Is the two-point compactification the second-smallest compactification?












3












$begingroup$


We know that the Alexandroff one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is in a precise sense its smallest Hausdorff compactification.



Is the two-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$, in a precise sense, the second-smallest?



In other words, given the two-point compactification $(frac{2}{pi}text{arctan}(x),[-1,1])$ and some other compactification $(k, gamma mathbb{R})$ of $mathbb{R}$ that is not equivalent to the one-point or two-point compactification, is there a continuous map $gamma mathbb{R}rightarrow [-1,1]$ making the obvious diagram commute?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is related to mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620 cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf This paper shows that $mathbb{R}$ has only compactifications with remainder having one, two or uncountably many points. Moreover, the remainder of the Stone-Cech- compactification has only finitely many connected components.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Frost
    Dec 8 '18 at 13:54


















3












$begingroup$


We know that the Alexandroff one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is in a precise sense its smallest Hausdorff compactification.



Is the two-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$, in a precise sense, the second-smallest?



In other words, given the two-point compactification $(frac{2}{pi}text{arctan}(x),[-1,1])$ and some other compactification $(k, gamma mathbb{R})$ of $mathbb{R}$ that is not equivalent to the one-point or two-point compactification, is there a continuous map $gamma mathbb{R}rightarrow [-1,1]$ making the obvious diagram commute?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is related to mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620 cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf This paper shows that $mathbb{R}$ has only compactifications with remainder having one, two or uncountably many points. Moreover, the remainder of the Stone-Cech- compactification has only finitely many connected components.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Frost
    Dec 8 '18 at 13:54
















3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


We know that the Alexandroff one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is in a precise sense its smallest Hausdorff compactification.



Is the two-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$, in a precise sense, the second-smallest?



In other words, given the two-point compactification $(frac{2}{pi}text{arctan}(x),[-1,1])$ and some other compactification $(k, gamma mathbb{R})$ of $mathbb{R}$ that is not equivalent to the one-point or two-point compactification, is there a continuous map $gamma mathbb{R}rightarrow [-1,1]$ making the obvious diagram commute?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




We know that the Alexandroff one-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$ is in a precise sense its smallest Hausdorff compactification.



Is the two-point compactification of $mathbb{R}$, in a precise sense, the second-smallest?



In other words, given the two-point compactification $(frac{2}{pi}text{arctan}(x),[-1,1])$ and some other compactification $(k, gamma mathbb{R})$ of $mathbb{R}$ that is not equivalent to the one-point or two-point compactification, is there a continuous map $gamma mathbb{R}rightarrow [-1,1]$ making the obvious diagram commute?







general-topology






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 8 '18 at 8:59









SSFSSF

406110




406110












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is related to mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620 cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf This paper shows that $mathbb{R}$ has only compactifications with remainder having one, two or uncountably many points. Moreover, the remainder of the Stone-Cech- compactification has only finitely many connected components.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Frost
    Dec 8 '18 at 13:54




















  • $begingroup$
    Your question is related to mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620 cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf This paper shows that $mathbb{R}$ has only compactifications with remainder having one, two or uncountably many points. Moreover, the remainder of the Stone-Cech- compactification has only finitely many connected components.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Frost
    Dec 8 '18 at 13:54


















$begingroup$
Your question is related to mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620 cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf This paper shows that $mathbb{R}$ has only compactifications with remainder having one, two or uncountably many points. Moreover, the remainder of the Stone-Cech- compactification has only finitely many connected components.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 8 '18 at 13:54






$begingroup$
Your question is related to mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620 cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf This paper shows that $mathbb{R}$ has only compactifications with remainder having one, two or uncountably many points. Moreover, the remainder of the Stone-Cech- compactification has only finitely many connected components.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 8 '18 at 13:54












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

The answer is "no" as was shown by David Hartley. His counterexample is the Warsaw circle; see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Warsaw_Circle.png, How to show Warsaw circle is non-contractible?.



Let us nevertheless say a little bit more about compactifications of $mathbb{R}$.



