Can every locally compact Hausdorff space be recognized as a subspace of a cube that has an open underlying...
In this question cubes are topological spaces of the form $[0,1]^J$ with product topology and $[0,1]$ with usual topology. Further a space is a Tychonoff space if and only if it is a completely regular space. Also note that cubes are compact Hausdorff spaces.
In the wide look that two spaces that are homeomorphic are actually the same I was eager to classify certain spaces as subspaces of a cube, and made the following observations:
Tychonoff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes.
Compact Hausdorff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes that have a closed subset of the cube as underlying set.
Locally compact Hausdorff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes that have the intersection of a closed and an open subset of the cube as underlying set.
The first observation is a corollary of the Imbedding theorem for Tychonoff spaces (Munkres Th. 34.2).
The second observation follows from the fact that compact Hausdorff spaces are Tychonoff spaces. They are compact in the cube which is Hausdorff, so their underlying set is a closed set.
The third observation is important in my question. It is based on the statement that a space is homeomorphic to an open subspace of a compact Hausdorff space if and only if $X$ is locally compact Hausdorff (Munkres Cor. 29.4).
First question (a check of someone else never harms):
Are these observations correct?
Second question (the main):
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
So asked is actually whether I can replace my third observation (intersection of open and closed set) with this (more comfortable) one.
If the answer is "no" then of course I would like to see a counterexample.
Thank you for reading this already.
general-topology separation-axioms product-space
add a comment |
In this question cubes are topological spaces of the form $[0,1]^J$ with product topology and $[0,1]$ with usual topology. Further a space is a Tychonoff space if and only if it is a completely regular space. Also note that cubes are compact Hausdorff spaces.
In the wide look that two spaces that are homeomorphic are actually the same I was eager to classify certain spaces as subspaces of a cube, and made the following observations:
Tychonoff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes.
Compact Hausdorff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes that have a closed subset of the cube as underlying set.
Locally compact Hausdorff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes that have the intersection of a closed and an open subset of the cube as underlying set.
The first observation is a corollary of the Imbedding theorem for Tychonoff spaces (Munkres Th. 34.2).
The second observation follows from the fact that compact Hausdorff spaces are Tychonoff spaces. They are compact in the cube which is Hausdorff, so their underlying set is a closed set.
The third observation is important in my question. It is based on the statement that a space is homeomorphic to an open subspace of a compact Hausdorff space if and only if $X$ is locally compact Hausdorff (Munkres Cor. 29.4).
First question (a check of someone else never harms):
Are these observations correct?
Second question (the main):
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
So asked is actually whether I can replace my third observation (intersection of open and closed set) with this (more comfortable) one.
If the answer is "no" then of course I would like to see a counterexample.
Thank you for reading this already.
general-topology separation-axioms product-space
2
Your observations are correct. For the last question: obviously "no" because evey compact space is locally compact. For a more sophisticated example: this will fail if you take a disjoint union of a locally compact space and a point.
– freakish
9 hours ago
@freakish If I understand well then your argument is that compact (hence also locally compact) sets exist then do not have a clopen homeomorphic image in a cube. Do I understand you correctly?
– drhab
9 hours ago
Yes, a simpliest example is a point.
– freakish
8 hours ago
2
Thank you. Concise and convincing counterexample. If you make this an answer then I will accept it.
– drhab
8 hours ago
add a comment |
In this question cubes are topological spaces of the form $[0,1]^J$ with product topology and $[0,1]$ with usual topology. Further a space is a Tychonoff space if and only if it is a completely regular space. Also note that cubes are compact Hausdorff spaces.
In the wide look that two spaces that are homeomorphic are actually the same I was eager to classify certain spaces as subspaces of a cube, and made the following observations:
Tychonoff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes.
Compact Hausdorff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes that have a closed subset of the cube as underlying set.
Locally compact Hausdorff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes that have the intersection of a closed and an open subset of the cube as underlying set.
The first observation is a corollary of the Imbedding theorem for Tychonoff spaces (Munkres Th. 34.2).
The second observation follows from the fact that compact Hausdorff spaces are Tychonoff spaces. They are compact in the cube which is Hausdorff, so their underlying set is a closed set.
The third observation is important in my question. It is based on the statement that a space is homeomorphic to an open subspace of a compact Hausdorff space if and only if $X$ is locally compact Hausdorff (Munkres Cor. 29.4).
First question (a check of someone else never harms):
Are these observations correct?
Second question (the main):
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
So asked is actually whether I can replace my third observation (intersection of open and closed set) with this (more comfortable) one.
If the answer is "no" then of course I would like to see a counterexample.
Thank you for reading this already.
general-topology separation-axioms product-space
In this question cubes are topological spaces of the form $[0,1]^J$ with product topology and $[0,1]$ with usual topology. Further a space is a Tychonoff space if and only if it is a completely regular space. Also note that cubes are compact Hausdorff spaces.
