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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose that $X$ is a compact Hausdorff space and that $q : X \to Y$ is a quotient map. Is it true that the product map $q \times q : X \times X \to Y \times Y$ is also a quotient map? Note I did not assume that the quotient space $Y$ was Hausdorff (which I know to be equivalent to closedness of the quotient map $q$ in this situation). Thanks!

Added: I ask for the following reason. Wikipedia claims that, for a compact Hausdorff space $X$ and a quotient map $q : X \to Y$, the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. $Y$ is Hausdorff.
  2. $q$ is a closed map.
  3. The equivalence relation $R = \{ (x,x') : q(x) = q(x') \}$ is closed in $X \times X$.

I was able to prove that (1) and (2) are equivalent and also that (1) implies (3). However, I do not see how to deduce (1) or (2) from (3). Some googling yields the following ?proof? (the relevant paragraph being the last one) which relies on the claim that $q \times q$ is a quotient map. Thus the question.

share|cite|improve this question
See this related question and this one. – Zhen Lin Aug 3 '12 at 4:56
@HennoBrandsma: Since you are the author of the original remark, perhaps you can answer the question? – tomasz Dec 26 '15 at 23:39
It suffices to show $f\times \text{id}_Y:X\times Y \to Y\times Y$ is a quotient map, because we know $\text{id} _X\times f$ is a quotient map by Whitehead's Lemma. We know $X$ and $Y$ are compact, and the Tube Lemma applies to all compact spaces (not necessarily Hausdorff), so I think there is a good chance for this... – Forever Mozart Dec 30 '15 at 0:03
@ForeverMozart: Could you please let me know what is "Whitehead's Lemma", as you intend it? I suppose the "Tube Lemma" is what I find on wikipedia here... – Mike F Jan 4 at 5:54

It is possible to deduce ($2$) from ($3$) without $q\times q$ being a quotient map.

Let $A\subset X$ be closed. Assume $R=\{(x,x')\in X\times X\mid q(x)=q(x')\}$ is closed, thus compact. Then $A\times X\cap R$ is compact, and so is also its image under the projection $p_2$ onto the second factor. But $p_2(A\times X\cap R)=\{x\in X\mid\exists a\in A:q(a)\sim q(x)\}=q^{-1}(q(A))$. So the saturation of a closed set is compact, and hence closed, which means that $q$ is a closed map.

One could also omit the compactness of $X$ if one assumes directly that $R$ is compact, because the last step only uses the Hausdorff'ness to deduce that a compact set is closed. Note that compactness of $R$ also makes $\{x\}\times X\cap R$ a compact set, so fibers are compact and this makes $q$ a so-called perfect map. These maps preserve many properties of the domain, for example all the separation axioms (except $T_0$)

This doesn't answer the question in the title, which I would really like to know myself. I only know about the product of a quotient map with the Identity $q\times Id:X\times Z\to Y\times Z$, which is a quotient map if $Z$ is locally compact.

Edit: Actually, showing that $q$ is closed requires only the compactness of $X$. Indeed, if $X$ is compact, then the projection $p_2$ is a closed map, so if $R$ is closed, then for every closed $A\subseteq X$, the set $p_2(A\times X\cap R)$ is closed.

share|cite|improve this answer
Neat, thanks. I think in the end I proved (3) implies (2) using nets. Let me see if I recall the argument. Suppose (3) holds. We want to show $q$ is closed, so suppose $A \subset X$ is closed. We need to show $q(A)$ is closed in $Y$ i.e. that $B := q^{-1}(q(A))$ is closed in $X$. Let $x \in \overline B$. Then, there is a net $b_i$ in $B$ converging to $x$. Let $a_i \in A$ be chosen arbitrarily subject to $q(a_i) = q(b_i)$ (possible by definition of $B$). – Mike F Mar 30 '13 at 4:26
But now, $(a_i,b_i)$ is a net in the compact Hausdorff space $R \subset X \times X$, whence has a subnet $(\alpha_j,\beta_j)$ converging to a point in $R$. Now, $\beta_j \to x$ since $\beta_j$ is a subnet of $b_i$ which goes to $x$. Let us say $\alpha_j \to a \in A$ (recall $A$ is closed). Since $(a,x) \in R$, we have $q(a) = q(x)$ which shows $x \in B = q^{-1}(q(A))$. The proof is complete? – Mike F Mar 30 '13 at 4:37
Your proof looks fine, though it took me a while to see where the Hausdorff property is used. I think without Hausdorff $(\alpha_j,\beta_j)$ could converge to some $(a,y)\in R$ where $y\neq x$ and to $(a,x)\notin R$. There are situations where nets are very suitable, e.g. if a compact group operates on a Hausdorff space, one can show the closedness of $R$ using nets. In this situation I like the my proof better but your proof is correct, too. – Stefan Hamcke Mar 30 '13 at 14:03

Your Answer


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.