Your question is related to https://mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to



Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620



https://cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf



Theorem (2.1) of this paper states that for a locally compact $X$, the remainder $beta X setminus X$ of the Stone-Cech-compactification $beta X$ of $X$ has infinitely many connected components if and only if $X$ has an $n$-point compactification for each positive integer $n$.



But Theorem (2.6) of



K. D. Magill, Jr., N-point compactifications. Amer. Math. Monthly 72 (1965), 1075-1081



says that if every compact subset of $X$ is contained in a compact subset whose complement has at most $N$ components, then $X$ has no $n$-point compactification for $n > N$.



For $X = mathbb{R}$ this implies that there are no $n$-point compactification for $n > 2$. Therefore $beta mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has only finitely many, say $M$, components. We shall show that $M = 2$.



The proof of Theorem (2.1) of the first paper ((2.1.1) $Rightarrow$ (2.1.2)) shows the following: If $X$ is locally compact and $beta X setminus X = bigcup_{a in Lambda} H_a$, where the $H_a$ are the components of $beta X setminus X$, then there exists a compactification $alpha X$ of $X$ such that $alpha X setminus X = Lambda$. For $X = mathbb{R}$ we know that $Lambda$ has $M$ elements. Hence $mathbb{R}$ has an $M$-point compactification, thus $M le 2$. But $M = 1$ is clearly impossible.



$beta mathbb{R}$ is the "maximal" compactification of $mathbb{R}$, i.e. for any $alpha mathbb{R}$ there exist a continuous $f : beta mathbb{R} to alpha mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x) = x$ for $x in mathbb{R}$. This means that the remainder $alpha mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has one or two components. If it has two components, then there exists $alpha mathbb{R} to [0,1]$. If it has only one component, then such a map cannot exist.



There are plenty of non-equivalent one component compactifications. For example, each compact Hausdorff space $R$ which is the continuous image of $[0,1]$ (which is the remainder of David Hartley's example) occurs as the remainder of such a compactification.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    $mathbb R$ has compactifications with (non-trivial) connected remainders. These cannot be mapped onto the two-point compactification in the desired way.
    (E.g. make each end into a topologist's sine curve and bend them round to converge on the same line segment.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      The Alexandroff one-point compactification can be defined in very general manner for any topological space $X$, however the universality property of interest would be susceptible to a coherent categorical treatment only in the case of locally compact Hausdorff spaces (whose one-point compactifications are compact Hausdorff, as expected).



      The two-point compactification applied to $mathbb{R}$ is a special case of Dedekind-MacNeille completions of ordered sets, so it seeks to achieve the very desirable property of completeness in the sense of order theory, rather than compactness in the topological sense. These two notions do intersect though in a remarkable way: an order topology induced by a total order is compact if and only if the given order is complete!






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3030852%2fis-the-two-point-compactification-the-second-smallest-compactification%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        2












        $begingroup$

        The answer is "no" as was shown by David Hartley. His counterexample is the Warsaw circle; see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Warsaw_Circle.png, How to show Warsaw circle is non-contractible?.



        Let us nevertheless say a little bit more about compactifications of $mathbb{R}$.



        Your question is related to https://mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to



        Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620



        https://cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf



        Theorem (2.1) of this paper states that for a locally compact $X$, the remainder $beta X setminus X$ of the Stone-Cech-compactification $beta X$ of $X$ has infinitely many connected components if and only if $X$ has an $n$-point compactification for each positive integer $n$.



        But Theorem (2.6) of



        K. D. Magill, Jr., N-point compactifications. Amer. Math. Monthly 72 (1965), 1075-1081



        says that if every compact subset of $X$ is contained in a compact subset whose complement has at most $N$ components, then $X$ has no $n$-point compactification for $n > N$.



        For $X = mathbb{R}$ this implies that there are no $n$-point compactification for $n > 2$. Therefore $beta mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has only finitely many, say $M$, components. We shall show that $M = 2$.



