For the existence of one-point compactification, do we need locally compactness?












0












$begingroup$


In the book Topology by Munkres, at page 184, it is given the existence and uniqueness of one point compactification of a locally compact Hausdorff space; however, in the existence part, I can't see where we needed the locally compactness of that space, and this raised the question:



Does one point compactification of a Hausdorff space always exist (even though it is not unique) ?



See the proof in the book;



(sorry for the images; they are just for reference for those that doesn't have the book with them)



enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you remove a point from a compact Hausdorff space, you get a locally compact space.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 26 '18 at 8:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $X$ is Hausdorff but not locally compact its one point compactification won't be Hausdorff, but it can be constructed in the same way
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For every space there is the one-point-Alexandrov compactification.
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "we can choose a compact set in $X$..." last paragraph
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In topology a property P is called hereditary when ($Xsubset Y$ and $Y$ has property P$)implies (X $ has property P).
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:27


















0












$begingroup$


In the book Topology by Munkres, at page 184, it is given the existence and uniqueness of one point compactification of a locally compact Hausdorff space; however, in the existence part, I can't see where we needed the locally compactness of that space, and this raised the question:



Does one point compactification of a Hausdorff space always exist (even though it is not unique) ?



See the proof in the book;



(sorry for the images; they are just for reference for those that doesn't have the book with them)



enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you remove a point from a compact Hausdorff space, you get a locally compact space.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 26 '18 at 8:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $X$ is Hausdorff but not locally compact its one point compactification won't be Hausdorff, but it can be constructed in the same way
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For every space there is the one-point-Alexandrov compactification.
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "we can choose a compact set in $X$..." last paragraph
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In topology a property P is called hereditary when ($Xsubset Y$ and $Y$ has property P$)implies (X $ has property P).
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:27
















0












0








0





$begingroup$


In the book Topology by Munkres, at page 184, it is given the existence and uniqueness of one point compactification of a locally compact Hausdorff space; however, in the existence part, I can't see where we needed the locally compactness of that space, and this raised the question:



Does one point compactification of a Hausdorff space always exist (even though it is not unique) ?



See the proof in the book;



(sorry for the images; they are just for reference for those that doesn't have the book with them)



enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In the book Topology by Munkres, at page 184, it is given the existence and uniqueness of one point compactification of a locally compact Hausdorff space; however, in the existence part, I can't see where we needed the locally compactness of that space, and this raised the question:



Does one point compactification of a Hausdorff space always exist (even though it is not unique) ?



See the proof in the book;



(sorry for the images; they are just for reference for those that doesn't have the book with them)



enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here







general-topology compactness separation-axioms compactification






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 26 '18 at 9:20









Martin Sleziak

45k10122277




45k10122277










asked Dec 26 '18 at 8:52









onurcanbektasonurcanbektas

3,47311037




3,47311037








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you remove a point from a compact Hausdorff space, you get a locally compact space.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 26 '18 at 8:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $X$ is Hausdorff but not locally compact its one point compactification won't be Hausdorff, but it can be constructed in the same way
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For every space there is the one-point-Alexandrov compactification.
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "we can choose a compact set in $X$..." last paragraph
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In topology a property P is called hereditary when ($Xsubset Y$ and $Y$ has property P$)implies (X $ has property P).
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:27
















  • 5




    $begingroup$
    If you remove a point from a compact Hausdorff space, you get a locally compact space.
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 26 '18 at 8:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $X$ is Hausdorff but not locally compact its one point compactification won't be Hausdorff, but it can be constructed in the same way
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    For every space there is the one-point-Alexandrov compactification.
    $endgroup$
    – drhab
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "we can choose a compact set in $X$..." last paragraph
    $endgroup$
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    Dec 26 '18 at 9:07






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In topology a property P is called hereditary when ($Xsubset Y$ and $Y$ has property P$)implies (X $ has property P).
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    Dec 27 '18 at 17:27










