right),\left(f,r\right)\right>\ge 0. If \|f^{*}\|> s, there is f\in F such that \|f\|=1 and \left<f^{*},f\right><-s, and then \left(f,1\right)\ge 0 but \left<\left(f^{*},s\right),\left(f,1\right)\right>=\left<f^{*},f\right>+s<0.

(ii): Let \left(\nu,r\right)\in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)^{*}. This functional is a state if and only if \left(\nu,r\right)\in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)^{*}_{+} and \left(\nu,r\right)\left(0_{F},1\right)=1, i.e. r=1; by (i), this is equivalent to \|\nu\|\le r=1. The second claim follows from the first one.

(iii) follows from (ii) and part (ii) of Theorem 3.36.

(iv): First, since F^{*} is strictly convex, we have \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}=\mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}, and so the pure states on \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) are precisely the functionals \left(\nu,1\right), where \nu\in \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}.

Let us show that \left(\nu,1\right), where \nu\in \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}, is strictly positive if and only if \nu does not attain its norm. Strict positivity means that \left(\nu,1\right)\left(f,r\right)=\nu\left(f\right)+r>0, whenever f\in F and r>0 are such that \|f\|\le r. Attainment of the norm for \nu means existence of f\in\mathrm{S}_{F} such that \nu\left(f\right)=-1, equivalently \left(\nu,1\right)\left(f,1\right)=0.

It follows that a strictly positive pure state on \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) exists if and only if some \nu\in \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}} does not attain its norm. By James’ Theorem (see [fhhmz, Corollary 3.131]), this last condition is equivalent to F not being reflexive.

(i) follows from part (ii) of Proposition 4.11, part (i) of Theorem 3.36, and the fact that the \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology on \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} as a subset of F^{*} agrees with the \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology on \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} as the state space of \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right).

(ii): By (i) we have that \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F^{*}\right)\simeq \operatorname{Aff}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F^{**}},\mathrm{w}^{*}\right). Since by Goldstine’s theorem (see [fhhmz, Theorem 3.96]) we have that \mathrm{B}_{F} is dense in \left(\mathrm{B}_{F^{**}},\mathrm{w}^{*}\right), we can identify \operatorname{Aff}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F^{**}},\mathrm{w}^{*}\right) with the set of all e\in \operatorname{Aff}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F},\mathrm{w}\right) that can be continuously extended to \mathrm{B}_{F^{**}}. It is also clear that \operatorname{Aff}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F},\mathrm{w}\right)\subseteq \operatorname{Aff}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F},\|\cdot\|\right), which in turn is contained in the space of all bounded affine functions on \mathrm{B}_{F}. Assume that u is a bounded affine function on \mathrm{B}_{F} and let v:=u-u\left(0_{F}\right)\1, which is also a bounded affine function on \mathrm{B}_{F}. This function satisfies v\left(0_{F}\right)=0, and for every f\in \mathrm{B}_{F} and t\in\left[0,1\right] we have that

Moreover, for f,g\in \mathrm{B}_{F} we have v\left(\frac{1}{2}f+\frac{1}{2}g\right)=\frac{1}{2}v\left(f\right)+\frac{1}{2}v\left(g\right). It is easy to see that extending v by positive homogeneity yields a linear functional on F. This functional is bounded on \mathrm{B}_{F}, so is an element of F^{*}. Hence, we may view v as a \mathrm{w}^{*}-continuous linear functional on F^{**}, and so u=v+u\left(0_{F}\right)\1\in\operatorname{Aff}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F^{**}},\mathrm{w}^{*}\right).

(iii) follows from (i), (ii) and part (ii) of Proposition 4.11.