        The proof of Theorem (2.1) of the first paper ((2.1.1) $Rightarrow$ (2.1.2)) shows the following: If $X$ is locally compact and $beta X setminus X = bigcup_{a in Lambda} H_a$, where the $H_a$ are the components of $beta X setminus X$, then there exists a compactification $alpha X$ of $X$ such that $alpha X setminus X = Lambda$. For $X = mathbb{R}$ we know that $Lambda$ has $M$ elements. Hence $mathbb{R}$ has an $M$-point compactification, thus $M le 2$. But $M = 1$ is clearly impossible.



        $beta mathbb{R}$ is the "maximal" compactification of $mathbb{R}$, i.e. for any $alpha mathbb{R}$ there exist a continuous $f : beta mathbb{R} to alpha mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x) = x$ for $x in mathbb{R}$. This means that the remainder $alpha mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has one or two components. If it has two components, then there exists $alpha mathbb{R} to [0,1]$. If it has only one component, then such a map cannot exist.



        There are plenty of non-equivalent one component compactifications. For example, each compact Hausdorff space $R$ which is the continuous image of $[0,1]$ (which is the remainder of David Hartley's example) occurs as the remainder of such a compactification.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          2












          $begingroup$

          The answer is "no" as was shown by David Hartley. His counterexample is the Warsaw circle; see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Warsaw_Circle.png, How to show Warsaw circle is non-contractible?.



          Let us nevertheless say a little bit more about compactifications of $mathbb{R}$.



          Your question is related to https://mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to



          Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620



          https://cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf



          Theorem (2.1) of this paper states that for a locally compact $X$, the remainder $beta X setminus X$ of the Stone-Cech-compactification $beta X$ of $X$ has infinitely many connected components if and only if $X$ has an $n$-point compactification for each positive integer $n$.



          But Theorem (2.6) of



          K. D. Magill, Jr., N-point compactifications. Amer. Math. Monthly 72 (1965), 1075-1081



          says that if every compact subset of $X$ is contained in a compact subset whose complement has at most $N$ components, then $X$ has no $n$-point compactification for $n > N$.



          For $X = mathbb{R}$ this implies that there are no $n$-point compactification for $n > 2$. Therefore $beta mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has only finitely many, say $M$, components. We shall show that $M = 2$.



          The proof of Theorem (2.1) of the first paper ((2.1.1) $Rightarrow$ (2.1.2)) shows the following: If $X$ is locally compact and $beta X setminus X = bigcup_{a in Lambda} H_a$, where the $H_a$ are the components of $beta X setminus X$, then there exists a compactification $alpha X$ of $X$ such that $alpha X setminus X = Lambda$. For $X = mathbb{R}$ we know that $Lambda$ has $M$ elements. Hence $mathbb{R}$ has an $M$-point compactification, thus $M le 2$. But $M = 1$ is clearly impossible.



          $beta mathbb{R}$ is the "maximal" compactification of $mathbb{R}$, i.e. for any $alpha mathbb{R}$ there exist a continuous $f : beta mathbb{R} to alpha mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x) = x$ for $x in mathbb{R}$. This means that the remainder $alpha mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has one or two components. If it has two components, then there exists $alpha mathbb{R} to [0,1]$. If it has only one component, then such a map cannot exist.



          There are plenty of non-equivalent one component compactifications. For example, each compact Hausdorff space $R$ which is the continuous image of $[0,1]$ (which is the remainder of David Hartley's example) occurs as the remainder of such a compactification.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            The answer is "no" as was shown by David Hartley. His counterexample is the Warsaw circle; see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Warsaw_Circle.png, How to show Warsaw circle is non-contractible?.



            Let us nevertheless say a little bit more about compactifications of $mathbb{R}$.



            Your question is related to https://mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to



            Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620



            https://cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf



            Theorem (2.1) of this paper states that for a locally compact $X$, the remainder $beta X setminus X$ of the Stone-Cech-compactification $beta X$ of $X$ has infinitely many connected components if and only if $X$ has an $n$-point compactification for each positive integer $n$.