5




5




$begingroup$
If you remove a point from a compact Hausdorff space, you get a locally compact space.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 26 '18 at 8:53




$begingroup$
If you remove a point from a compact Hausdorff space, you get a locally compact space.
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 26 '18 at 8:53




1




1




$begingroup$
If $X$ is Hausdorff but not locally compact its one point compactification won't be Hausdorff, but it can be constructed in the same way
$endgroup$
– Alessandro Codenotti
Dec 26 '18 at 9:02




$begingroup$
If $X$ is Hausdorff but not locally compact its one point compactification won't be Hausdorff, but it can be constructed in the same way
$endgroup$
– Alessandro Codenotti
Dec 26 '18 at 9:02




1




1




$begingroup$
For every space there is the one-point-Alexandrov compactification.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 26 '18 at 9:03




$begingroup$
For every space there is the one-point-Alexandrov compactification.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 26 '18 at 9:03




1




1




$begingroup$
"we can choose a compact set in $X$..." last paragraph
$endgroup$
– Alessandro Codenotti
Dec 26 '18 at 9:07




$begingroup$
"we can choose a compact set in $X$..." last paragraph
$endgroup$
– Alessandro Codenotti
Dec 26 '18 at 9:07




1




1




$begingroup$
In topology a property P is called hereditary when ($Xsubset Y$ and $Y$ has property P$)implies (X $ has property P).
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 27 '18 at 17:27






$begingroup$
In topology a property P is called hereditary when ($Xsubset Y$ and $Y$ has property P$)implies (X $ has property P).
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Dec 27 '18 at 17:27












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

For any space $X$ we can construct a space $alpha(X)$, the Aleksandrov extension of $X$ by defining a space $Y$ as Munkres does with the extra provision that we take all complements of closed compact subsets of $X$ as the extra neighbourhoods for $infty$. One can easily check that $alpha(X)$ is then compact.



The "closed" is needed in general because if e.g. $X$ is not Hausdorff it could have some compact subset $K$ which is not closed, and then (if we were to omit the closed condition) $(Xsetminus K) cup {infty}$ would be open while its intersection with $X$ would be $Xsetminus K$, which was not open, so if we left out the closed condition $X$ would not have the same topology as a subspace of $alpha(X)$ as originally, going against the idea of an extension/compactification: we want to embed $X$ in a larger space with better properties, so in the larger space it should be a subspace with the same topology that it had originally.



If we want $Y = alpha(X)$ to be Hausdorff, (so in particular $X$ should then be Hausdorff, as a subspace of $Y$) we need to be able to separate $infty$ from every point $x$ in $X$. As a neighbourhood of $infty$ is of the form ${infty} cup X setminus C$, with $C$ compact and closed, every point $x$ should then have a neighbourhood that sits inside a compact closed set, i.e. $X$ must be locally compact.



So $alpha(X)$ can always be defined such that $alpha(X)setminus X$ is a point and $X$ is a subspace of $alpha(X)$ and it is always compact (regardless of $X$) but $alpha(X)$ is Hausdorff iff $X$ is locally compact and Hausdorff. A special case is when $X$ is already Hausdorff and compact, in which case we add an isolated point $infty$ (as $X$ can be taken as $C$, a compact closed subset) and we get that $X$ is not dense in $alpha(X)$.



Normally we only consider Hausdorff compactifications and in that case the local compactness is needed for the Hausdorffness of the construction $alpha(X)$. And also because then $X$ is an open subset of a compact Hausdorff space and thus locally compact for that reason.






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%2f3052768%2ffor-the-existence-of-one-point-compactification-do-we-need-locally-compactness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    For any space $X$ we can construct a space $alpha(X)$, the Aleksandrov extension of $X$ by defining a space $Y$ as Munkres does with the extra provision that we take all complements of closed compact subsets of $X$ as the extra neighbourhoods for $infty$. One can easily check that $alpha(X)$ is then compact.



