Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Compactification
Replies: 15   Last Post: Mar 17, 2013 6:11 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 magidin@math.berkeley.edu Posts: 11,749 Registered: 12/4/04
Re: Compactification
Posted: Dec 11, 2012 11:33 PM

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:13:06 PM UTC-6, William Elliot wrote:
> (h,Y is a (Hausdorff) compactification of X when h:X -> Y is an embedding,
>
> Y is a compact (Hausdorff) space and h(X) is a dense subset of Y.
>
>
>
> Why the extra luggage of the embedding for the definition of
>
> compactification? Why isn't the definition simply
>
> Y is a compactification of X when there's some
>
> embedding h:X -> Y for which h(X) is a dense subset of Y?

Compactifications usually carry an (implicit) universal property: given any compact space Z and continuous function g:X-->Z, there exists a unique continuous G:Y-->Z such that g = Gh.

E.g. the Stone-Czech compactification is of this kind.

This also provides universality and uniqueness, which makes it more useful in many circumstances.

> I see no advantage to the first definition. The second definition
> has the advantage of being simpler and more intuitive. So why is
> it that the first is used in preference to the second which I've
> seen used only in regards to one point compactifications?

Why this is the only one you've seen is probably an artifact of where you've looked. I've seen both definitions.

--
Arturo Magidin

Date Subject Author
12/11/12 William Elliot
12/11/12 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
12/13/12 William Elliot
12/13/12 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
12/14/12 William Elliot
12/14/12 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
12/14/12 David Hartley
12/14/12 Butch Malahide
12/15/12 David Hartley
12/12/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
12/13/12 William Elliot
12/13/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
12/12/12 David C. Ullrich
12/13/12 William Elliot
3/17/13 fom
3/17/13 fom