The Math Forum

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

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Compactification
Posted: Mar 17, 2013 6:08 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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 one-point 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 well-defined.

I am sure others will give you more useful opinions.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.