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

Do you know if there exists a classification of the compactifications of $\mathbb{R}$?

From here, we can deduce that there exist only two compactifications with finite remainder: $[0,1]$ and $\mathbb{S}^1$; and from here, you can show that there doesn't exist a compactication with a countable remainder (but an example is given for a compactification with a remainder of cardinality $\mathfrak{c}$). On the other hand, the biggest compactification of $\mathbb{R}$ is $\beta \mathbb{R}$ with a remainder of cardinality $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$.

Can we deduce a complete classification of the compactifications of $\mathbb{R}$?

share|cite|improve this question
Compact subsets of $\beta \mathbb{R}$ containing $\mathbb{R}$, almost by definition. Whether this counts as a classification, of course, depends on what you mean by "classification." – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 17 '12 at 9:15
A very nice answer would be a set of explicit topological spaces (as the examples given above), but it depends on how nice are the compactifications of $\mathbb{R}$. – Seirios Nov 17 '12 at 9:37
@Qiaochu: That’s some but not all: just as $\omega+1$ isn’t a subspace of $\beta\omega$, $S^1$ isn’t a subspace of $\beta\Bbb R$. What is true is that if $c\Bbb R$ is a compactification of $\Bbb R$, there is a continuous surjection $f:\beta\Bbb R\to c\Bbb R$ whose restriction to $\Bbb R$ is the identity. – Brian M. Scott Nov 17 '12 at 9:38
@Brian: my apologies, I got confused about the direction of the universal property. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 17 '12 at 9:41
@Qiaochu: No problem; life would be simpler in many ways if it did go the other way. (Though Anatole Beck would have denied this strenuously when I was in grad school, pointing out that mathematics would then be inconsistent!) – Brian M. Scott Nov 17 '12 at 9:44
up vote 1 down vote accepted

This isn’t an answer; it’s more an indication of why a nice answer isn’t likely to be forthcoming, at least in purely topological terms.

Since there’s a nice bijection between compactifications of $\Bbb R$ and algebras $\mathscr{A}\subseteq C^*(\Bbb R)$ that separate points and closed sets and are closed in the sup norm, you can turn the problem into one of classifying these algebras; more might be known from that point of view.

This paper mentions a classification of a large subset of the compactifications that is also algebraic in nature, but a bit easier to git a grip on: in Section 8.4 that the lattice of all topological group compactifications of $\Bbb R$ is isomorphic to the lattice of subgroups of $\Bbb R_d$, the discretization of $\Bbb R$, ordered by $\subseteq$. For something more topological, this paper isn’t an attempt at a large-scale classification, but it does construct a class of compactifications of $\Bbb R$ that includes some that (unlike $\beta\Bbb R$) can be visualized, if not quite so easily as the one- and two-point compactifications.

share|cite|improve this answer
In some sense, you answered my question; the compactifications of $\mathbb{R}$ are not as nice as I expected. – Seirios Nov 24 '12 at 11:07

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.