    The "closed" is needed in general because if e.g. $X$ is not Hausdorff it could have some compact subset $K$ which is not closed, and then (if we were to omit the closed condition) $(Xsetminus K) cup {infty}$ would be open while its intersection with $X$ would be $Xsetminus K$, which was not open, so if we left out the closed condition $X$ would not have the same topology as a subspace of $alpha(X)$ as originally, going against the idea of an extension/compactification: we want to embed $X$ in a larger space with better properties, so in the larger space it should be a subspace with the same topology that it had originally.



    If we want $Y = alpha(X)$ to be Hausdorff, (so in particular $X$ should then be Hausdorff, as a subspace of $Y$) we need to be able to separate $infty$ from every point $x$ in $X$. As a neighbourhood of $infty$ is of the form ${infty} cup X setminus C$, with $C$ compact and closed, every point $x$ should then have a neighbourhood that sits inside a compact closed set, i.e. $X$ must be locally compact.



    So $alpha(X)$ can always be defined such that $alpha(X)setminus X$ is a point and $X$ is a subspace of $alpha(X)$ and it is always compact (regardless of $X$) but $alpha(X)$ is Hausdorff iff $X$ is locally compact and Hausdorff. A special case is when $X$ is already Hausdorff and compact, in which case we add an isolated point $infty$ (as $X$ can be taken as $C$, a compact closed subset) and we get that $X$ is not dense in $alpha(X)$.



    Normally we only consider Hausdorff compactifications and in that case the local compactness is needed for the Hausdorffness of the construction $alpha(X)$. And also because then $X$ is an open subset of a compact Hausdorff space and thus locally compact for that reason.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      For any space $X$ we can construct a space $alpha(X)$, the Aleksandrov extension of $X$ by defining a space $Y$ as Munkres does with the extra provision that we take all complements of closed compact subsets of $X$ as the extra neighbourhoods for $infty$. One can easily check that $alpha(X)$ is then compact.



      The "closed" is needed in general because if e.g. $X$ is not Hausdorff it could have some compact subset $K$ which is not closed, and then (if we were to omit the closed condition) $(Xsetminus K) cup {infty}$ would be open while its intersection with $X$ would be $Xsetminus K$, which was not open, so if we left out the closed condition $X$ would not have the same topology as a subspace of $alpha(X)$ as originally, going against the idea of an extension/compactification: we want to embed $X$ in a larger space with better properties, so in the larger space it should be a subspace with the same topology that it had originally.



      If we want $Y = alpha(X)$ to be Hausdorff, (so in particular $X$ should then be Hausdorff, as a subspace of $Y$) we need to be able to separate $infty$ from every point $x$ in $X$. As a neighbourhood of $infty$ is of the form ${infty} cup X setminus C$, with $C$ compact and closed, every point $x$ should then have a neighbourhood that sits inside a compact closed set, i.e. $X$ must be locally compact.



      So $alpha(X)$ can always be defined such that $alpha(X)setminus X$ is a point and $X$ is a subspace of $alpha(X)$ and it is always compact (regardless of $X$) but $alpha(X)$ is Hausdorff iff $X$ is locally compact and Hausdorff. A special case is when $X$ is already Hausdorff and compact, in which case we add an isolated point $infty$ (as $X$ can be taken as $C$, a compact closed subset) and we get that $X$ is not dense in $alpha(X)$.



      Normally we only consider Hausdorff compactifications and in that case the local compactness is needed for the Hausdorffness of the construction $alpha(X)$. And also because then $X$ is an open subset of a compact Hausdorff space and thus locally compact for that reason.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        For any space $X$ we can construct a space $alpha(X)$, the Aleksandrov extension of $X$ by defining a space $Y$ as Munkres does with the extra provision that we take all complements of closed compact subsets of $X$ as the extra neighbourhoods for $infty$. One can easily check that $alpha(X)$ is then compact.



