Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


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



fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: Compactification
Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 6:08 AM


On 12/11/2012 10:13 PM, 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? > > 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? >
What if one can describe another mapping g:X>Y for which the image g(X) is not dense in Y?
Perhaps the language for onepoint compactification reflects the fact that the topology of the resulting compact space arises from the existing open and compact sets from the given locally compact Hausdorff space.
It is intrinsically welldefined.
I am sure others will give you more useful opinions.