Let \left(\left(f_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha}\right)\right)_{\alpha\in A} be an increasing bounded from above net in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right). By shifting, normalizing and passing to a tail, we may assume that \left(\left(f_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha}\right)\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq \left[0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)},1_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}\right]. In particular, \left(0_{F},0\right)\le \left(f_{\alpha}, r_{\alpha}\right)\le\left(0_{F},1\right) implies \|f_{\alpha}\|\le r_{\alpha}, as well as \|f_{\alpha}\|\le 1-r_{\alpha}, hence r_{\alpha}\in\left[0,1\right], for every \alpha. If \alpha\le\beta, we have that \|f_{\beta}-f_{\alpha}\|\le r_{\beta}-r_{\alpha}, and so r_{\alpha}\le r_{\beta}. It follows that \left(r_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq\left[0,1\right] is an increasing net, therefore it converges in \left[0,1\right]. The fact that \|f_{\beta}-f_{\alpha}\|\le r_{\beta}-r_{\alpha}, for \alpha\le\beta, implies that \left(f_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is a Cauchy net.

(i): Since \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is an order unit space, norm convergence agrees with relative uniform convergence in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right). The latter convergence implies directed order convergence, and so it is left to show that directed order convergence implies norm convergence.

Assume that e_{\alpha}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{do}} 0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}. Let Q\downarrow 0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)} be as in part (i) of Proposition 2.14. According to Proposition 4.15, the set Q, viewed as a net indexed by -Q, is norm-Cauchy. Fix \varepsilon>0 and let q_{0}\in Q be such that \|q_{0}-q\|\le\varepsilon, for every Q\ni q\le q_{0}. It follows that q\ge q_{0}-\varepsilon 1_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}, and since 0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}=\bigwedge\left\{q\in Q:q\le q_{0}\right\}, we obtain 0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}\ge q_{0}-\varepsilon 1_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}, hence q_{0}\le \varepsilon 1_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}. There is \alpha_{0}\in A such that -\varepsilon 1_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}\le -q_{0}\le e_{\alpha}\le q_{0}\le \varepsilon 1_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}, for every \alpha\ge\alpha_{0}. We conclude that \|e_{\alpha}\|\to 0.

(ii): It follows immediately from (i) that completenesses with respect to directed order, relative uniform and norm convergences are equivalent. Monotone completeness implies relative uniform completeness by part (i) of Corollary 2.21. Since \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)\simeq F\oplus_{1}\mathbb{R} as normed spaces, it follows that \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is norm complete if and only if F is. If \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is norm complete, it is monotone complete. Indeed, by Proposition 4.15, every increasing net which is bounded from above is norm Cauchy, hence norm convergent, thus directed order convergent, and so the limit is the supremum of the net.

For (ii), as well as the case of \mathcal{C}\left(F\right) in (i), see [at, Lemmas 8.45 and 8.46]. Also, it is easy to see that the restriction map R\colon\mathcal{C}\left(F\right)\to\mathcal{C}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F}\right) defined by \varphi\mapsto \varphi|_{\mathrm{B}_{F}} is a continuous map with respect to compact-open topologies. Clearly, R|_{F^{*}} is injective. To show that R|_{F^{*}} is a homeomorphism onto its image, let \left(f^{*}_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} be a net in F^{*} such that \bigl(f^{*}_{\alpha}|_{\mathrm{B}_{F}}\bigr)_{\alpha\in A} is \mathrm{bw}^{*}-null and let K\subseteq F be compact. There is r>0 such that rK\subseteq \mathrm{B}_{F}, and so f^{*}_{\alpha}|_{\mathrm{B}_{F}}\to\0 uniformly on rK. Due to linearity, we have that f^{*}_{\alpha}\to\0 uniformly on K, and since K was arbitrary, we conclude that f^{*}_{\alpha}\to\0.

The first claim in (i) follows from part (ii) of Proposition 4.11, and so in this proof we will be only working with E:=\operatorname{Aff}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F},\|\cdot\|\right).

(i): Recall that \left(\nu,r\right)\left(f,s\right)=\nu\left(f\right)+rs, where \left(\nu,r\right)\in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F^{*}\right) and \left(f,s\right)\in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right). Hence, if we identify \left(\nu,r\right) with \nu+r\1, then \left(f,1\right) acts on it as the evaluation at f, for f\in\mathrm{B}_{F}. This shows that the \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology is stronger than the pointwise topology on E. On the other hand, since \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)=\operatorname{span}\left\{\left(f,1\right): f\in\mathrm{B}_{F}\right\}, we get the converse relation.