            But Theorem (2.6) of



            K. D. Magill, Jr., N-point compactifications. Amer. Math. Monthly 72 (1965), 1075-1081



            says that if every compact subset of $X$ is contained in a compact subset whose complement has at most $N$ components, then $X$ has no $n$-point compactification for $n > N$.



            For $X = mathbb{R}$ this implies that there are no $n$-point compactification for $n > 2$. Therefore $beta mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has only finitely many, say $M$, components. We shall show that $M = 2$.



            The proof of Theorem (2.1) of the first paper ((2.1.1) $Rightarrow$ (2.1.2)) shows the following: If $X$ is locally compact and $beta X setminus X = bigcup_{a in Lambda} H_a$, where the $H_a$ are the components of $beta X setminus X$, then there exists a compactification $alpha X$ of $X$ such that $alpha X setminus X = Lambda$. For $X = mathbb{R}$ we know that $Lambda$ has $M$ elements. Hence $mathbb{R}$ has an $M$-point compactification, thus $M le 2$. But $M = 1$ is clearly impossible.



            $beta mathbb{R}$ is the "maximal" compactification of $mathbb{R}$, i.e. for any $alpha mathbb{R}$ there exist a continuous $f : beta mathbb{R} to alpha mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x) = x$ for $x in mathbb{R}$. This means that the remainder $alpha mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has one or two components. If it has two components, then there exists $alpha mathbb{R} to [0,1]$. If it has only one component, then such a map cannot exist.



            There are plenty of non-equivalent one component compactifications. For example, each compact Hausdorff space $R$ which is the continuous image of $[0,1]$ (which is the remainder of David Hartley's example) occurs as the remainder of such a compactification.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The answer is "no" as was shown by David Hartley. His counterexample is the Warsaw circle; see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Warsaw_Circle.png, How to show Warsaw circle is non-contractible?.



            Let us nevertheless say a little bit more about compactifications of $mathbb{R}$.



            Your question is related to https://mathoverflow.net/q/95748. In Dave L Renfro's comment you find a reference to



            Kenneth D. Magill, Countable compactifications, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 616-620



            https://cms.math.ca/openaccess/cjm/v18/cjm1966v18.0616-0620.pdf



            Theorem (2.1) of this paper states that for a locally compact $X$, the remainder $beta X setminus X$ of the Stone-Cech-compactification $beta X$ of $X$ has infinitely many connected components if and only if $X$ has an $n$-point compactification for each positive integer $n$.



            But Theorem (2.6) of



            K. D. Magill, Jr., N-point compactifications. Amer. Math. Monthly 72 (1965), 1075-1081



            says that if every compact subset of $X$ is contained in a compact subset whose complement has at most $N$ components, then $X$ has no $n$-point compactification for $n > N$.



            For $X = mathbb{R}$ this implies that there are no $n$-point compactification for $n > 2$. Therefore $beta mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has only finitely many, say $M$, components. We shall show that $M = 2$.



            The proof of Theorem (2.1) of the first paper ((2.1.1) $Rightarrow$ (2.1.2)) shows the following: If $X$ is locally compact and $beta X setminus X = bigcup_{a in Lambda} H_a$, where the $H_a$ are the components of $beta X setminus X$, then there exists a compactification $alpha X$ of $X$ such that $alpha X setminus X = Lambda$. For $X = mathbb{R}$ we know that $Lambda$ has $M$ elements. Hence $mathbb{R}$ has an $M$-point compactification, thus $M le 2$. But $M = 1$ is clearly impossible.



            $beta mathbb{R}$ is the "maximal" compactification of $mathbb{R}$, i.e. for any $alpha mathbb{R}$ there exist a continuous $f : beta mathbb{R} to alpha mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x) = x$ for $x in mathbb{R}$. This means that the remainder $alpha mathbb{R} setminus mathbb{R}$ has one or two components. If it has two components, then there exists $alpha mathbb{R} to [0,1]$. If it has only one component, then such a map cannot exist.



