Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2015

    Added some material to end compactification (fixed minor errors, added an application). I had not been aware that the theory of ends was invented by Freudenthal in his dissertation.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2015

    Very nice, thanks! Does the “remarkable” fact in the hemicompact description essentially boil down to the fact that hemicompactness assumes a final subsequence of the directed poset of compact subspaces, so that limits over its opposite can equivalently be computed as sequential limits?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2015

    I didn’t write that part, but I think that’s exactly right.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTim Campion
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2019

    (Unfortunately, there seem to be two different discussion threads about this page; the older one is here. I wonder if it’s possible to merge them?)

    I’m confused by the “abstract” definition of the end compactification given. Let XX be a topological space, and let Comp(X)Comp(X) be the poset of compact subspaces of XX. The claim is that there is a functor Comp(X) opTopComp(X)^{op} \to Top given by KK⨿π 0(XK)K \mapsto K \amalg \pi_0(X - K).

    • First of all, what exactly does Comp(X)Comp(X) mean? Does it consist of subspaces of XX which, in the subspace topology, are compact Hausdorff, or just quasicompact? In the latter case, are they required to be closed in XX?

    • Secondly, how is this functor defined on objects, precisely? Does π 0(XK)\pi_0(X-K) mean connected components, or path components?

    • Thirdly, how is this functor defined on morphisms? For KKK \subseteq K', the claim is that there is a map K⨿π 0(XK)K⨿π 0(XK)K' \amalg \pi_0(X - K') \to K \amalg \pi_0(X-K). The restriction of this map to KK' is supposed to be the inclusion into KK for points that happen to lie in KK, and map to the appropriate element of π 0(XK)\pi_0(X-K) otherwise. But this is not continuous!

    Moreover, if π 0\pi_0 means “connected components”, then we have to contend with the fact that π 0\pi_0 is not a functor in general. I think this is okay, though, because we only need it to be functorial with respect to open embeddings, which I think it is.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2019

    Thanks for vetting this. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were some soft spots which could be fixed by adding “niceness hypotheses”. To answer one question: π 0\pi_0 is supposed to be “connected components”. I think some authors might deal with locally connectedness (plus other hypotheses, perhaps), which I think would take care of functoriality.

    I think some authors assume some separation condition like T 2T_2 or T 3T_3.

    Of course this is all classical stuff in some sense, so everything can be repaired; the interesting question for me would be “in what generality can this be made to work?”.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2019

    The edit history says that I wrote most of this (about 6 years ago), but I don't remember doing so. (In fact, I looked stuff up on this page for a comment on Math Overflow without thinking that it was familiar.) But judging from the reference that I cited and my comments on the other thread, I got it from Wikipedia and never finished checking for myself that it was all correct. Now, Wikipedia has had that material for about 10 years now, which is a good sign, so I would assume Wikipedia definitions of compact (= quasicompact) and connected (not path-connected). But it's hard to be sure. The definition on Wikipedia was added by Jim Belk in this edit, so maybe we should ask Jim.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim Campion
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2019

    Thanks for the clarification!

    Notice that the description by Jim Belk doesn’t actually describe the whole space – just the space of ends themselves. So the nlab article is the only place I’ve seen an attempt at defining the whole space, and this is where the most serious issue is, I think – for KKK \subseteq K', the map K⨿π 0(XK)K⨿π 0(XK)K' \amalg \pi_0(X-K') \to K \amalg \pi_0(X-K) simply isn’t continuous, unless KK is a union of connected components of KK'.

    It’s a very strange state of affairs – a priori, I would tend to assume it should be most natural to define the whole compactification in one go, and then simply take the space of ends to be the subspace of new points. But it seems that’s not the case!

    I wonder if it could be modified with some trickery – like rather than taking the coproduct topology on K⨿π 0(XK)K \amalg \pi_0(X-K), take instead some coarser, possibly non-Hausdorff topology. Perhaps the quotient topology coming from the map XK⨿π 0(XK)X \to K \amalg \pi_0(X-K)?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 15th 2019

    If the end-compactification is compact Hausdorff and XX embeds in it, then XX is a Tychonoff space and admits a unique compatible totally-bounded uniformity whose completion is the end-compactification. So it seems to me that a natural way to define the end-compactification directly, without first defining the space of ends, would be to give a direct definition of that uniformity. In section 14 of The Shape of Infinity I described a gauge uniformity whose completion is the one-point compactification. I always assumed that there was a similar description of the end-compactification uniformity, using connected components of the complements of compact subspaces rather than their full complements, but I don’t think I ever checked it. And of course the definition could be reformulated using entourage or cover uniformities instead.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2023

    I have touched the referencing

    diff, v6, current