In the wide look that two spaces that are homeomorphic are actually the same I was eager to classify certain spaces as subspaces of a cube, and made the following observations:
Tychonoff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes.
Compact Hausdorff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes that have a closed subset of the cube as underlying set.
Locally compact Hausdorff spaces are exactly the subspaces of cubes that have the intersection of a closed and an open subset of the cube as underlying set.
The first observation is a corollary of the Imbedding theorem for Tychonoff spaces (Munkres Th. 34.2).
The second observation follows from the fact that compact Hausdorff spaces are Tychonoff spaces. They are compact in the cube which is Hausdorff, so their underlying set is a closed set.
The third observation is important in my question. It is based on the statement that a space is homeomorphic to an open subspace of a compact Hausdorff space if and only if $X$ is locally compact Hausdorff (Munkres Cor. 29.4).
First question (a check of someone else never harms):
Are these observations correct?
Second question (the main):
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
So asked is actually whether I can replace my third observation (intersection of open and closed set) with this (more comfortable) one.
If the answer is "no" then of course I would like to see a counterexample.
Thank you for reading this already.
general-topology separation-axioms product-space
general-topology separation-axioms product-space
edited 7 hours ago
asked 9 hours ago
drhab
97.4k544128
97.4k544128
2
Your observations are correct. For the last question: obviously "no" because evey compact space is locally compact. For a more sophisticated example: this will fail if you take a disjoint union of a locally compact space and a point.
– freakish
9 hours ago
@freakish If I understand well then your argument is that compact (hence also locally compact) sets exist then do not have a clopen homeomorphic image in a cube. Do I understand you correctly?
– drhab
9 hours ago
Yes, a simpliest example is a point.
– freakish
8 hours ago
2
Thank you. Concise and convincing counterexample. If you make this an answer then I will accept it.
– drhab
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Your observations are correct. For the last question: obviously "no" because evey compact space is locally compact. For a more sophisticated example: this will fail if you take a disjoint union of a locally compact space and a point.
– freakish
9 hours ago
@freakish If I understand well then your argument is that compact (hence also locally compact) sets exist then do not have a clopen homeomorphic image in a cube. Do I understand you correctly?
– drhab
9 hours ago
Yes, a simpliest example is a point.
– freakish
8 hours ago
2
Thank you. Concise and convincing counterexample. If you make this an answer then I will accept it.
– drhab
8 hours ago
2
2
Your observations are correct. For the last question: obviously "no" because evey compact space is locally compact. For a more sophisticated example: this will fail if you take a disjoint union of a locally compact space and a point.
– freakish
9 hours ago
Your observations are correct. For the last question: obviously "no" because evey compact space is locally compact. For a more sophisticated example: this will fail if you take a disjoint union of a locally compact space and a point.
– freakish
9 hours ago
@freakish If I understand well then your argument is that compact (hence also locally compact) sets exist then do not have a clopen homeomorphic image in a cube. Do I understand you correctly?
– drhab
9 hours ago
@freakish If I understand well then your argument is that compact (hence also locally compact) sets exist then do not have a clopen homeomorphic image in a cube. Do I understand you correctly?
– drhab
9 hours ago
Yes, a simpliest example is a point.
– freakish
8 hours ago
Yes, a simpliest example is a point.
– freakish
8 hours ago
2
2
Thank you. Concise and convincing counterexample. If you make this an answer then I will accept it.
– drhab
8 hours ago
Thank you. Concise and convincing counterexample. If you make this an answer then I will accept it.
– drhab
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Are these observations correct?
Yes.
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
No. Compact spaces are locally compact. And so the simpliest counterexample is a singleton ${*}$. Also if you take any locally compact space $X$ and the disjoint union $Z:=Xsqcup Y$ with a compact space $Y$ then $Z$ cannot be an open subset of a cube even though it is locally compact.
add a comment |
Your observations are correct because of the following theorem: if $X$ is compact Hausdorff and $Y subseteq X$ is locally compact then $Y = C cap O$ where $Csubseteq Y$ is closed and $O subseteq Y$ is open. Applied to $X = [0,1]^J$, and $Y$ any Tychonoff space (seen as a subspace of $X$).
Of course compact Hausdorff spaces cannot be seen as open subsets of Tychonoff cubes (they would be clopen, contradicting the connectedness of those cubes). Moreover open subsets of e.g. $[0,1]^mathbb{N}$ are infinite dimensional and not all locally compact sets are. You cannot do better in general then "open subset of a closed subset of a Tychonoff cube".
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052835%2fcan-every-locally-compact-hausdorff-space-be-recognized-as-a-subspace-of-a-cube%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Are these observations correct?
Yes.
