We know that there is a criteria for a space being connected using continuous functions, namely,

A topological space $(X,\tau)$ is said to be connected if for any continuous function $f:X\to\{\pm 1\}$ (where the topology on $\{\pm 1\}$ is the subspace topology that it inherits as a subspace of the topological space $\mathbb{R}$ with usual topology) is constant.

I was wondering if there is any necessary and sufficient criterion for a topological space to be compact using continuous functions. More specifically, what I want is a definition of the form,

A topological space $(X,\tau)$ is said to be compact if for any continuous function $f:X\to Y$ (where $Y$ is the topological space with property $P$) satisfies property $Q$.

Is there any such criteria?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In metric space $X$, there is a classification of compactness by $C(X)$ the space of continuous function on $X$. It goes like this: Let $X$ be a metric space. Then $X$ is compact if and only if every continuous real-valued function on $X$ takes a maximum and a minimum value. $\endgroup$ – Jacky Chong Oct 2 '16 at 4:29
  • $\begingroup$ Do you want the criterion to involve a single fixed space $Y$, or are you happy allowing a general class of spaces $Y$? $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Oct 2 '16 at 4:38
  • $\begingroup$ Related: math.stackexchange.com/q/1776826/9440 $\endgroup$ – Miha Habič Oct 2 '16 at 5:20
  • $\begingroup$ I've edited "compact" to "connected" in the first sentence, since that seemed to be obviously meant. I was also tempted to edit the "criteria" as singular to "criterion", but didn't, as maybe that would be considered pedantic. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Oct 2 '16 at 7:26
  • $\begingroup$ @JackyChong. (nit-picking on my part) ... "...or $X$ is empty." $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Oct 3 '16 at 4:18

Here is a negative answer if you impose certain restrictions. Let us suppose we only care about Hausdorff spaces, so we require that the space $Y$ is Hausdorff but only require that the criterion work if $X$ is Hausdorff. Then if you require the criterion to involve just one space $Y$ and that property $Q$ cannot involve the topology on $X$ (i.e., it depends only on the underlying map of sets $X\to Y$), there is no such criterion.

To prove that no such criterion exists, I will prove the following statement. For any Hausdorff space $Y$, there exist two different Hausdorff spaces $X$, $X'$ on the same underlying set such that $X$ is compact and $X'$ is not, and a map $f:X\to Y$ is continuous iff it is continuous as a map $X'\to Y$.

(Actually, the argument will only require that limits of sequences in $Y$ are unique, which is weaker than $Y$ being Hausdorff.)

To prove this, let $\kappa$ be a regular uncountable cardinal such that $\kappa>|Y|$. Let $X=(\kappa+1)\times(\omega+1)$ with the product topology, and let $X'$ be the same set with the topology generated by the product topology together with the set $\{(\kappa,\omega)\}\cup(\kappa+1)\times\omega$. Then $X$ is compact Hausdorff, and $X'$ is not compact since it has a strictly finer topology than a compact Hausdorff topology. Since the topology in $X'$ is finer than the topology on $X$, clearly a continuous map $X\to Y$ is also continuous as a map $X'\to Y$.

Conversely, suppose $f:X'\to Y$ is continuous. Since the topologies of $X$ and $X'$ agree on the complement of the point $(\kappa,\omega)$, it suffices to show $f$ is continuous at $(\kappa,\omega)$ in the topology of $X$.

Suppose $n<\omega$. Since $f$ is continuous at the point $(\kappa,n)$ and $Y$ is $T_1$, for each $y\in Y$ such that $y\neq f(\kappa,n)$, there exists $\beta_{n,y}<\kappa$ such that $f(\alpha,n)\neq y$ for all $\alpha>\beta_{n,y}$. Now define $$\beta=\sup\{\beta_{n,y}:n<\omega,y\neq f(\kappa,n)\}.$$ Since $\kappa$ has cofinality greater than $|\omega\times Y|$, $\beta<\kappa$. Thus we have found a single $\beta<\kappa$ such that for all $n<\omega$ and all $\alpha>\beta$, $f(\alpha,n)=f(\kappa,n).$ Write $g(n)=f(\kappa,n)$.

Now for any $\alpha\in\kappa+1$ (including $\alpha=\kappa$), $(\alpha,n)$ converges to $(\alpha,\omega)$ in $X'$ as $n\to\infty$. Continuity of $f$ now implies that for any $\alpha>\beta$ (including $\alpha=\kappa$), $f(\alpha,\omega)$ is a limit of the sequence $g(n)$. Since $Y$ is Hausdorff, this limit is unique, and so actually $f(\alpha,\omega)$ takes the same value for all $\alpha>\beta$, which we will call $g(\omega)$.

We have thus seen that the restriction of $f$ to the set $U=\{\alpha:\alpha>\beta\}\times(\omega+1)$ is just the composition of the projection onto $\omega+1$ with a certain map $g:\omega+1\to Y$. Morever, $g$ is continuous, since $g(n)$ converges to $g(\omega)$. It follows that $f$ is continuous with respect to the product topology on $U$. Since $U$ is a neighborhood of $(\kappa,\omega)$ in $X$, it follows that $f$ is continous at $(\kappa,\omega)$ in the topology of $X$. Thus $f$ is continuous as a map $X\to Y$.

(The spaces used in this proof are variants of the Tychonoff plank, which is a famous source of counterexamples in general topology.)

On the other hand, here is a positive answer if you allow a family of different spaces $Y$ (but a reasonably simple such family). Let $S=\{0,1\}$, topologized such that $\{1\}$ is open but $\{0\}$ is not. We write $\mathbf{0}\in S^I$ for the constant function $I\to S$ taking value $0$, for any set $I$. Let the patch topology on $S^I$ be the product topology with respect to the discrete topology on $\{0,1\}$. Then:

A space $X$ is compact iff whenever $I$ is any set and $f:X\to S^I$ is a continuous map such that the point $\mathbf{0}$ is in the closure of the image of $f$ with respect to the patch topology, $\mathbf{0}$ is in the image of $f$.

(So the spaces $Y$ are $S^I$ for any set $I$, and condition $Q$ is that the image of $f$ is "closed at $\mathbf{0}$ with respect to patch topology".)

The proof is just a matter of unravelling definitions. A continuous map $f:X\to S$ is just the characteristic function of an open set, so a continuous map $f:X\to S^I$ is a collection of open subsets $U_i$ of $X$ indexed by $I$. To say that $\mathbf{0}$ is in the closure of the image of $f$ with respect to the patch topology is to say that no finite subcollection of the $U_i$ covers $X$ (since a patch neighborhood of $\mathbf{0}$ just consists of requiring that some finite collection of the indices are $0$). To say that $\mathbf{0}$ is in the image of $f$ is to say that the $U_i$ do not cover $X$. So the criterion says exactly that any open cover has a finite subcover.

  • $\begingroup$ Actually sometime before (approximately $18$ minutes earlier) I left a comment saying something like, "I will be more happy if the criterion involves a single fixed space $Y$." But due to some problem in the internet connection, I see that that comment hasn't been uploaded. Anyway, the answer has been an enlightening read. Thanks for that. $\endgroup$ – user 170039 Oct 2 '16 at 5:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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