(ii): It follows from (i) that bounded \mathrm{w}^{*}- and bounded pointwise convergences coincide on E. Continuous convergence is always stronger than compact-open convergence (see [btw, Proposition 8.2]), which in turn is stronger than pointwise convergence.

Let \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq E be a net, and for every \alpha\in A write e_{\alpha}=f^{*}_{\alpha}+e_{\alpha}\left(0_{F}\right)\1, where f^{*}_{\alpha}\in F^{*}. Assume that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} converges to \0 with respect to continuous convergence. Then, e_{\alpha}\left(0_{F}\right)\to 0, and so \left(f^{*}_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} also converges to \0 with respect to continuous convergence. It follows from the discussion at the start of Subsection ? that \left(f^{*}_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is eventually norm-bounded. We conclude that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is eventually norm-bounded, hence bounded compact-open-null. Similarly, if \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is bounded pointwise-null, then \left(f^{*}_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is bounded \mathrm{w}^{*}-null, hence null with respect to continuous convergence, which also implies that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} converges to \0 with respect to continuous convergence.

(iii): Recall that the \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology on E is with respect to \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right), and so, by renorming the latter, we may represent E\simeq \left(F\oplus_{\8} \mathbb{R}\right)^{*}\subseteq\mathcal{C}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F}\times \left[-1,1\right]\right). Recall that by part (i) of Proposition 4.17, the bounded \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology on E coincides with the compact-open topology viewing E\subseteq\mathcal{C}\left(\mathrm{B}_{F}\times \left[-1,1\right]\right). Hence, we need to show that a net \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq E is compact-open-null on \mathrm{B}_{F} if and only if it is compact-open-null on \mathrm{B}_{F}\times \left[-1,1\right]. In fact, arguing as in (ii) we have that e_{\alpha}=f^{*}_{\alpha}+e_{\alpha}\left(0_{F}\right)\1, where e_{\alpha}\left(0_{F}\right)\to 0, and \left(f^{*}_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is compact-open-null (in either sense). Note that the f_{\alpha}^{*}’s when represented as functions on \mathrm{B}_{F}\times \left[-1,1\right] only depend on the first variable. Hence, if \left(f^{*}_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is compact-open-null on \mathrm{B}_{F}\times \left[-1,1\right], then it is clearly compact-open-null on \mathrm{B}_{F}. Conversely, suppose \left(f^{*}_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is compact-open-null on \mathrm{B}_{F}. If K\subseteq \mathrm{B}_{F}\times \left[-1,1\right] is compact, there is a compact L\subseteq F such that K\subseteq L\times\left[-1,1\right]. Using this, one can show that \left(f^{*}_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is compact-open-null on \mathrm{B}_{F}\times \left[-1,1\right].

Denote K:=\left(\mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}K_{E},\mathrm{w}^{*}\right).

(i) follows from the fact that E is supremum-dense in \mathcal{C}\left(K\right) and Proposition 2.6.

(ii): Assume that e_{n}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{w}} 0_{E}. First, it follows from the Banach–Steinhaus theorem (see [fhhmz, Theorem 3.85]) that \left\{e_{n}\right\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is norm bounded, and therefore also order bounded. Next, by definition we see that \left(e_{n}\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} converges to \0 pointwise in \mathcal{C}\left(K\right). According to the comment before the proposition, this implies e_{n}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} \0 in \mathcal{C}\left(K\right), and so by (i) we conclude that e_{n}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{o}} 0_{E} in E.