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
No. Compact spaces are locally compact. And so the simpliest counterexample is a singleton ${*}$. Also if you take any locally compact space $X$ and the disjoint union $Z:=Xsqcup Y$ with a compact space $Y$ then $Z$ cannot be an open subset of a cube even though it is locally compact.
add a comment |
Are these observations correct?
Yes.
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
No. Compact spaces are locally compact. And so the simpliest counterexample is a singleton ${*}$. Also if you take any locally compact space $X$ and the disjoint union $Z:=Xsqcup Y$ with a compact space $Y$ then $Z$ cannot be an open subset of a cube even though it is locally compact.
add a comment |
Are these observations correct?
Yes.
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
No. Compact spaces are locally compact. And so the simpliest counterexample is a singleton ${*}$. Also if you take any locally compact space $X$ and the disjoint union $Z:=Xsqcup Y$ with a compact space $Y$ then $Z$ cannot be an open subset of a cube even though it is locally compact.
Are these observations correct?
Yes.
Can locally compact Hausdorff spaces also be classified (up to homeomorphisms) as exactly the subspaces of cubes that have an open subset of the cube as underlying set?
No. Compact spaces are locally compact. And so the simpliest counterexample is a singleton ${*}$. Also if you take any locally compact space $X$ and the disjoint union $Z:=Xsqcup Y$ with a compact space $Y$ then $Z$ cannot be an open subset of a cube even though it is locally compact.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
freakish
11.2k1629
11.2k1629
add a comment |
add a comment |
Your observations are correct because of the following theorem: if $X$ is compact Hausdorff and $Y subseteq X$ is locally compact then $Y = C cap O$ where $Csubseteq Y$ is closed and $O subseteq Y$ is open. Applied to $X = [0,1]^J$, and $Y$ any Tychonoff space (seen as a subspace of $X$).
Of course compact Hausdorff spaces cannot be seen as open subsets of Tychonoff cubes (they would be clopen, contradicting the connectedness of those cubes). Moreover open subsets of e.g. $[0,1]^mathbb{N}$ are infinite dimensional and not all locally compact sets are. You cannot do better in general then "open subset of a closed subset of a Tychonoff cube".
add a comment |
Your observations are correct because of the following theorem: if $X$ is compact Hausdorff and $Y subseteq X$ is locally compact then $Y = C cap O$ where $Csubseteq Y$ is closed and $O subseteq Y$ is open. Applied to $X = [0,1]^J$, and $Y$ any Tychonoff space (seen as a subspace of $X$).
Of course compact Hausdorff spaces cannot be seen as open subsets of Tychonoff cubes (they would be clopen, contradicting the connectedness of those cubes). Moreover open subsets of e.g. $[0,1]^mathbb{N}$ are infinite dimensional and not all locally compact sets are. You cannot do better in general then "open subset of a closed subset of a Tychonoff cube".
add a comment |
Your observations are correct because of the following theorem: if $X$ is compact Hausdorff and $Y subseteq X$ is locally compact then $Y = C cap O$ where $Csubseteq Y$ is closed and $O subseteq Y$ is open. Applied to $X = [0,1]^J$, and $Y$ any Tychonoff space (seen as a subspace of $X$).
Of course compact Hausdorff spaces cannot be seen as open subsets of Tychonoff cubes (they would be clopen, contradicting the connectedness of those cubes). Moreover open subsets of e.g. $[0,1]^mathbb{N}$ are infinite dimensional and not all locally compact sets are. You cannot do better in general then "open subset of a closed subset of a Tychonoff cube".
Your observations are correct because of the following theorem: if $X$ is compact Hausdorff and $Y subseteq X$ is locally compact then $Y = C cap O$ where $Csubseteq Y$ is closed and $O subseteq Y$ is open. Applied to $X = [0,1]^J$, and $Y$ any Tychonoff space (seen as a subspace of $X$).
Of course compact Hausdorff spaces cannot be seen as open subsets of Tychonoff cubes (they would be clopen, contradicting the connectedness of those cubes). Moreover open subsets of e.g. $[0,1]^mathbb{N}$ are infinite dimensional and not all locally compact sets are. You cannot do better in general then "open subset of a closed subset of a Tychonoff cube".
answered 7 hours ago
Henno Brandsma
104k346113
104k346113
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052835%2fcan-every-locally-compact-hausdorff-space-be-recognized-as-a-subspace-of-a-cube%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
Your observations are correct. For the last question: obviously "no" because evey compact space is locally compact. For a more sophisticated example: this will fail if you take a disjoint union of a locally compact space and a point.
– freakish
9 hours ago
@freakish If I understand well then your argument is that compact (hence also locally compact) sets exist then do not have a clopen homeomorphic image in a cube. Do I understand you correctly?
– drhab
9 hours ago
Yes, a simpliest example is a point.
– freakish
8 hours ago
2
Thank you. Concise and convincing counterexample. If you make this an answer then I will accept it.
– drhab
8 hours ago