        The "closed" is needed in general because if e.g. $X$ is not Hausdorff it could have some compact subset $K$ which is not closed, and then (if we were to omit the closed condition) $(Xsetminus K) cup {infty}$ would be open while its intersection with $X$ would be $Xsetminus K$, which was not open, so if we left out the closed condition $X$ would not have the same topology as a subspace of $alpha(X)$ as originally, going against the idea of an extension/compactification: we want to embed $X$ in a larger space with better properties, so in the larger space it should be a subspace with the same topology that it had originally.



        If we want $Y = alpha(X)$ to be Hausdorff, (so in particular $X$ should then be Hausdorff, as a subspace of $Y$) we need to be able to separate $infty$ from every point $x$ in $X$. As a neighbourhood of $infty$ is of the form ${infty} cup X setminus C$, with $C$ compact and closed, every point $x$ should then have a neighbourhood that sits inside a compact closed set, i.e. $X$ must be locally compact.



        So $alpha(X)$ can always be defined such that $alpha(X)setminus X$ is a point and $X$ is a subspace of $alpha(X)$ and it is always compact (regardless of $X$) but $alpha(X)$ is Hausdorff iff $X$ is locally compact and Hausdorff. A special case is when $X$ is already Hausdorff and compact, in which case we add an isolated point $infty$ (as $X$ can be taken as $C$, a compact closed subset) and we get that $X$ is not dense in $alpha(X)$.



        Normally we only consider Hausdorff compactifications and in that case the local compactness is needed for the Hausdorffness of the construction $alpha(X)$. And also because then $X$ is an open subset of a compact Hausdorff space and thus locally compact for that reason.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        For any space $X$ we can construct a space $alpha(X)$, the Aleksandrov extension of $X$ by defining a space $Y$ as Munkres does with the extra provision that we take all complements of closed compact subsets of $X$ as the extra neighbourhoods for $infty$. One can easily check that $alpha(X)$ is then compact.



        The "closed" is needed in general because if e.g. $X$ is not Hausdorff it could have some compact subset $K$ which is not closed, and then (if we were to omit the closed condition) $(Xsetminus K) cup {infty}$ would be open while its intersection with $X$ would be $Xsetminus K$, which was not open, so if we left out the closed condition $X$ would not have the same topology as a subspace of $alpha(X)$ as originally, going against the idea of an extension/compactification: we want to embed $X$ in a larger space with better properties, so in the larger space it should be a subspace with the same topology that it had originally.



        If we want $Y = alpha(X)$ to be Hausdorff, (so in particular $X$ should then be Hausdorff, as a subspace of $Y$) we need to be able to separate $infty$ from every point $x$ in $X$. As a neighbourhood of $infty$ is of the form ${infty} cup X setminus C$, with $C$ compact and closed, every point $x$ should then have a neighbourhood that sits inside a compact closed set, i.e. $X$ must be locally compact.



        So $alpha(X)$ can always be defined such that $alpha(X)setminus X$ is a point and $X$ is a subspace of $alpha(X)$ and it is always compact (regardless of $X$) but $alpha(X)$ is Hausdorff iff $X$ is locally compact and Hausdorff. A special case is when $X$ is already Hausdorff and compact, in which case we add an isolated point $infty$ (as $X$ can be taken as $C$, a compact closed subset) and we get that $X$ is not dense in $alpha(X)$.



        Normally we only consider Hausdorff compactifications and in that case the local compactness is needed for the Hausdorffness of the construction $alpha(X)$. And also because then $X$ is an open subset of a compact Hausdorff space and thus locally compact for that reason.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 27 '18 at 7:03

























        answered Dec 26 '18 at 12:28









        Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma

        116k349127




        116k349127






























            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%2f3052768%2ffor-the-existence-of-one-point-compactification-do-we-need-locally-compactness%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

            Bundesstraße 106

            Verónica Boquete

            Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten