Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

It is known that for any locally compact Hausdorff space X, we can define a Hausdorff one-point compactification containing X. In the case of the (differentiable) manifold $\mathbb R^n$ this one-point compactification turns out to be (homeomorphic to) $\mathbb S^n$, which is again a (differentiable) manifold.

This leads to the following question:

What does the picture look like in the general case for compactifications of an arbitrary manifold $M$?

Although the one-point compactification of $M$ is not a manifold in general (e.g. $\mathbb R^n - 0$); is it possible to view every manifold as an open (dense?) subset of a compact manifold by taking some other kind of compactification? In the differentiable case? In the $C^0$-case?


I had thought along the following lines at first: By the Whitney embedding theorem, every manifold $M$ can be thought of as a closed submanifold of $\mathbb R^n$ for some $n$. And by embedding $\mathbb R^n$ into $\mathbb S^n$, we can think of $M$ as an embedded submanifold of a compact manifold. But I guess taking the closure of $M$ in $\mathbb S^n$ will not in general leave us with a manifold anymore (?), so this does not answer my question...


Has this been looked into?

Thanks for any thoughts.

S.L.

share|improve this question
3  
    
Thanks for these two links. Although the answers are definitely over my head, this should settle my question (for now). –  Sam Nov 22 '10 at 19:46
    
How about the density curve on the torus?The dimension will change,is it compactification? –  Strongart Apr 26 '11 at 10:55

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

Just to take this question from the "unanswered" list. (It was actually answered in comments.)

(1). The simplest example of a manifold which is not homeomorphic to an open subset of a compact manifold is an infinite disjoint union of circles.

(2). If you want a connected example, then it first appears in dimension 2: If a connected surface $S$ has infinite genus then it is not homeomorphic to an open subset of a compact surface. This is intuitively clear, but I will nevertheless give a proof which works in all dimensions.

Since $S$ has infinite genus, the image of the natural map $$ \phi: H^1_c(S; {\mathbb R})\to H^1(S; {\mathbb R}) $$ has infinite rank (each "handle" in $S$ contributes a 2-dimensional subspace). Suppose that $S\to T$ is an open embedding of $S$ to a compact surface $T$. Then we have the commutative diagram $$ \begin{array}{ccc} H^1_c(S; {\mathbb R}) & \stackrel{\phi}{\to} & H^1(S; {\mathbb R})\\ \psi\downarrow & ~ & \eta\uparrow \\ H^1_c(T; {\mathbb R}) & \stackrel{\cong}{\to} & H^1(T; {\mathbb R}) \end{array} $$
(Note that the induced maps of ordinary and of compactly supported cohomology groups go in opposite directions, this is what used in the proof.) Since $H^1(T, {\mathbb R})$ is finite-dimensional, the image of $\eta\circ \psi$ is also finite-dimensional, which is a contradiction.

What I do not know, however, is if every noncompact contractible manifold admits an open embedding in some compact manifold.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.