(iii): First, E is separable, and so \left(\mathrm{B}_{E^{*}},\mathrm{w}^{*}\right) is metrizable; it also follows that \left(\mathrm{B}_{E},\mathrm{w}\right) is metrizable (for these results see [fhhmz, Propositions 2.8, 3.103 and 3.105]). In particular, K is metrizable and compact, and so order convergence in \mathcal{C}\left(K\right) is strongly first countable (see [bbv, discussion after Proposition 4.21]). Furthermore, \left(\mathrm{B}_{E},\mathrm{w}\right) is metrizable, thus also strongly first countable. By (ii), the embedding of \left(\mathrm{B}_{E},\mathrm{w}\right) into \left(\mathcal{C}\left(K\right),\mathrm{o}\right) is sequentially continuous, and so it is in fact continuous by [bbv, Theorem 5.2]. Thus, using (i) again we conclude that bounded weak convergence is stronger than order convergence in E.

Let C:=\left\{\nu\in \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}: e_{\alpha}\left(\nu\right)\to 0\right\}. By part (i) of Proposition 4.18, it is enough to show that C=\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}. Since every e_{\alpha} is affine, C is convex. Let us show that C is norm-closed. Assume that \mu is in the norm closure of C, and let \varepsilon>0. There is \nu\in C such that \|\mu-\nu\|\le\varepsilon. Find \alpha_{0} such that \left|e_{\alpha}\left(\nu\right)\right|\le\varepsilon, for all \alpha\ge \alpha_{0}. For \alpha\ge \alpha_{0} we have that e_{\alpha}=f_{\alpha}+r_{\alpha}\1, where r_{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R} and f_{\alpha}\in \mathrm{B}_{F}, hence

Thus, \mu\in C. Being a norm-closed convex set, C is weakly closed. By assumption, C\cap \mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} is \mathrm{w}^{*}-dense in \mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}. Let us show that C is \mathrm{w}^{*}-dense in \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}. Since C is convex, so is D:=\overline{C}. We have that D\supseteq \overline{C\cap \mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}}\supseteq \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}, hence by the Krein–Milman theorem, we conclude that D\supseteq \overline{\operatorname{conv}}\left( \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}\right)=\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}.

Let \mu\in\mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}. As C is \mathrm{w}^{*}-dense, there is \left(\nu_{\beta}\right)_{\beta\in B}\subseteq C such that \nu_{\beta}\xrightarrow[]{{\mathrm{w}^{*}}}\mu. Then, 1=\|\mu\|\le\liminf_{\beta\in B}\|\nu_{\beta}\|\le\limsup_{\beta\in B}\|\nu_{\beta}\|\le 1 implies \|\nu_{\beta}\|\to 1, and so without loss of generality we assume \nu_{\beta}\ne 0_{F^{*}}, for every \beta. It follows that \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}\ni\mu_{\beta}:=\|\nu_{\beta}\|^{-1}\nu_{\beta}\to\mu in the \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology, and so by our assumption we get \mu_{\beta}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{w}}\mu. Therefore, \nu_{\beta}=\|\nu_{\beta}\|\mu_{\beta}\xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{w}}\mu, and since \nu_{\beta}\in C and C is weakly closed, we conclude that \mu\in C. Thus, \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}\subseteq C, hence \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}=\operatorname{conv}\mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}\subseteq C, as required.

(i) follows immediately from part (ii) of Proposition 4.19. (ii) follows from part (iii) of Proposition 4.19 and the fact that \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)^{*}\simeq F^{*}\oplus_{\8} \mathbb{R}.

(iii): Assume that \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A}\subseteq E:= \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is order-null. By part (i) of Proposition 4.19 and the discussion preceding it, there are \alpha_{0} and r>0 such that the net \left(re_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\ge\alpha_{0}} is contained in \mathrm{B}_{E} and converges pointwise on a co-meager set in \left(\mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}},\mathrm{w}^{*}\right). The latter is a compact Hausdorff space, and so any co-meager subset of this space is \mathrm{w}^{*}-dense. By Lemma 4.20, the net \left(re_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\ge\alpha_{0}} is weakly null. Thus, \left(e_{\alpha}\right)_{\alpha\in A} is bounded weakly null.

(i) follows from combining parts (ii) and (iii) of Proposition 4.21 and part (i) of Proposition 4.18. (ii) follows from the facts that balls in E are metrizable and pre-compact in the weak topology, that order and weak convergences agree on balls, and that every order interval in E is norm bounded. (iii) follows from (i) and part (i) of Proposition 4.16.

