Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Stone Cech
Replies: 49   Last Post: Mar 28, 2013 12:15 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
fom

Posts: 1,969
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Stone Cech
Posted: Mar 15, 2013 12:15 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 3/14/2013 10:53 PM, fom wrote:
> On 3/14/2013 9:49 PM, William Elliot wrote:
>> Let (g,Y) be a Cech Stone compactification of S.
>> If (f,X) is a compactification of S, does X embed in Y?
>>
>> If (g,Y) is a compactification of S and
>> for all compactifications (f,X), X embeds in Y
>> is (g,Y) a Stone Cech compactification of S?
>>
>> Why in the heck is a compactification an embedding
>> function and a compact space? Wouldn't be simpler
>> to define a compactification of a space S, as a
>> compact space into which S densely embeds?
>>

>
> Munkres characterizes Stone-Cech in relation to
> one point compactification.
>
> He says the latter is the "minimal" compactification
> of a space whereas the Stone-Cech compactification
> is maximal in a sense described by Exercise 4 in
> section 5-3
>
> "Let Y be an arbitrary comactification of X; let B(X)
> be the Stone-Cech compactification. Show there is a
> continuous surjective closed map g:B(X) -> Y that
> equals the identity on X
>
> [This exercise makes precise what we mean by saying
> B(X) is the 'maximal' compactification of X. If you
> are familiar with quotient spaces, you will recognize
> that g is a quotient map. Thus every compactification
> of X is equivalent to a quotient space of B(X).]"
>
> The question you ask is precisely Munkres definition:
>
> "A compactification of a space X is a compact Hausdorff
> space Y containing X such that X is dense in Y."
>
> "In order to have a compactification, X must be
> a completely regular space"
>
> The Stone-Cech compactification is based on a cube
> such that each component of the cube is an interval
>
> I_a = [glb(f_a(X)),lub(f_a(X))]
>
> formed from a bounded continuous real valued function
> on a completely regular space.
>
> The cube is the product of all such intervals (all
> such functions on the space).
>
> Define h: X -> Pi_a I_a
>
> where h(x)=(f_a(x))
>
> By Tychonoff's theorem, the cube is compact.
> Because X is completely regular, the collection of
> functions separates points on X. This, makes h an
> imbedding.
>
> Munkres goes on to prove a few uniqueness conditions
> that are true for the compactification derived from
> this imbedding involving extensions of the original
> bounded continuous functions on X to continuous
> functions on B(X). Any two compactifications satisfying
> these extension properties are equivalent up to
> homeomorphim.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>
>


That extension property is such that the two
compactifications map such that F(x)=x for
each x in X.

That will probably make it easier to see the
relationship to the surjection in the exercise.

The important details, of course, are in the
proofs. I would have to review them to
say much more.





Date Subject Author
3/14/13
Read Stone Cech
William Elliot
3/14/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
fom
3/15/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
fom
3/16/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
William Elliot
3/15/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/17/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
William Elliot
3/17/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/17/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
fom
3/18/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/18/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
fom
3/18/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David Hartley
3/19/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
William Elliot
3/19/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David Hartley
3/19/13
Read Stone Cech
William Elliot
3/20/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/20/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/20/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/20/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/21/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/21/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/21/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/21/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/21/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/21/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Frederick Williams
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Frederick Williams
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich
3/22/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/23/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Butch Malahide
3/24/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/24/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Frederick Williams
3/24/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/25/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Frederick Williams
3/28/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
Frederick Williams
3/25/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
quasi
3/19/13
Read Re: Stone Cech
David C. Ullrich

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.