            There are plenty of non-equivalent one component compactifications. For example, each compact Hausdorff space $R$ which is the continuous image of $[0,1]$ (which is the remainder of David Hartley's example) occurs as the remainder of such a compactification.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 8 '18 at 17:31









            Paul FrostPaul Frost

            10.5k3933




            10.5k3933























                1












                $begingroup$

                $mathbb R$ has compactifications with (non-trivial) connected remainders. These cannot be mapped onto the two-point compactification in the desired way.
                (E.g. make each end into a topologist's sine curve and bend them round to converge on the same line segment.)






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$


















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  $mathbb R$ has compactifications with (non-trivial) connected remainders. These cannot be mapped onto the two-point compactification in the desired way.
                  (E.g. make each end into a topologist's sine curve and bend them round to converge on the same line segment.)






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$
















                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    $mathbb R$ has compactifications with (non-trivial) connected remainders. These cannot be mapped onto the two-point compactification in the desired way.
                    (E.g. make each end into a topologist's sine curve and bend them round to converge on the same line segment.)






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    $mathbb R$ has compactifications with (non-trivial) connected remainders. These cannot be mapped onto the two-point compactification in the desired way.
                    (E.g. make each end into a topologist's sine curve and bend them round to converge on the same line segment.)







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 8 '18 at 15:34

























                    answered Dec 8 '18 at 14:17









                    David HartleyDavid Hartley

                    790158




                    790158























                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        The Alexandroff one-point compactification can be defined in very general manner for any topological space $X$, however the universality property of interest would be susceptible to a coherent categorical treatment only in the case of locally compact Hausdorff spaces (whose one-point compactifications are compact Hausdorff, as expected).



                        The two-point compactification applied to $mathbb{R}$ is a special case of Dedekind-MacNeille completions of ordered sets, so it seeks to achieve the very desirable property of completeness in the sense of order theory, rather than compactness in the topological sense. These two notions do intersect though in a remarkable way: an order topology induced by a total order is compact if and only if the given order is complete!






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$


















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          The Alexandroff one-point compactification can be defined in very general manner for any topological space $X$, however the universality property of interest would be susceptible to a coherent categorical treatment only in the case of locally compact Hausdorff spaces (whose one-point compactifications are compact Hausdorff, as expected).



                          The two-point compactification applied to $mathbb{R}$ is a special case of Dedekind-MacNeille completions of ordered sets, so it seeks to achieve the very desirable property of completeness in the sense of order theory, rather than compactness in the topological sense. These two notions do intersect though in a remarkable way: an order topology induced by a total order is compact if and only if the given order is complete!






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$
















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            The Alexandroff one-point compactification can be defined in very general manner for any topological space $X$, however the universality property of interest would be susceptible to a coherent categorical treatment only in the case of locally compact Hausdorff spaces (whose one-point compactifications are compact Hausdorff, as expected).



                            The two-point compactification applied to $mathbb{R}$ is a special case of Dedekind-MacNeille completions of ordered sets, so it seeks to achieve the very desirable property of completeness in the sense of order theory, rather than compactness in the topological sense. These two notions do intersect though in a remarkable way: an order topology induced by a total order is compact if and only if the given order is complete!






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            The Alexandroff one-point compactification can be defined in very general manner for any topological space $X$, however the universality property of interest would be susceptible to a coherent categorical treatment only in the case of locally compact Hausdorff spaces (whose one-point compactifications are compact Hausdorff, as expected).



                            The two-point compactification applied to $mathbb{R}$ is a special case of Dedekind-MacNeille completions of ordered sets, so it seeks to achieve the very desirable property of completeness in the sense of order theory, rather than compactness in the topological sense. These two notions do intersect though in a remarkable way: an order topology induced by a total order is compact if and only if the given order is complete!







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Dec 8 '18 at 9:25









                            ΑΘΩΑΘΩ

                            2463




                            2463






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3030852%2fis-the-two-point-compactification-the-second-smallest-compactification%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Le Mesnil-Réaume

                                Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

                                web3.py web3.isConnected() returns false always