(iv): If F is reflexive, then so is E, and so order intervals in E are weakly compact, which by (i) is equivalent to order compact.

If order intervals are order compact, then they are order complete. Since every order Cauchy net has a tail contained in an order interval, it follows that E is order complete.

We now assume that F is not reflexive and show that E is not order complete. As E is also not reflexive, we have that \mathrm{B}_{E^{**}}\setminus\mathrm{B}_{E}\ne\varnothing. By Goldstine’s theorem, there is a net in \mathrm{B}_{E} which \mathrm{w}^{*}-converges to g\in \mathrm{B}_{E^{**}}\setminus\mathrm{B}_{E}, and so it is a weakly Cauchy net, which does not have a weak limit. By (i), this net is also order Cauchy but not order convergent, thus showing that E is not order complete.

First, note that the weak and \mathrm{w}^{*}-topologies agree on F^{*}, and so

Since F is separable and reflexive, it follows that F^{*} is separable. Thus, F satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.22, and so order convergence, bounded weak convergence and bounded pointwise convergence all agree on E. By part (ii) of Proposition 4.18, bounded pointwise convergence also agrees with continuous convergence in E. As E\simeq F\oplus_{1}\mathbb{R} is reflexive, bounded \mathrm{w}^{*}-convergence coincides with bounded weak convergence, and hence with order convergence. The compact-open topology is equal to the bounded \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology by part (iii) of Proposition 4.18, and so it is equal to the order topology.

First, \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is directed order complete by part (ii) of Proposition 4.16. As F^{*} is LUR, it is strictly convex and has the \mathrm{w}^{*}-Kadec–Klee property, i.e. every \mathrm{w}^{*}-convergent sequence in \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}} is norm-convergent (see [fhhmz, Exercise 8.45]). Since F is separable, the \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology on \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}} is metrizable. We have two metrizable topologies on \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}, which agree on sequences, hence these topologies coincide. As the weak topology is stronger than the \mathrm{w}^{*}-topology but weaker than the norm topology, it follows that all three topologies coincide on \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}. Hence, F satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.22, and since it is not reflexive, by part (iv) of that theorem, \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is not order complete.

Necessity: According to [as2, Definition 1.10 and Theorem 1.19], we have that \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}=\operatorname{conv}\left(K_{F}\cup-K_{F}\right), where K_{F} is the set of states on \left(F,f\right). Then, any extreme point of \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} has to be contained in either K_{F} or -K_{F} and be extreme there. Thus, for every \nu\in\operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} either \nu or -\nu is a pure state on \left(F,f\right), and so in particular, \nu\left(f\right)=\pm 1.

Sufficiency: Let K:=\left\{\nu\in \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}: \nu\left(f\right)=1\right\}, which is \mathrm{w}^{*}-compact. By assumption, \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}\subseteq K\cup -K, and so by the Krein–Milman theorem, we have that

Let J\colon F\to\mathcal{C}\left(K\right) be defined by \left[Jh\right]\left(\nu\right):=\nu\left(h\right). Then, Jf=\1, and by the preceding step, J is an isometry, and so we may view F as a subspace of \mathcal{C}\left(K\right) with \1=f\in F. Hence, the norm on F is the order unit norm of \left(F,f\right).

Necessity: First, it follows that \left(f,r\right), \left(g,s\right)\in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+}, and so \|f\|\le r and \|g\|\le s. In particular, if r=0, then f=0_{F}, and if s=0, then g=0_{F}. Hence, we may assume from now on that r,s>0.

