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.

For every set $X$ and every topology $\tau$ over $X$ we have that $\tau$ contains the trivial topology $\{ X, \emptyset\}$, which is compact, and is contained in the discrete topology $\{ S: S \subseteq X\}$, which is Hausdorff. I was wondering if there is any topology on X "between" the trivial and the discrete such that it has both properties.

It seems that there is such a topology for specific sets, such as the natural numbers, but I haven't found any result for arbitrary $X$. I don't know if any additional condition must be established on $X$ for the result to hold, or if it isn't possible in general.

I would deeply appreciate some help on this.

share|improve this question
1  
Just a little thought: do you know that if $X$ has topology $\tau$ making $X$ compact and Hausdorff, then there is not finer topology than $\tau$ making $X$ compact? –  user39280 Apr 11 '13 at 18:05
1  
... and no coarser topology making it Hausdorff :-) –  Stefan Hamcke Apr 11 '13 at 18:11
2  
By the way, if there is a such topology for a set $X$, then there is a topology for any set which is bijective to $X$, since we can just "carry over" the topology from one set to the other. For example, a topology on $\mathbb R$ making it compact and Hausdorff is difficult to imagine, but if we add a point $\infty$, then it suddenly becomes very easy. But since there is a bijection between $\mathbb R$ and $\mathbb R\cup\{\infty\}$ we could also define this topology on $\mathbb R$ directly. It would look a bit ugly, however. –  Stefan Hamcke Apr 11 '13 at 18:19
1  
Crossposted at MO. –  Zhen Lin Apr 11 '13 at 18:28

1 Answer 1

If $X$ is finite, then the discrete topology is Hausdorff compact and we're done.

If $X$ is infinite, fix some $x\in X$, and let $X'=X\setminus\{x\}$ have the discrete topology which is a locally compact topology, and take $X$ to be the one-point compactification of $X'$. That is $x$ is "the point in $\infty$".

Then clearly $X$ is compact, and to see it is Hausdorff, take $u,v\in X$ to be distinct. At most one of them is $x$ itself, if it is the case assume $v=x$. Taking $\{u\}$ and $X\setminus\{u\}$ we have two disjoint open sets and we are done.


Another, in fact much simpler (but using the axiom of choice, whereas the previous one doesn't) example would be the following:

Let $\alpha$ be an ordinal such that $|X|=|\alpha|$, then $\alpha+1$ as an ordinal space is both Hausdorff and compact. To see that it is Hausdorff take $x<y\in\alpha+1$ then $(0,x+1),(x,\alpha)$ as two open intervals witnessing that.

The compactness of successor ordinals follows from the fact that given a cover by open intervals we can index the endpoints of these intervals, and form a decreasing sequence of ordinals. Since every decreasing sequence of ordinals is finite we can find a finite subcover.

From there to the general case of open sets the switch is simple, replace each open set by all the intervals it contains; find a finite subcover; replace each interval in the finite subcover by a particular open set which contains it.

share|improve this answer
1  
My first thought upon reading the question was that it might have been dependent on AC. Then I saw that you answered and that got my hopes way up. Then I read your answer and was a bit disappointed ;-). Nice answer, +1 from me! –  Jason DeVito Apr 11 '13 at 18:25
    
@Jason: Some time ago when I was working on an answer to some question here about compact spaces and the axiom of choice I was exploring all sort of compact constructions in choiceless contexts. One-points never failed to disappoint me (although they were useless in that context anyhow). –  Asaf Karagila Apr 11 '13 at 18:32
2  
In what sense is the order topology "in fact much simpler" than the one-point compactification? –  Martin Apr 11 '13 at 18:51
    
@Martin: I don't know really. At the time it seemed like a much simpler solution. –  Asaf Karagila Apr 11 '13 at 18:53
    
Ah, set-theorists (to be) :-) +1 have your nice answer –  Martin Apr 11 '13 at 18:54

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.