It follows from the discussion before the proposition that \left(f,r\right)\wedge \left(g,s\right)=0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)} if and only if \left<\left(f,r\right),\left(\nu,1\right)\right>\left<\left(g,s\right),\left(\nu,1\right)\right>=0, for every \nu\in\operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}. This is equivalent to either \nu\left(f\right)=-r, or \nu\left(g\right)=-s, for every \nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}. Note that if for some \nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} we have \nu\left(f\right)=-r, then -\nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}, and -\nu\left(f\right)=r\ne -r, and so -\nu\left(g\right)=-s, or \nu\left(g\right)=s. Conversely, if \nu\left(g\right)=-s, then \nu\left(f\right)=r, and so \nu\left(sf+rg\right)=0 for every \nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}. By the Krein–Milman theorem, it follows that sf+rg=0_{F}. It is also clear that for h:=\frac{1}{r}f we have \nu\left(h\right)=\pm 1, for every \nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}.

Sufficiency of the first two conditions is clear. The third case can be obtained by reversing the arguments in the previous paragraph.

It is clear that \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is a vector lattice if \dim F=0. If \dim F= 1, one can show that the clockwise rotation by \frac{\pi}{4} is an order isomorphism between \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) and \mathbb{R}^{2}, which is a vector lattice.

Assume that \dim F> 1, so that there are linearly independent \nu,\mu\in \operatorname{ext} \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} (this follows from the Krein–Milman theorem). Find f\in\mathrm{S}_{F} such that \mu\left(f\right)=0\ne \nu\left(f\right). Then, f does not satisfy the conditions of Lemma 4.25, and so according to Proposition 4.26, the infimum of \left(f,1\right) and \left(-f,1\right) does not exist. On the other hand, let us show that \left(f,1\right)\wedge_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+}}\left(-f,1\right)=\left(0_{F},0\right), which will prove that \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is not weakly pervasive. Indeed, if 0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}\le \left(g,r\right)\le \left(\pm f,1\right), then \|f-g\|,\|f+g\|\le 1-r, hence

which yields r=0 and g=0_{F}.

Arguing as in the proof of Proposition 4.26, one can show that \left(f,r\right)\perp \left(g,s\right) if and only if either \nu\left(f\right)=-r, or \nu\left(g\right)=-s, for every \nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}.

Moreover, if r,s\ne 0, we are in a similar situation as in that proposition.

Assume that r\ne 0 and s=0. If \nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} satisfies \nu\left(f\right)=-r, then -\nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} and -\nu\left(f\right)=r\ne -r, and so -\nu\left(g\right)=0, or \nu\left(g\right)=0. If \nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} is such that \nu\left(f\right)\ne-r, then also \nu\left(g\right)=0. Hence, g=0_{F}.

Similarly, if r= 0 and s\ne 0, we obtain that f=0_{F}.

If r=s=0, it follows that for every \nu\in \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} either \nu\left(f\right)=0 or \nu\left(g\right)=0, so that \nu\in f^{\top}\cup g^{\top}.

Sufficiency of the third condition is proved using the arguments from the proof of Proposition 4.26; sufficiency of the other conditions is clear.

For the first claim, note that if \dim F>1 and F^{*} is strictly convex, then no elements of F satisfy the conditions of Lemma 4.25, and the extreme points of \mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} cannot be covered by two hyperplanes.

In order to prove the second claim, assume that \left(f_{1},r_{1}\right),\ldots,\left(f_{n},r_{n}\right)\in \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) are such that \bigwedge_{k=1}^{n}\left(f_{k},r_{k}\right)=0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}. By the comment before Proposition 4.26, it follows that for every \nu\in \mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}} we have

Since F^{*} is strictly convex, for every f\in F there is a unique \nu_{f}\in \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}} with \nu_{f}\left(f\right)=-\|f\| (combine [fhhmz, Corollaries 7.23(i) and 7.22(ii)]); in particular, if \nu_{f}\ne \nu\in\mathrm{S}_{F^{*}}, then \|f\|>-\nu\left(f\right). Since \dim F>1 and F^{*} is strictly convex, we have that \mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}\mathrm{B}_{F^{*}}\supseteq \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}} is infinite. Hence, we can select \nu\in \mathrm{S}_{F^{*}} such that \nu\ne\nu_{f_{k}}, for k=1,\ldots,n. Then, for every k=1,\ldots,n we have that \left(f_{k},r_{k}\right)\ge 0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}, thus r_{k}\ge \|f_{k}\|>-\nu\left(f_{k}\right). This implies \bigwedge_{k=1}^{n}\left(\nu\left(f_{k}\right)+r_{k}\right)>0, contradiction.

It is easy to see that if C is a nonempty face of \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+}, then A_{C} is a face of \mathrm{B}_{F}.

Suppose now that A\subseteq\mathrm{B}_{F} is a face. We will deduce from Proposition 4.2 that C_{A} is a nonempty face of \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+}. Indeed, if g,h\in F, s\ge\|g\|, and t\ge\|h\| are such that \left(g,s\right)+\left(h,t\right)\in C_{A}, then A\ni\frac{1}{s+t}\left(g+h\right)=\frac{s}{s+t}\frac{g}{s}+\frac{t}{s+t}\frac{h}{t} implies that \frac{g}{s}\in A, and thus \left(g,s\right)=s\left(\frac{g}{s},1\right)\in C_{A} (we leave the case when s or t is 0 to the reader).

It is also straightforward to check that the introduced correspondences are mutually inverse and order preserving.

The case t=1 is trivial, and so we assume that t<1. If f=tg+\left(1-t\right)h, for some h\in\mathrm{B}_{F}, then \|f-tg\|=\left(1-t\right)\|h\|\le 1-t, and so \left(f-tg,1-t\right)\ge 0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}. Conversely, if \left(f,1\right)\ge t\left(g,1\right), then \|f-tg\|\le 1-t, or h:=\frac{f-tg}{1-t}\in\mathrm{B}_{F}; we then have f=tg+\left(1-t\right)h.

(i)\Leftrightarrow(ii): The order isomorphism between the collection of faces of \mathrm{B}_{F} and the collection of nonempty faces of \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+} considered in Lemma 4.33 sets extreme points of \mathrm{B}_{F} in correspondence with extreme rays of \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+}. Hence, the equivalence follows from part (ii) of Corollary 4.4.

(i)\Leftrightarrow(iii): According to Corollary 4.35, \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right) is atomic if and only if for every f\in\mathrm{B}_{F} there are g\in\operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F} and t>0 such that \left(f,1\right)\ge t\left(g,1\right), which by Lemma 4.34 is equivalent to f=tg+\left(1-t\right)h, for some h\in\mathrm{B}_{F}.

(iii)\Rightarrow(iv) is trivial. To get the converse, we may assume that r:=\|f\|\in\left(0,1\right), and find t\in\left(0,1\right], h\in \mathrm{B}_{F} and g\in\operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F} such that \frac{1}{r}f=tg+\left(1-t\right)h. Then, f=rtg+r\left(1-t\right)h=rtg+\left(1-rt\right)e, where e=\frac{r\left(1-t\right)}{1-rt}h. As r\left(1-t\right)\le 1-rt, we conclude that e\in\mathrm{B}_{F}.

The last claim follows from (ii), the Krein–Milman theorem and the fact that every face of a convex set in \mathbb{R}^{n} is closed (see [rockafellar, Corollary 18.1.1]).

Let f\in \mathrm{B}_{F} and P:=\left[0_{ \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-0.7ex,scale=0.08]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)}, (f,1)\right]\cap \partial \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+}. It is enough to show that every upper bound \left(e,r\right) of P satisfies \left(e,r\right) \ge \left(f,1\right).

First, assume that e\ne f. For the continuous function v\colon\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R} defined by

we have v\left(0\right)=\|f\|\le 1, and \lim_{s\to+\8}v\left(s\right)=+\8, hence there is s_{0}\ge 0 such that v\left(s_{0}\right)=1.

Let g:=f+s_{0}\left(f-e\right); we have \|g\|=1-s_{0}\|f-e\| and f-g=s_{0}\left(e-f\right), which yields \left(g,\|g\|\right)\le\left(f,1\right), so that \left(g,\|g\|\right)\in P. It follows that \left(g,\|g\|\right)\le \left(e,r\right), hence \left(1+s_{0}\right)\left\|e-f\right\|=\|e-g\|\le r-\|g\|=r-1+s_{0}\|f-e\|, and so \left\|e-f\right\|\le r-1, i.e. \left(e,r\right)\ge\left(f,1\right).

If e=f\ne 0_{F}, for every \varepsilon>0 we have that \left(1+\varepsilon\right)\left(e,r\right)\ge\left(e,r\right)\ge P, and so by the preceding case we have \left(1+\varepsilon\right)\left(e,r\right)\ge\left(f,1\right). Since \varepsilon was arbitrary, we conclude that \left(e,r\right)\ge\left(f,1\right). Finally, if e=f=0_{F}, take h\in\mathrm{S}_{F}. Then, \bigl(\frac{1}{2}h,\frac{1}{2}\bigr)\in P is dominated by \left(0_{F},r\right), which implies r-\frac{1}{2}\ge \left\|\frac{1}{2}h\right\|=\frac{1}{2}, and so r\ge 1. Thus, \left(e,r\right)\ge\left(0_{F},1\right)=\left(f,1\right).

(i): Let P be the collection of all atoms beneath \left(f,1\right).

Necessity: Let t\in\left[0,1\right). We have \left(0_{F},2t\right)\not\ge\left(f,1\right), since \|0_{F}-f\|=1>2t-1. As \left(f,1\right)=\bigvee P, it follows that \left(0_{F},2t\right) is not an upper bound for P. Hence, there is an atom e\in P such that \left(0_{F},2t\right)\not\ge e. By Corollary 4.35, there are g\in\operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F} and r>0 such that e=r\left(g,1\right). The condition \left(0_{F},2t\right)\not\ge r\left(g,1\right) implies r=\|0_{F}-rg\|>2t-r, therefore r>t. It follows that \left(f,1\right)\ge r\left(g,1\right)\ge t \left(g,1\right), which by Lemma 4.34 yields f=tg+\left(1-t\right)h, for some h\in\mathrm{B}_{F}.

Sufficiency: Let \left(e,r\right) be an upper bound for P. Fix \varepsilon\in\left(0,1\right). There are g\in\operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F} and h\in \mathrm{B}_{F} such that f=\left(1-\varepsilon\right)g+\varepsilon h. For u:=\left(1-\varepsilon\right)g, we have \|f-u\|=\varepsilon\|h\|\le\varepsilon, and so \left(f,1\right)\ge \left(u,1-\varepsilon\right). By Corollary 4.35, the latter vector is an atom, therefore contained in P, and so by our assumption, \left(e,r\right)\ge\left(u,1-\varepsilon\right), i.e. \|e-u\|\le r-1+\varepsilon. Hence,

As \varepsilon was arbitrary, we conclude that \|e-f\|\le r-1, thus \left(e,r\right)\ge\left(f,1\right). This justifies that \left(f,1\right)=\bigvee P.

(ii): Necessity follows immediately from (i). For sufficiency, first note that (i) guarantees that every vector in \partial \mathord{ \tikz[baseline=-1.2ex,scale=0.13]{ \draw (-1,0) -- (1,0); \draw (-1,0) arc (180:0:1); \draw (-1,0) -- (0,-2); \draw (1,0) -- (0,-2); } } \left(F\right)_{+} is strongly atomic, and then use Proposition 4.39 and the fact that the collection of strongly atomic vectors is closed under taking suprema.

The first claim in (i) follows immediately from Theorem 4.40, while the second claim follows from (ii).

(ii): The second equivalence was established in Corollary 4.35. It is also clear that every atom is strongly atomic. Suppose that \left(f,1\right) is strongly atomic. According to [al, Theorem 2.10], if f\in\mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}\mathrm{B}_{F}\setminus \operatorname{ext}\mathrm{B}_{F}, then the criterion in part (i) of Theorem 4.40 is not satisfied, contradiction. It is also clear that if f\notin\mathop{\overline{\operatorname{ext}}}\mathrm{B}_{F}, the criterion in part (i) of Theorem 4.40 is not satisfied either. We conclude that f is extreme.